Methods must change
To the Editor:
Is it a coincidence that three Manitoba hog operations have recently experienced outbreaks of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus?
Three new cases of PED put producers on high alert. (Re: WP, “More PED cases found in Man.,” June 9.)
As the hog industry endeavours to wash away problems which they could possibly be the creators of because of their method of raising pigs, it brings other situation to the forefront and that is our blatant mismanagement of water.
Read Also
Worrisome drop in grain prices
Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.
I have no idea of how many gallons of clean (not recycled) water is utilized to rinse those trucks that have returned to Canada, but would guess that it is a very high number.
And what happens to that rinse water after, for it is likely contaminated with the PED virus? Has any one considered this?
For instance, research conducted on behalf of the Manitoba Livestock Management Initiative has shown the virus responsible for PED is capable of surviving over Manitoba winters in earthen manure storages.
That to me, only confirms that all this rinsing, as an effective tool, is only a limited and very temporary measure of dealing with the virus for the short term. It does nothing to eradicate the virus. The virus remains, now spread about, ready to continue infecting when the time and conditions are appropriate.
I am of the opinion that factory hog producers must change their method of producing animals for slaughter, as even more serious outbreaks of diseases will occur.
Lately however, I have come to realize “logic doesn’t apply to human nature” and especially to those who are raising hogs for a meat exporting business.
In this particular situation, two rinses will not be enough.
What of hybrid wheat?
To the Editor:
What do we farmers think of hybrids?
Reading, “Bayer facility hopes to develop hybrid wheat within 10 years,” (WP, June16), one would assume we loved the technology and want more of it.
Here is my dissenting opinion: hybrids are a copyright protection mechanism that do not themselves offer any benefit to farmers or consumers but great benefits to crop breeders.
The history of the discovery of heterosis, or hybrid vigour, in plants is an interesting one. It was immediately recognized that this natural phenomenon was a perfect opportunity for breeders.
One of the earliest profiteers was Henry Wallace, the son of the American secretary of agriculture under Warren Harding. In 1924, Wallace sold his first hybrid seed corn at a profit of $740 per acre. Two years later he founded the Pioneer Hybrid Seed Company.
Less than a decade later he was appointed secretary of agriculture under Franklin Roosevelt. Hybrids have been a going corporate interest ever since.
The core question is: do hybrids offer us something that other methods cannot? This answer depends on some discoverable truths of genetics and has been known for about 50 years: no. It turns out that any yield or trait that can be expressed in an F1 hybrid generation can also be made into a true breeding seed through simple direct selection. The notion that “hybrid” is the route to “high yielding” is a marketing triumph to the extent that we forget that it isn’t true.
The president of a producer association such as the Grain Growers of Canada should be concerned about the huge increase in seed costs that await wheat growers when hybrid technology comes to wheat. One of the first results will be that development of pure breeding lines will stop. All research and new variety development will move to hybrids. The days of going to a bin of your own seed will be over.
Farmers have shown in other hybrid programs that we are willing to pay steeply for variety development. I paid about $65 per acre to plant hybrid canola this year. I will likely pay to plant hybrid wheat. Corporate ownership of genetic varieties is a feature of modern agriculture whether we like it or not.
But we should remember that hybrids are not a production technique, but a copyright protection technique and we should challenge people who say that they are for the benefit of farmers or the hungry world.
