CANOLA SUCCESS
To the Editor:
The April 26 column titled “Canola’s success big headache for other crops,” by Kevin Hursh, may lead one to assume that success of canola diminishes the importance of other crops grown in Saskatchewan, which is not the case.
Saskatchewan farmers grow canola, as well as cereals, other oilseeds and pulse crops, relying on the success of all commodities to be profitable.
Profitability results from improved agronomic practices, higher prices and genetics. It is a combination of increased profitability and recent weather patterns in non-traditional canola growing areas that has expanded acres.
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?
According to crop insurance data there are few Saskatchewan farmers implementing continuous canola and although tightened rotations are occurring, four year rotations are still common in all soil zones.
With respect to disease, weed and insect pressures, there is research investment in agronomy to provide farmers with the tools to reduce pest pressures and information on production risks associated with tightened rotations.
Hursh emphasized the importance of levies and this is certainly the case with canola. The achievements of the canola industry are the result of forward-thinking producers who built a basis for success through levies from canola grown and sold in Saskatchewan.
These dollars have allowed producer organizations to fund research programs, provide education through extension activities and build substantial international and domestic markets for canola products.
Producers have also developed strong relationships with members along the supply chain, resulting in one voice on issues that impact the entire industry.
At a time when we are seeing increased prices across all agricultural commodities, increased land values and a vibrant processing sector, we should take pride. We should be celebrating this success and realize that at the end of the day, the strength of the entire agriculture sector is based on sound practices and the inspiration and perspiration of all farmers.
Brett Halstead,
Chair, SaskCanola,
Nokomis, Sask.
Problem ditching
To the Editor:
For over seven years we have been struggling with our neighbours, our municipality and provincial government bodies to find a solution to a problem that keeps getting worse every year. And the worst part is no one seems to care or is willing to do anything to stop it.
Since the summer of 2005, I have dealt with the effects of unlawful drainage and the large amount of drainage waters flooding my land. A lot of the land around our farm — marginal land full of sloughs — is being bought up and drained with heavy equipment even though this land is swampy and is only good as pasture land.
My neighbours are draining the water off their land as fast as possible with no regard for what happens to anyone downstream. They have no permits, they’re not willing to discuss the repercussions of their actions, and the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority doesn’t en-force the law.
These farmers are breaking the law by draining 28 quarter sections illegally on to me and they are not held accountable. Why is that? It’s illegal to drain water without a permit, so why isn’t the government putting a stop to it?
I filed a complaint in the spring of 2011 with the SWA, the government department responsible for protecting water resources. They tell me it could take years before anything is done and to try and work it out with my neighbours.
Last fall the heavy equipment was working again doing more drainage and SWA still did nothing.
I’m losing more and more acres every year. I haven’t seeded some areas of my land in almost five years. I’m worried about all the contaminants that are arrived with the runoff due to drainage and flooding and how it will affect the three wells on my property. I’m worried about the health of my family. I know of wells in other rural municipalities that can no longer be used because of this kind of contamination….
This land has been in my family for multiple generations and the problem has never been this bad.
Increased drainage has only made it worse. I’m fed up. And where’s the provincial watershed authority? They should be shutting these drainage works down. They’re illegal.
All I want is for the drainage to stop; for the flooding to stop; and for these farmers to have a regard for the law that was put in place to protect the landowners in this province from dealing with the issues I have for almost a decade. I just want my farm back….
Peter and Barbara Onofreychuk,
MacNutt, Sask.
Wolf vs. sheep
To the Editor:
Allowing the wolf to guard the sheep would be unthinkable. For the Conservatives to close the door on public debate to genetically modified alfalfa for fear that “the mere discussion of resistance to genetically modified products will drive away industry investment” is also unthinkable. (WP, April 19, page 43)
The Liberals and NDP put forward a motion for a moratorium on GM alfalfa before the last election but the minority Conservatives delayed a vote so a vote was never held.
GM alfalfa has been approved for safety (eating and growing) but requires variety registration before it can be legally sold as seed in Canada. The company (Monsanto) needs to apply for variety registration and has not yet done so.
Our majority Conservative government has effectively locked up the sheep, the citizens they govern, and given the wolf, industry investors, licence to do as they please. The wolf will fatten at the irreversible expense of the sheep.
Recently, a motion for public debate was brought forward by a Liberal MP; the Conservative chair of the House of Commons agriculture committee adjourned a meeting before the motion was voted on. This is not democracy.
The moratorium has never been placed on the approval of GM alfalfa. Further public debate and biotechnology study is not being allowed. The now majority Conservative government are clandestinely considering this important decision in secret.
Non-partisan and non-corporately funded and controlled scientists and institutions must carry out research. Results from these unbiased scientists and studies must then be publicly debated; the scientists must not be gagged or muffled.
Decisions that may have long-term negative ramifications for all of us must not be made in secret.
These decisions could impact our food security, export markets as witnessed by the EU’s resistance to “low level presence of GMOs” and most devastating will be the effect on our local rural agrarian economies.
What can we, as voting, thinking, caring and concerned citizens, do to ensure that democracy is honoured and served?
J. L. Chalmers,
Claresholm, Alta.
