CONSUMERS CAN CHOOSE
Re: Kevin Hursh column, “Putting money where my mouth is means ‘no’ to A&W,” WP Oct. 10.
The eat it and shut up attitude of the upper end of the beef industry is becoming old. The consumer clearly wants a choice, so we have businesses working together to give them choice. While these businesses are rising to the challenge, they are also increasing overall beef demand in the marketplace.
By implanting, mass medicating and using lower level antibiotics — i.e. ionophores — beef production is increased and economized, yet demand is lowered. Find me another industry that does the same.
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?
Moreover, would the cow-calf producer (lower end beef producer) not benefit by reduced supply and increased demand of beef? Rancher’s calves should be worth more. The upper end of the commodity beef industry seems to miss this.
Now don’t get me wrong, the commodity beef industry is an amazing industry. On any given day, in all corners of the country, consumers have access to affordable, fresh, quality beef.
I am amazed on a daily basis by the infrastructure required, logistical challenges that are solved and the overall cohesion of the industry from one end to the other that is achieved to pull this off.
However, I do not see anything wrong with consumers demanding an alternative, and then it being provided. I embrace the idea and find it encouraging that the beef industry can evolve and continue to bring a high quality and trusted product to the market place.
Many consumers, including myself, are losing faith in self-interested research, politicians, big business and media. By losing consumer trust, we have consumers shying away from our product and seeking alternatives.
They say the proof is in the science that implants, mass medication and low level antibiotics used through the feeding period are safe.
Yet we have skeptical consumers seeking something different, so let’s give them something different.
The cow-calf producer who weans at home can avoid mass medication, avoid implants and avoid low-level antibiotics if they so chose. A market now exists for these calves. How can this not be a good thing for the beef industry as a whole?
The consumer is demanding an alternative. Kudos to those who are providing it.
John Lamb,
MORE REFLECTION NEEDED
I’ve been close to the Cavers family following the inspection — better known as “the raid” — of their on-farm meat processing facility. We’ve formed a network of supporters to find a silver lining.
Much damage has been done to the Cavers’ reputation and to the trust there was in the government’s benevolent hand. Many of us are concerned about the future of small-scale processing. We can’t just merrily move on. We feel more reflection is needed.
As citizens, we deserve to know why the food safety department of Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives acted in such an unreasonable way. Please remember that MAFRI has not said that the prosciutto (dried meat) was unsafe for human consumption….
A few troubling questions arise.
1. Apparently, when the Cavers won the best new food prize at MAFRI’s Great Manitoba Food Fight, the food safety department reacted, saying that in the absence of provincial standards for the processing of prosciutto, the Cavers product should not have been a contender. Your Sept. 19 WP editorial suggests one government department didn’t know what the other was doing. Or could it be they did know and the Cavers became pawns in a power struggle?
2. We lobbied for a cooling off period so that the confiscated meat would not be destroyed without a review. We were told the political arm of government has no authority over the food safety arm. Is the food inspection department a law unto themselves? … Why such a rush to destroy the confiscated meat? It’s a dried product and would easily have lasted through a review of the process.
3. The Cavers asked repeatedly for clear standards … When they asked for clarification of the confusing guidelines they were being given, the inspector actually told them it was largely up to him to decide what was acceptable. Does this sound reasonable?
4. In his Sept. 26 WP article, Ed White suggests small processors may not “get” what it takes to provide safe food to their customers; that artisanal processes are less “sophisticated” than industrial processing. Firstly, if we examined food-borne illness — E. coli, listeria, etc. — caused by eating industrial food and compared our findings with statistics of illness and death caused by eating foods grown and prepared by neighbours, what would we find? This research should be possible and would help the discussion….
We all want the food we eat to be safe, diverse and healthy. We all want more farmers and new entrants growing a diversity of foods and making comfortable livings doing it. Will MAFRI review the Cavers’ situation? Will it in generous spirit facilitate the process of developing food safety standards that are appropriate for different scales of production?
I appreciate your paper finding knowledgeable commentators on these developments.
David Neufeld,
Boissevain, Man.
WILD MUSTARD RESISTANCE
I feel compelled to respond to Sean Pratt’s story regarding rotating canola to deal with herbicide resistance (WP Oct. 10, page 16).
I did plant Clearfield canola this season. After using the recommended herbicide Solo — BASF brand — I was puzzled that some wild mustard plants did survive and were thriving and choking out Clearfield canola plants.
When I asked for the BASF representative to inspect my fields, I learned that the company has been observing Group 2 resistant wild mustard in certain areas for several years. Also, in Saskatchewan’s 2013 Guide to Crop Protection, there is no mention of the possibility of wild mustard being resistant to Solo — BASF brand. An email to the provincial weed specialist did not trigger any response.
It will be interesting to find out what the proportion of wild mustard in the canola sample is and how BASF will be dealing with this resistance issue in Clearfield crops.
Gregor Beck,
Rouleau, Sask.
MINERAL RIGHTS
One factual error needs to be corrected in the otherwise-excellent “Farmers protest restrictions that limit drilling” (WP, Oct. 4) story: I do not farm “a century farm near Rocanville” and have never presented myself as a “farmer.”
This common mistake highlights two aspects of the Potash Restricted Drilling Area (PRDA) story that keep getting missed: more than farmers have mineral rights within the Rocanville PRDA — many families kept them after selling their land. As well, this injustice, and the loss, also includes farmers without mineral rights. Their competitiveness is significantly undermined by the fact that they cannot collect the revenue that would inevitably come from the surface rights — which must be obtained for oil and gas exploration to take place — that they still possess. They can only watch their non-PRDA neighbours collect them to be used in the fierce competition for land.
We must keep clear the actual way in which this issue is “simple:” the de facto expropriation of our mineral rights without competition was unjust and the ways in which it is (very) “complicated.” It will take a variety of areas of professional expertise to sort out just what these rights really and truly are worth in such a context.
Also, when someone actually has to pay for what they take, we will find out how much they actually need it and how much they actually need. Just how big do PRDAs really have to be anyway?
The PRDA issue cannot be ignored any longer. We are also finally in a position where all parties to the dispute can no longer avoid the concessions they must make to obtain the reasonable and fair —to all sides — settlement desired, I believe, by most mineral rights holders and by the people of Saskatchewan.
Trevor Bearance,
Rocanville, Sask.
