EDITORIAL
Where are the beefs?
You are a beef farmer. Take a good look at your pork producer neighbour, who's up to his eyeballs in chops, sausage and roasts.Then think about this scenario. The U.S. slaps a tariff on more than a billion dollars worth of live Canadian cattle destined for U.S. packers, dropping prices at your live sales barn or rail grade packing plant through the floor. Then watch beef back up go north while prices go south.
This is scary stuff - and real stuff in a battle the Canadian beef industry can't afford to lose.
Live cattle exports to the U.S. are under attack on two fronts. The challenges could end this week, when the United States International Trade Tribunal (USITT) will determine whether American beef producers have been injured by Canadian imports. Or they could go further, costing Canadian beef producers between C$1.7 million and $3 million in legal fees. If Canada loses the case, in a worst-case scenario, the industry could face an 11 per cent countervail on $1.3 billion of beef sales to the U.S.
In one case, the U.S. cattlemen's group R-CALF charges that Canadian beef production is being subsidized by policies of the Canadian Wheat Board, reducing cost of production by about 10 per cent. R-CALF wants a countervailing tariff put in place to level the playing field.
In the other, R-CALF charges that Canada has "dumped" beef into the U.S. at less than the cost of production. USITT will rule whether either or both of these cases have enough validity to proceed.
The outcome will be decided by a handful of American trade commissioners in Washington, swayed by fine lawyers funded by producers on both sides of the border.
One thing is certain: Even if the charges bomb, another attack will be made. Every time there is a meat surplus, human nature shows its dark side, and American producers look for a scapegoat.
At some point the Canadian beef industry must address what's eating these guys south of the border and come to terms with it.
Perhaps the sand in the gears of free trade is really that Canada prevents cattle from the U.S. from entering Canada because of regulations on blue tongue and anaplasmosis.
Perhaps Canada has to rethink its animal health rules and take a hard look at whether these are health standards or non-tariff barriers.
What will it cost to take a hard look? Will it be more than the
several
million dollars spent on consultants and trade lawyers this
go-round? At
twice the price, many beef farmers would still think it would be
a bargain.
back
Letters
To Farm & Country
Rights of fertility
My wife and I operate a small-scale grain, bean and vegetable
farm.
Although we have little use for the modern bent toward
large-scale farming,
we consider that to be a matter of choice for farmers, so we
winnow
carefully the opinions printed in the magazine. Nonetheless, we
couldn't
let pass without comment our view of Jury's out on sterile seed
(Oct. 19,1998).
What foolish and ignorant jury would ever be out on sterile seed?
A farmer
spends his or her whole life learning to store and propagate seed
that is
fertile. Our life, the lives of everyone, depends on the
fertility of our
seed. That there is any question whatsoever is both terrifying
and
mind-boggling.
A plea must be made to all farmers to completely discredit any
scientist
who would speak of sterilizing our food sources. Our lives depend
on
fertility, to be fertile, and to attend to the fertility of our
soil. If an
act ever looked foolish and ignorant, it would be that of
rendering seed
sterile. Needless to say, we find your magazine stimulating and
clearly
written.
Rusty Ephemris
Cheltenham
Weighty issue
My reaction to Mike Stewart's soil weight figures (Dec. 7,
Farming by the
numbers) was very similar to Dr. Beau-champ's, namely, that the
weight of
two million pounds was the approximate weight of an acre of soil
to a depth
of six inches. I have been using this approximation since the
start of my
working career in research and extension at the soil science
department in
the University of Saskatchewan.
I was therefore surprised at Mr. Stewart's response in the Jan. 4
issue.
The volume of one inch of soil over an acre is 3,630 cubic feet,
and with
a weight of two million pounds this means that the soil Mr.
Stewart is
dealing with has a density of about 551 pounds per cubic foot (or
almost
nine times as much as the same volume of water). Mr. Stewart's
soil is more
than three times heavier than sand or solid granite. I thought
about this
for a bit, and to put it in terms I could understand better, it
means that
the two-gallon pail that I used to use to carry rolled oats to
the cows
would weigh about 220 pounds if I filled it with soil.
It would be useful to establish which approximation for the
weight of soil
is correct. I would expect that it could be important in nutrient
management planning, particularly if a farmer is looking at the
quantity of
water in the soil and the concentration of dissolved nutrients.
In the past, I would have suggested the Ontario Land Resource
Unit of the
Research Branch of Agriculture Canada as an appropriate
authority. However,
it was eliminated last year as part of an internal
reorganization. Is there
an OMAFRA expert who can provide clarification?
K. Bruce MacDonald
Teeswater
Still weighty
The letters from Dr. Beauchamp and Mike Stewart caught my eye.
Forgive me,
but I cannot see how Mr. Stewart can be correct and apparently
has the last
word. To my mind, if you divide two million pounds by 43,560
square feet
per acre, this would give a square foot of soil one inch thick
weighing
almost 46 pounds. I don't remember soil feeling this heavy! My
calculations
have an equivalent volume of water at around five pounds. Am I
missing
something?
John S. Walton
Dep't of Animal & Poultry Science
University of Guelph
Last word?
I will try once more to dispel some misconceptions about soils
that should
not go unchallenged.
First, there is absolutely no way that oven-drying a mineral soil
at 221F
will reduce the volume to "15 to 25 per cent of the original
volume," as
Mr. Stewart suggests. While oven-drying at 221F removes all of
the water
from soil and kills most of the microbes and other creatures, it
does not
remove or burn off the organic matter.
Second, if soil particles were somehow compressed into rock, a
one-inch
thick slab covering one acre would not weigh two million pounds.
Similarly,
a one-inch thick layer of soil including water and organic matter
covering
one acre as found in the field would not weigh two million as I
tried to
point out in my previous letter.
Mr. Stewart is correct in assuming that I have spent a career in
soil
science. But it is also true that I was raised on a dairy farm
and have
farmed, as a sideline, for the last 22 years.
Thus, understanding the "practical" side of farming fairly well,
I have
never heard of the "two-million-pound per inch figure...that has
[been]
kicked around in the agricultural industry for years."
Though recognizing this discourse could go on for some time,
these will be
my final comments on the matter.
Eric Beauchamp
Dep't Land Resource Science
University of Guelph