Grains project
On Dec. 26, 2004, a tsunami hit many countries in South Asia causing more than 200,000 deaths and left five million people in need of basic services. This created an outpouring of support worldwide of more than $4 billion. I am not trying to diminish the size of this disaster but to draw your attention to others in need.
Each month in Africa there are 200,000 people who die from starvation and worldwide more than 400,000 die each month due to the effect of hunger and malnutrition, most of them children.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
What can we as individuals do to provide humanitarian aid to this vast number of people? … Each and every one of us can help one of these people stay alive….
The Canadian Foodgrains Bank is one agency trying to make a difference. (It is) made up of 13 different church agencies that individually manage food aid project throughout the world. Because they have personnel at each project, they are able to deliver 95 percent of the intended aid to the people for whom it is intended. The government of Canada through (the Canadian International Development Agency) provides matching funds on a four to one basis for the first $4 million of contributions.
In Birch Hills, Sask., we have a grow project where the production from 300 acres is given to the Canadian Foodgrains Bank less our operating expenses. A group of farmers donate their time and equipment to farm this land. Agribusiness contributes seed, chemicals and some equipment. We still have a cost of approximately $70 per acre for fertilizer and rent. This results in a contribution of food aid that will sustain 5,000 people for six months.
If you would like to make a contribution to either this grow project or directly to the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, this will be gratefully accepted. A cash contribution of $50 will sustain one person for an entire year. If you would like to contribute to the grow project, $70 will cover the input cost for one acre….
Ñ Grant Getz,
Birch Hills, Sask.
Unwise project
I congratulate the Western Producer for publishing the excellent letter by Elaine Hughes titled “Less irrigation” (Open Forum, March 31.)
Ms. Hughes is right: Saskatchewan should not squander more money on attempts to expand irrigation projects. The reason is simple: Saskatchewan does not have income to squander money to establish and operate irrigation schemes. Alberta has squandered money on irrigation to an extent not well known to taxpayers.
The Alberta government publicizes widely and often claims that although only about five percent of Alberta’s farmed land is irrigated, the value of irrigation produced agricultural products is 20 percent … of the total value of products produced by Alberta farms. Sounds impressive. Not so, when the costs are known.
When Alberta’s Oldman River Dam construction began, the contracted cost was to be about $385 million. The actual cost, not widely publicized, was about $575 million.
Historically, the Alberta government has funded about 80 percent or more of the costs for building and maintaining the canals that distribute irrigation waters, as well as maintenance of roads, bridges, etc. affected by irrigation….
For about 90 years there have been numerous attempts to promote an irrigation scheme which would dam the Red Deer River just east of the city of Red Deer. A relatively easy to construct canal would take the irrigation water to a vast arid area where the predominant soil, hamaruka loam is probably the worst type of solonetzic soil in Alberta. For 10 years a soil scientist from the Agriculture Canada Research Station at Lethbridge, and a professor of soil science tried every known way to achieve improvement that would enable economically profitable farming practices on hamaruka soil, without success.
The cities of Lethbridge, Calgary and Red Deer already have significant concerns that water shortages for any purposes will soon become acute because of their rapid expansions. …
In my opinion it would be very unwise for the government of Saskatchewan to embark on a costly irrigation project.
Ñ C. F. Bentley,
Edmonton, Alta.
Odd economics
No wonder Saskatchewan’s family farms and rural communities are struggling to survive.
Earlier this week, the provincial government was effectively praised for giving the potash industry Ñ the largest company in which we once but no longer own Ñ a 10-year royalty holiday.
The potash industry responded by announcing that they were initiating projects to expand production and in the process create 1,900 person years, or the equivalent of 55 full-time employees during a 35 year working life, followed by 230 full-time jobs until the potash runs out.
This royalty holiday means Saskatchewan is giving away 10 years of non-renewable resources and allowing our potash to be sold at lower than otherwise to countries like China and Brazil.
China and Brazil will then expand their production of wheat and oilseeds and effectively lower the price that our Saskatchewan farmers get for their wheat, canola and other crops.
So Saskatchewan people, by foregoing royalties, are in reality subsidizing foreign countries to compete against our own farmers, who they then have to turn around and also subsidize.
The well-schooled and possibly multi-degreed advisers to the ministers and other political leaders of all parties appear to be experts at Economics 101 Ñ you sell your products at the lowest possible price Ñ but seem blissfully unaware of Economics 801 Ñ a country’s first duty after its national defence is to enhance the standard of living of all its citizens.
No wonder the Fraser Institute and other like-minded people are congratulating our government on its business friendly policies.
Perhaps all mandarins should be mandated to study and implement the wise advice and insights contained in the book The European Dream by Jeremy Rifkin, a fellow of the Wharton School’s education program at the University of Pennsylvania.
Ñ Stephen Thompson,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Federal fraud
We apparently have a sponsorship scandal by the Liberal party in our federal government. When the voters elected the NDP to form the provincial government of Saskatchewan to take over from Conservatives, they dealt with a similar problem in a fast and efficient manner.
The Conservative party was responsible for a $13 billion debt and the near bankruptcy of Saskatchewan. An investigation to find any persons guilty of wrongdoing was turned over to the RCMP by the NDP shortly after their election. Many politicians were found guilty by the courts of misuse of public funds for personal gain and had to pay the consequences. A betrayal of trust or confidence is called treason (as defined) by Webster’s dictionary.
If the federal Liberal party members are not guilty, they would welcome a police investigation to clear their name as soon as possible. The Conservative party has sufficient members with support of the NDP and the Quebec party to form the government and have a speedy police investigation if the Conservatives are sincere. Does their failure to do so mean they have similar sponsors or a similar hidden agenda to the Liberals?
The money returned by these criminals was insignificant compared to the debt, some of which is still loaded on the backs of the people of Saskatchewan.
The real reward was in knowing there was a party which could achieve power if enough people voted for it which would not tolerate such crimes once elected. …
Ñ Robert Thompson,
Alticane, Sask.
Good return
I wonder just what “problems remain” or at least what problems I should be so hand wringingly worried about. (“Aid welcome, problems remain,” WP, April 7.)
The average farm real estate appears to be valued at a million or two and Farm Credit Canada reports (say) that last year farm land values went up eight percent. Along with CAIS (Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization) payments, that $2 million investment returned going on a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Sounds like a pretty good return and a heck of a lot better than most of the other working stiffs of the world. I’ll try to factor that in when, as Mr. Friesen says, they’ll be back for more in the fall.
Ñ D. A. Taylor,
Spruce Grove, Alta.
Bull meat
As for Mr. Hamon’s “Tough meat” letter, (Open Forum, March 17) every word of his complaint could be true. The toughest meat we ever got was a 4-H steer we bought at the county fair. You may wonder why that fat animal was tough. It comes from lack of exercise. We have eaten old cow and old bull and it really isn’t too tough. The tenderest beef comes from young bulls, under 16 months in age, who are fed separately and allowed to run out with the rest of the herd. They grow faster than steers or heifers, but do eat slightly more per pound of gain due to the fact they spend almost all of every day playing rough with each other and the older bull.
Because of my 77 years, we no longer raise a few cattle, but we sure miss that Black Angus bull meat. Incidentally, I cannot tell the difference between Canadian and American beef or pork.
Ñ George Thompson,
Nezperce, Idaho
