GMO ban could be profitable
BY TOM BUTTON
Lost in the panic over finding ways to meet Casco's corn requirements this year is the news that all Ontario corn growers can expect an extra five to 10 cents a bushel because of it.Casco starts each winter by importing boatloads of American corn, explains Brian Doidge, marketing specialist at Ridgetown College. Imports add up to roughly 10 million bushels, including 20 per cent of total use at Port Colborne, and 30 per cent at Cardinal.
This year, Casco can't buy that corn from Toledo, because Anderson's, Continental and other major U.S. terminals won't segregate corn that is certified free from GMO traits such as Roundup Ready that haven't been approved in Europe.
As a result, Casco will have to bid more aggressively in the Ontario market. "This is a big test," Doidge says. "If we don't screw this up by letting any non-EU approved into those plants, we'll have told the world that they can come to Ontario and buy exactly the corn they want, whether that's GMO or not."
Still unclear, however, is how many growers have planted non-EU approved hybrids this year, and how hard they'll be hit.
Most elevator chains are setting up special receiving elevators, and are telling growers to keep the non-EU approved corn out of their other plants. Cargill, for instance, is expected to receive non-EU corn at Melbourne, Princeton and Talbotville.
Ian Carter, head of London Agricultural Commodities, says it won't let non-EU corn into its elevators in the southwest, but will accept it at Seaforth. The company chose Seaforth, Carter explains, because it's close to Ontario's major feed markets, which will buy non-EU crop. The elevator also has rail links so the corn could be sold to U.S. feed buyers.
Most non-approved hybrids are Dekalb, although the single largest acreage may be Pioneer's 38B22. Late May, Dekalb manager Glen Hellerman said the company had agreed to take back seed, but that some growers opted to plant despite the marketing restrictions, either because they were feeding on-farm, selling to a buyer who didn't need exportable corn, or because they wanted the Roundup Ready trait so badly.
Hellerman said the company still didn't know how much seed had been returned. A non-company, informal check suggested some dealers got back two-thirds of their Roundup Ready seed.
Growers who have planted non-EU approved seed face market restrictions on their entire acreage, whether GMO or not. Casco and Nacan say they aren't sure farmers could keep the non-EU corn properly segregated. Plus, the non-EU traits can be carried by wind-blown pollen.
For certified seed production, regulatory isolation distances are up to 200 metres because of pollen drift. For GMO corn, distances may have to be even greater, because Casco is insisting contamination be much less than one per cent, although no specific level has been agreed to yet. Making the issue more difficult, there's no quick test that elevators could use before a truckload is emptied into their dump pit. Instead, elevators will take random samples and send them away for analysis, a process that will take at least two days.
Originally, Casco and elevators had hoped that seed companies would tell them who had bought non-EU seed, but the companies refused. As a result, it's up to farmers to tell their elevators that they've bought the traits (although some outlets, such as Hensall Co-op, are both elevators and Dekalb dealers).
As it turns out, that's helping the growers. Carter and other buyers say they won't slap a discount on non-EU approved corn. In part, that's because the non-EU corn makes up only two per cent of the provincial crop, so developing a discount system might be more trouble than it would be worth. Doidge, however, thinks buyers don't know the name of farmers who bought non-EU seed, and they have to tread gently, especially since growers are already pinched by poor corn prices.
"If you have a farmer who's feeling squeezed, and his options are to tell the truth and take a lower price, or maybe fudge a bit....well, it's best for everybody if there isn't that temptation."
Still, growers will lose out because of higher trucking costs to get to a receiving elevator. Doidge is recommending growers talk to their elevator about sharing those costs, especially since the non-EU issue erupted so late in the spring that growers didn't have all the information they needed at planting time.
Seed companies are also reviewing their hybrid release policies. "We aren't going to back off biotechnology," says Tim Wellbanks, agronomy manager for Pioneer Hi-Bred. "And we can't keep our new traits off the market until they're approved by 250 countries around the world."
Dekalb's Hellerman believes the Roundup Ready gene will win approval in Europe. It's already been approved in soybeans, he points out. He predicts Roundup Ready hybrids will prove popular, especially when that approval comes through.
Larry Cowan, Middlesex corn grower and director on the Ontario Corn Producers Association, says growers will have to get used to talking to buyers before they plant to find out exactly what they want. Even then, there's the potential for unexpected marketing restrictions. "That's the risk of being in business," Cowan says. "It's also the opportunity."
© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.
back
Is it safe to grow GMO corn?
To date, all the health questions about genetically modified crops have focused on consumers and on the environment. But it may be the farmer's survival that's most at risk.This spring's panic over the decisions by Casco and Nacan not to buy corn that hasn't been approved by Europe is just a taste of the market volatility and fragmentation that's on the horizon, raising questions about whether it makes sense to plant biotech seed.
On the other hand, asks Larry Cowan, Middlesex county corn grower and director on the Ontario Corn Producers Association, can growers survive economically without the new traits, such as insect and herbicide resistance?
"There's a silver lining here," Cowan believes. Ontario farmers, elevators and processors are on their way to building a world-class reputation for giving buyers exactly what they want, whether that's GMO or GMO-free. "It's a very exciting future."
Still, Cowan and most others agree that there will be some bumps on that road.
Even if Europe eventually approves Roundup Ready corn and all the combinations of Bt and herbicide-resistant genes, there's no guarantee that Europe's consumers will want to eat them. Ontario's Nacan plant at Collingwood produces corn starches for export to the U.K., where giants Cadbury and Nestle's have announced they don't want GMO corn, whether the genes have been approved by governments or not.
In Canada, consumer opinion is on a roller-coaster. Most food companies are steering clear of taking any public stance, while behind the scenes they're promoting education programs and trying to get the public to accept the GMO concept.
If processors demand non-GMO, farmers who've planted Roundup Ready soybeans could find themselves suddenly locked out of crush plants, and farmers who've planted Bt corn may lose their sales to King Milling.
At the same time, University of Guelph food safety specialist Doug Powell is flooded by phone calls from worried journalists from CBC and big-city dailies. Powell tells them that hundreds of thousands of Canadians get sick and some die from foodborne diseases every year, while there's no sign anyone has been hurt by biotech genes. He also tells them the nutraceuticals and engineered foods will make Canadians healthier. But, says Powell, "They don't understand why we don't just ban all GMOs." The issue, he says, looks so scary, and the solution seems so clear. Powell compares today's debate to the 1970s and '80s, when the controversy over pesticides reached its peak. It took time, but farmers were able to convince the public that they were handling pesticides responsibly. The same will happen with biotechnology, Powell says.
But, he emphasizes, there may be some tough years ahead. "Things are changing so fast," Powell says. "I study this issue all the time, but I feel really unqualified to give advice to farmers on whether the risk that there won't be a buyer for their GMO crop is greater than the benefit they expect to get from the trait."
Who is qualified? "No one that I know....I don't envy farmers. They've learned how to deal with the weather, but these are fundamentally political considerations."
© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.
backBY TOM BUTTON
The D words are on everyone's tongues again. D for dry and perhaps, with all of July and August still ahead of us, D for drought. A P word is also going to play a major role in 1999 - pests. "A lot of growers think that if it's going to be dry, at least they don't have to worry about diseases and insects," says Albert Tenuta, OMAFRA pest specialist. "That's completely wrong."In fact, dry season pest control can be more critical than in wet years. Pests such as spider mites attack soybean crops when the fencerow plants they're feeding on start to dry out. Nematode injury shows up earlier and yield impacts are more severe because any loss of root function in dry soils can be fatal.
Scouting is the key, Tenuta says. It will give advance warning so some pests can be sprayed before it's too late to prevent yield reductions. Scouting will also let growers see whether they need to adopt future pest control strategies.
Growers shouldn't forget about the so-called wet weather diseases. Ridgetown College researcher Art Schaafsma notes that fusarium needs two days of damp, warm weather to start producing spores, followed by another 12 to 24 hours of rainy, wet weather when those spores land on exposed anthers.
It doesn't matter if it was bone dry before the process starts. In fact, some studies suggest that if the weather is dry after infection, the fungus will produce higher than ordinary levels of toxins.
The story is the same for white mould, Tenuta adds. If the drought is severe enough to make the canopy more open, there will be less chance of infection because the disease needs humidity. "But if we get rain at flowering, we're going to get white mould," he says.
Soy nematodes
Drought stress makes it easier to spot the symptoms of nematode injury, and to determine how those symptoms will contribute to yield reduction.That can be good news, because the field may have been losing just as many bushels in the past; you just couldn't see it because there was enough moisture for the crop to stay green.
The sooner nematodes are identified, the more options growers have to keep them in check. Tenuta says nematodes can cut yields by 20 to 35 per cent without producing above-ground symptoms.
Nematodes have spread through southwestern Ontario and are moving into the rest of the province. There's no single above-ground symptom that indicates a nematode problem. Growers should check any plants that appear unthrifty, stunted or yellow. The crop could also be slow to close in, or appear uneven and wavy.
Rarely will the whole field be uniformly affected. Hardest hit may be headlands where tillage equipment enters the field and on dry knolls. Carefully dig sample plants and look for tiny white cysts. If unsure, call in the local OMAFRA crops adviser. Follow up this fall with soil sampling and start learning more about rotations and resistant varieties to keep nematodes at bay.
Spider mites
If weeds are wilting in dry fencerows, it's time to start worrying about spider mites in the soybean crop.In the past, Tenuta says, spider mites were a southwestern phenomenon. Now mites are attacking dry weather crops into Perth and Huron, and will likely continue to spread.
Each mite is the size of a pinhead and lives on the underside of the leaf. Mites suck juices from the leaf, killing a small patch of tissue. The result is a mottled or "sand-blasted" appearance. The bottom of the leaf shows fine webbing.
Left untreated, the leaves will turn yellow, curl up and die. Plants lose vigour, and can also die if feeding is severe.
The insecticides Cygon or Lagon are recommended if there are four or more mites per leaf before pod-fill. The scouting procedure takes practice, however, and most growers will likely want to call their local crops adviser. Start scouting for mites and symptoms in late June. Since the pests move in from fencerows, the best strategy is to keep an eye on border rows, Tenuta says: "If you find them early enough, you may be able to spray the outside rows....That's a lot cheaper than spraying the whole field."
Fusarium root rot
Most root rots like cool, wet soils. This fusarium attacks soybeans in warm, droughty conditions.Yield losses will likely be small. Yet the symptoms, including plant stunting, could be a useful warning sign of future threats from sudden death syndrome. Both are caused by the same fungus, Tenuta points out. The sudden-death form seems to be caused by a more virulent strain.
With sudden death, the leaves on infected plants will develop a yellow speckling between the veins, which remain bright green. The root cross-section will turn light brown, instead of a healthy white. Write a note when you see fusarium, Tenuta advises. Next time you plant soybeans in that field, ask seed companies how their varieties stack up against sudden death.
"Often, the things we learn from scouting can't help us this year," Tenuta says. "It's next year that they really pay off."
© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.
backBY TOM BUTTON
A pair of wood ducks jump into flight when visitors hike through Ron Perriman's reconstructed wetland. Turtles slip off logs that have been laid down to give them perches for sunning. There are deer prints at the water's edge, and migrating spring warblers fill the air with song.Yet a couple of years ago there were only clumps of grasses and weeds in the hollow at the bottom of the 200-acre Perriman home farm near Ayr. There was also a grassed waterway in the adjacent field that had a widening gully down the middle of it, and hundreds of smaller rills across the slope were filling the hollow with valuable topsoil after every rainfall.
Then Perriman heard of the Wetland Habitat Fund, a five-year, $4.3 million government program that offers up to $5,000 to southern Ontario landowners who turn wet areas back into production wetlands, or enhance or protect existing wetlands.
"We're struggling to keep up with demand," says program manager Larry O'Grady. "The message we're hearing is that farmers are interested in preserving the nature and wildlife."
Since its start up two years ago, the program's seven regional representatives have worked with more than 500 landowners. Of these, 160 have submitted the necessary paperwork, and 137 projects are underway or completed, with 60 per cent on farms. Next application deadline for the program is July 31.
Average total project cost is $7,600, with the fund paying nearly $3,000. The program pays up to half the cost, but farmers get to count in-kind expenses, including expected maintenance over 10 years, reducing cash outlay.
At Ayr, Perriman and the fund split the $3,600 cost of digging two ponds in the wet hollow at the bottom of his long, sloping fields.
Perriman also agreed to stick to a conservation farming system for 10 years, mainly based on him switching from his mouldboard plow to a soil saver made available through the local conservation authority.
In addition, Perriman got access to the know-how of Robert Messier, regional fieldman for the fund. With Messier's help, the plan evolved to include two kidney-shaped ponds with shallow banks that will attract birds and other wildlife when water levels drop in late summer. Logs were also laid to make the area more hospitable to species that like to sit in the sun, and berms were created with the spoil.
"A good design can respond to the needs of a wide variety of wildlife," Messier says. "It isn't as simple as just digging a hole." Eligible projects include low areas that are too wet for efficient crop production and that farmers want to return to the wild. Also included are swampy or wet areas in bushlots or scrub that could be made into better wildlife habitat, either by excavation or by the installation of water retention systems. The program will also fund the planting of native marsh vegetation for wildlife.
As well, the program has helped return irrigation ponds to nature, and has helped farmers protect existing wetlands with buffer strips and fences. The program won't, however, help build artificial wetlands to treat milkhouse wastes.
Farmers who want to look into their potential for restoring or enhancing their wetlands can contact O'Grady.
They'll get an introductory phone call from one of the program's seven regional reps, such as Messier, followed by a site visit if it appears the project meets program goals. Then, farmers must complete a conservation plan, similar to portions of the Environmental Farm Plan, that identifies construction priorities and long-term conservation strategies. Projects are reviewed by local advisory committees, and are forwarded to O'Grady's team for approval. Projects to date have enhanced 4,400 acres of wetlands, along with 4,100 acres of adjacent upland, for an average 66 acres per project, although many are much smaller.
"Farmers by and large want to protect their natural resources - they like to have natural areas on the farm," O'Grady says. "We can help them make it a reality."
© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.
back