Letters
To Farm & Country
Dangerous territoryA letter in your April 19 issue headlined "Crippling bylaws" quite effectively illustrates "one of the main problems with current thinking in agriculture. The letter is long on rhetoric and supposition and short on fact.
The issue of animal waste management (and let's stop using euphemisms like "nutrients," because, while it is manure and it is technically a nutrient, it is first and foremost a waste product of metabolism) is a physical one that has very serious consequences if we mess up on it.
The writer argues that there should be no limit on the number of livestock a farmer can have, and seems to be suggesting that the only way a limit could even be considered by him would be if property taxes were to be frozen.
This is dangerous territory. If there are absolutely no limits to the number of animal units on a given land base, and in the absence of extraordinary and expensive waste processing and pollution abatement systems - which no farmer can afford - what chance will the water wells have? And after these wells become contaminated what use will a 100 per cent tax rebate be to the people who once made their home there? Do we then revise "official policy" (which is already ephemeral enough at times) and say that it's OK for children to ingest levels of nitrates that were previously "ruled" unsafe?
Let's stop the name-calling and get down to factual reality. A call for militant (which Webster's defines as "warlike and aggressive") behaviour by the OFA is the antithesis of what we now need.
The letter's author does no one any good by resorting to the false stereotype of the "complaining urban transplant," because this sets up a false conflict. Poisoned water and continuous exposure to excessive contaminants have the same known deadly physical effect on farmers as they do on "urban transplants." (As both a farmer and an "urban transplant," I wonder if I'm supposed to be wearing a black hat or a white one - which underscores how trite this characterization is in the context of things).
Taxes cannot become misconstrued as a right to pollute. If your taxes are too high, or the price of your commodity is too low, deal with the problem at the source. Being paid less than the cost of production for whatever it is we produce doesn't give us the right to militantly poison the world we live in. Have we forgotten what Rachel Carson proved?
Waste management must be based upon facts; cold, hard, scientific, numerical and unambiguous facts. We have the facts. We know what the sustainable limits are for animal densities (by the way, so did some of our grandfathers). We just need the courage to both implement these and face up to our responsibilities as civilized, intelligent members of a species that should have enough sense not to crap on its own perch.
T.M. Rothwell, P.Eng.
Mt. Forest
Class-action clarityFurther to the "First-ever farm class action" sidebar to your May 3 cover story, the three in 100 figure I was referring to related to the number of motions wherein plaintiff was held responsible for costs, not successful class actions.
In fact, the proportion of failed class actions is quite high, probably 66 per cent or higher. (This is the rationale for the fee multiplier noted in the story). As such, it's rather the opposite of "hitting the jackpot." Very few firms have the time or interest in a class action - hence justice is not fully served as yet, in my personal opinion. Furthermore, the "funding" is not automatic; you may note that only a very small percentage have been approved, based on the Law Foundation's published reports.
In my view, class actions are tough battles. The popular book "A Civil Action" demonstrates what can go wrong.
Bob Salvador,
paralegal; Oatley, Purser
Barrie
© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.
back
Big birds still grounded
But mainstream meat consumption could get the industry airborneBY CHRISTINA SELBY
Emu and ostrich producers have been on quite a rollercoaster ride for the last five years or so. Whether or not the big bird market is on an upswing depends on who's talking. The meat is making small in-roads, but herds are getting smaller or disappearing completely.Even though ostrich meat started popping up on white tablecloth restaurant menus in the early '90s, it still doesn't appear on many grocery store shelves, even with health claims such as low fat and cholesterol levels.
The Ostrich Producers of Ontario formed in March 1997 with a view to creating viable meat and leather markets. With about 30 members and a total bird population of 9,000, up from 3,000 two years ago, the OPO is optimistic about the long-term possibilities for ostrich.
Deborah Simmonds, an OPO member who started raising ostriches four years ago, compares the big birds to the wine industry in California: "It took 20 years to get to where they are today. We're only in our 10th year."
Simmonds and her husband, Don, are raising 50 birds on 15 acres north of Milton, but like many farmers hedge their bets. They also grow pumpkins, indian corn and garlic, and Don runs a transportation business. Simmonds wouldn't advise anyone to keep birds as their "mainstay." Their White Rock Ostrich Farm is on a small scale, and they've kept capital investments to a minimum. "We had most of the buildings in place," she says. They've mapped out land for 10 breeding pens, but currently have only one breeding male and two hens.
While they supply one restaurant in Mississauga and one gourmet meat shop, the majority of the frozen, vacuum-packed product is sold off the farm directly to customers who come out to see the birds, she says. "We have hay wagon rides and barbecues on the weekends." Packages of four G-pound patties sell for $6, five hot dogs for $5. The Simmonds also sell ostrich Italian sausage, liver, steaks and fajita strips.
Kathy Kutchcoski, secretary of the Canadian Emu Co-operative Inc. (CEMU), says getting into the supermarkets is the prime focus of the co-op's 196 members. CEMU has partnered with Pro Veal Co. to create packaged burgers and sausages under the Original Emu brand. Packages of six burgers or five sausages will retail for $8.99. Kutchcoski says the veal content is "small," but that it adds moisture to the low-fat emu meat, making the products easier to prepare.
Kutchcoski, who has reduced her emu population to 70 birds, down from 400 a few years ago, says the hardest part of getting the product onto the shelves is that "chain stores are big and we are small." CEMU plans in-store demonstrations of the products and hopes that 50 grocery stores will be carrying the burgers and sausages by the end of the summer.
Research into alternative ways of making the birds pay led to oil production, used in cosmetics and touted as a healing oil for burns, insect bites, diaper rash and other skin ailments. Kutchcoski says there is a hospital burn unit in the U.S. looking into the effectiveness of emu oil. Simmonds says oil production from ostrich is still in the experimental stage.
Gerrit Wolters, a Hunter River, PEI, farmer, thinks emu oil is a great product. He and his father, Jarig, use it on crushed cow teats in their 80-cow milking herd. The oil keeps them soft, provoking healing in about a week, Gerrit says. "We've saved some good cows with it."
But the oil wasn't sufficient to save the Wolters' 200-bird emu flock. The family got into the emu business five years ago. In addition to the dairy, they also have a 50-sow farrow-to-finish operation and are grateful they had other industries to keep money coming in. "If we didn't have that, we'd be broke."
The Wolters paid about $13,000 for breeding pair, put in pens and a hatchery, and eventually built a flock of up to 200 birds. Gerrit estimates the emu venture cost them about $100,000.
Today, all that remains is one breeding pair - "just for show," says Gerrit. "The bottom fell out of it overnight," he says. "We couldn't give the meat away." The Wolters butchered their birds and are trying to sell some of the meat at the farmgate, but aren't getting many takers at $5 a pound. "You have to charge more for the meat," he says. "It costs a lot more to raise them."
Kutchcoski says breeding is in a "holding pattern" for CEMU producers right now, just as it was two years ago. The birds are prolific, "and we haven't been able to establish a market as quickly as the birds can reproduce."
Kutchcoski is not willing to guesstimate when emu farming will turn the corner. "Two years ago, everyone thought we'd be up and running by now."
Asked where she expects the ostrich industry is going to be in
five years,
Simmonds says, "I'd like to know where the Canadian dollar is
going to be
in five years. Who knows?"
back
Child proofing the family farm
By JOHN MUGGERIDGE
Lambton county pork producers Joseph and Connie Van Aert have seen farming's dark side if anyone has. In October, 1996, their lives were shattered when Joseph found their four-year-old son Mark pinned, lifeless, beneath a concrete hog feeder on the farm. Then in November 1997, Connie's father and brother died of manure gas exposure.The Van Aerts are not the only farm parents to feel the pain of losing family members to farm accidents. Across North America, 100 farm children are killed and 100,000 are seriously injured every year as a result of incidents involving agricultural machinery, livestock, or falls. In Ontario, the Guelph-based Farm Safety Association reports three deaths of farm children under 16 in 1998, one involving a horse, one a tractor, and the third an empty ginseng bin.
Helping to stop the tragedy, while still allowing farm children and youth the rich and fulfilling side of growing up on the farm, is the goal of new child farm safety guidelines to be released in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico June 21.
"We still observe needless deaths and injuries every year," says William Pickett, part of a 10-member advisory team to draft 62 guidelines to help farm children safely perform routine farm tasks. Pickett, a PhD with the Centre for Injury Prevention and Research at Queen's University in Kingston, grew up on a farm himself, and stresses that the guidelines "are not meant to stop kids from being involved in work...[They] are meant to help parents and employers make sensible decisions about the children that they take care of on their farms.
"Work is a good and valued part of life for children growing up on the farm."
The comprehensive guidelines for children and youth aged 7-16 match the child's mental and physical maturity with common farm tasks in seven categories: animal care, manual labour, haying operations, implement operations, specialty production, tractor fundamentals and general activities.
In an illustrated calendar format to be pinned in the farm workplace, parents are asked a series of questions and given the potential dangers of the task, steps to do the job safely, age guidelines and recommended level of supervision. In a three-ring binder format, the kit is designed for additional information.
Hazards for feeding milk to calves, for instance, include slippery surfaces, weight of milk, hot water and animal contact. Questions for parents explore the level of the child's co-ordination, level of comfort with animals, attention span, and lifting ability. Any "No" answers indicate "Stop!" or "Caution!" Recommended age for this task under constant to intermittent supervision: 10 to 11 years of age.
While four-year-old Mark Van Aert's death was not work-related, his father Joseph sees some role for guidelines for child safety on the farm. Children develop at different rates, he says. And technology isn't what it used to be: He drove tractors as a kid, but today's large machines would be out of the question.
Van Aert says guidelines help, but in the end it comes down to the farm parent's personal judgment, whether it's a child safety issue or adult safety precautions such as masks and gloves.
Canadian adviser to the project, Manitoba-based Glen Blahey, adds that the guidelines provide a good "reality check" for parents who tend to "perceive their child as being slightly above average in intelligence and skills."
The three-year project to produce the guidelines was funded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in the U.S., with some funding from the Canadian Coalition for Agricultural Safety and Rural Health.
The comprehensive project had input from a team of 10, including three Canadians, as well as 150 advisers, including Canadian and U.S. farm parents, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, teen workers, agricultural safety specialists and child development specialists.
As well as farm parents, the guidelines are aimed at farm employers, farm safety specialists, youth groups, health professionals and media. Bob Allen, chairman of the Canadian Coalition for Agricultural Safety and Rural Health, which sponsored the Canadian advisers, stresses that the guidelines are "another tool for management of your operation...The key word is 'guidelines.'....The intent isn't to create rules and regulations."
The guidelines will be distributed in co-operation with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture: (613) 236-3633.
Cost will be kept to a minimum.
back