Snaring support

With snaring wiped from their predator-prevention arsenal with the passing of the new Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (Bill 139), provincial livestock commodity groups fear an explosion in Ontario's eastern coyote pop ulation.

Characterizing the act's Section 132 as showing "total disregard for the farming community," the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency (OSMA) and the Ontario Cattlemen's Association (OCA) are calling for a minimum quarter-million dollar annual investment in a predation management program over the next five years.

The proposal includes continued funding for a predation information officer's salary and expenses, and money for producer and public education, producer assistance for the purchase of guard animals and fencing, and hourly wages for 10 part-time trappers who, as agents of the Crown or awarded scientific collectors permits, can legally use snares.

OSMA chairman Ralph Stephen says the proposal is a "shut up and go away" document, in essence carrying on provincial predation officer Doug Johnston's work of the past 18 months on about 30 farms in heavy predation areas, and giving livestock producers a leg up. "It's very cost-effective for the government," Stephen says, adding implementation should ultimately reduce compensation costs. While official 1998 OMAFRA figures aren't yet available, OCA manger of special projects Peter Doris predicts coyote compensation will amount to about $500,000 - some $150,000 below '97 levels and way down from the decade's high of nearly $800,000 in 1995. Both Stephen and Doris credit the decreasing costs to Johnston's program, which has succeeded in spite of increasing coyote numbers in southern Ontario.

Johnston's approach has combined various fencing options with guard animals and snaring. The latter, he says, is key to any predation prevention success: "Eliminating it is like taking a hammer out of a carpenter's hand." There are options to snaring, Johnston says, but they're unsavoury to both Ontario producers and animal welfare types: "In Alberta and in the U.S. there's been some success with the protection collars that are fitted with bladders filled with poison. The coyote goes for the neck, swallows the poison and dies. The method truly defines sacrificial lamb in that producers have to leave the collared animals out on pasture. My experience with Ontario producers tells me they simply care too much for their animals to deliberately expose them to that kind of death."

Like many others, Johnston puzzles over the snaring ban. He says it can be a very selective tool, allowing a farmer or trapper to target specific animals based on their range and patterns. "Hunting, by contrast," he says, "is very non-selective. Not all coyotes kill livestock; provided they have enough alternatives around in groundhogs or other small animals, they may ignore farm animals. So in hunting coyotes randomly, you might kill an animal that doesn't take down livestock and subsequently find a predator coyote moves in to the vacated range."

Doris and Stephen characterize the two or three meetings they've had with OMAFRA higher-ups as productive. Bill Mantel, though seconded to the health ministry from OMAFRA for the past few months, says the proposal is one of the ag issues "I've kept my finger in the pie on," but wouldn't commit to a yea or nay date on it.

Livestock producers can take heart in Agriculture Minister Noble Villeneuve's vow to reintroduce snaring: "As a government, we were very strong on snaring. I think some interest groups got to the MNR people and we didn't get that provision in the bill. But we're not through with this." - Richard Charteris

© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.


back

GMOs tough to segregate

Corn growers who think that Europe's ban of a couple of dozen biotech hybrids won't affect them might want to talk to their canola-growing cousins on the Prairies.

In 1994, Canada sold 1.1 million tonnes of canola to Europe. Because of Europe's ban on genetically modified (GMO) canola, however, exports have dropped 90 per cent.

Ontario's corn industry is hoping that it can keep the handful of target GMO hybrids out of any flow to processors who sell to Europe. That would give millers including Casco the confidence to continue buying Ontario crop.

The canola industry has found segregation doesn't work, says Dale Adolphe, manager of the Canola Council of Canada. Instead, the canola industry has given up any short-term hope of selling across the Atlantic.

Europe has bought Canadian canola since the 1980s, Adolphe reports. Volumes have bounced up and down based on market fundamentals, including the size of the European rapeseed crop.

This year, Canada should have had a shot at selling Europe at least 400,000 tonnes of canola. In fact, it will sell essentially none. And, says Adolphe, it probably won't sell any next year or the year after, since Europe continues to drag its feet over the licensing of bio-engineered canola.

Canola growers could re-capture those sales if they could set up a segregation system that would let them keep non-GMO canola separate from modified crop. "It wouldn't work, especially for bulk shipment," Adolphe says. "There's too much chance for contamination."

The canola industry has rushed into GMO-enhanced varieties with three special traits, including Roundup Ready, Liberty Link and GMO hybrids that boost yield potential by 20 per cent and more. The Canadian industry's policy is to license the genes once they get approved by regulators in Canada, the U.S., Mexico and Japan. Waiting for Europe to approve the traits, Adolphe says, would keep vital new agronomics out of the hands of growers for too long.

So far, Adolphe believes the impact on canola prices has been small. Canada has stepped up its exports to China by more than enough to offset the loss of European sales. Still, Adolphe says, "If we had another buyer bidding for our crop, it would be good for prices."

Segregating GMO from non-GMO crops on-farm is simple, he says. To keep the non-GMO crop pure all the way to market, however, would take a system of country elevators, rail cars, terminal elevators and cargo holds, plus a maze of conveyor belts and transfer legs, that had been perfectly cleaned and kept absolutely GMO-free.

"We might be able to move small quantities in containers," Adolphe says. "Bulk shipment is out of the question."

In Ontario, Brian Doidge, economist for the Ontario Corn Producers Association, says the industry is hoping segregation will work. He agrees, however, that it will be a challenge.

"Knowing what hybrid you planted in every field is only the start," Doidge says. "The elevator is also going to want to know that you've kept the crop absolutely pure every step of the way. That's a tall order." - Tom Button

© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.


back

Beef countervail a bust

With the threat of a countervail being imposed by Canada's largest beef trading partner out of the way, producers in Ontario can get on with other things, such as putting breeder finance clubs into action.

Beef farmers here have been lobbying for provincial breeder finance clubs so that more calves can be raised and sold to the feedlot industry.

Feeder finance clubs are a big boost to the Ontario cattle industry. Proponents think there is no reason why a breeder finance club couldn't do the same thing. But the province has been using the threat of countervail from the U.S. as a reason to put the breeder finance program on ice.

The feeder clubs were being targeted as a possible subsidy to producers in a U.S. Department of Commerce investigation of the Canadian beef industry.

Members of the Ranchers-Cattlemen's Action Legal Fund (R-CALF) petitioned Commerce last fall to put a countervail in place against Canadian cattle imports, claiming that they were depressing prices. Early May, the U.S. government ruled there was insufficient evidence to impose countervailing tariffs against imports of live beef cattle worth about $1.3 billion annually. A final decision on this issue will be made later this year.

Dennis Laycraft, Canadian Cattlemen's Association executive director, said the news on the countervail was heartening. There is still concern about a separate anti-dumping investigation, with a ruling due in June. Laycraft says the rules on "anti-dumping" are less clear than those on countervail and are therefore more worrisome.

Provincial government support for the breeder finance co-ops is the backbone of their existence. The Ontario government provides a 25 per cent loan guarantee behind $55 million worth of bank loans, and sets regulations in place governing the co-ops' operations. Otherwise, the banks would not provide the loans, says Carm Hamilton, the Ontario Cattlemen's Association's feeder co-op supervisor.

Except for administration costs, in almost a decade of use the co-ops haven't cost the government a cent, says Hamilton. - Don Stoneman

© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.


back

La belle budget

While Ontario's 60,000 farmers got $370 million in the recent budget handed down by Treasurer Ernie Eves, their 40,000 counterparts in Quebec enjoy greater largesse.

Last month, MAPAQ, the Quebec agriculture, fisheries and food ministry, delivered a $530-million budget, of which $510 million goes to farmers, or $13,000 per farmer. Ontario comes in at $6,200 per farmer.

About on par with last year, the Quebec ag budget calls for a $14-million increase in farm aid assistance, $1 million more in research and $3.6 million more in farm finance programs due to a rise in interest rates and higher loans, according to Quebec farm weekly Terre de Chez Nous.

Stabilization insurance spending in Quebec will actually drop $26 million due to the federal goverment's $110-million Quebec portion of the national disaster aid program. - Staff

© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.


back

Disaster relief changes sought

Farm leaders are taking aim at the federal government's Agricultural Income Disaster Assistance (AIDA) in hopes of getting changes approved during July's federal-provincial agriculture ministers' meeting.

Despite extensive dialogue between farm leaders and government in the months before the program was unveiled, Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Bob Friesen says, "At the end of the day they simply ignored us."

In Ontario, where some farmers have maintained payouts were influenced more by which accountant completed the application than need, it is possible some relief-money recipients may have to return money if a new round of paperwork for the federal program reveals information previously submitted was manipulated.

David Hope, OMAFRA director of policy analysis, says final details of the federal program weren't known when the provincial program was announced by Agriculture Minister Noble Villeneuve last December on an interim basis to get money to cash strapped farmers quickly with the minimum paperwork.

Ontario farmers won't have to complete the lengthy federal application to qualify for the federal portion of the program, but they will have to submit a four-page supplemental form based on income tax. It is expected to make it more difficult to manipulate data; it will also facilitate an audit officials have planned for those who've already received a cheque.

"I don't believe that there have been a lot of problems with manipulation, but we'll certainly give every application a thorough examination to preserve the integrity of the program," promises Hope.

To date, almost 3,000 farmers have applied for assistance under the provincial program. By end of April, 1,800 cheques worth $15 million had been mailed.

A key CFA sore point is government's rejection of negative margins, which the national farm organziation says makes 10,000 farmers ineligible this year. "When does a person need help more than when they've developed a negative margin in a loss year?" challenges Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) vice-president Ken Kelly.

CFA has called on the federal government to accept wages paid to family members who are issued a T4 slip as an expense. The group also charges the government is wrong to link AIDA to the NISA Program.

CFA calculates the linkage reduces the money farmers receive by 15 per cent. They also say it unfairly rewards farmers in Alberta and New Brunswick, who don't participate in NISA, undermining the program.

Hope says farmers can expect a 30 per cent hold back on any funds owed under the federal portion of the program. If the $900 million allocated by the federal government for its share over two years is inadequate, payments to farmers for the federal portion will eventually be pro rated on a reduced basis.

OFA has fought hard against funding caps and pro rated payments for disaster programs, Kelly relates. He reasons workers collecting employment insurance don't face caps or pro rated payments, so when disaster strikes neither should farmers.

Anxious to maximize access to foreign markets, officials haven't provided a breakdown of how much money is being paid to producers in each commodity. Hope stresses "it's a whole farm program; it's not based on any one commodity."

He says following an initial pessimistic outlook, many farmers have been surprised that they qualify. He emphasizes the program is new and "it's not a program to send cheques to everyone whether there is need or not." - Robert Irwin

© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.


back

Ontario has largest farm population

While Canada's farming population continues to decline, the rate of attrition has slowed since the mid-1980s according to Statistics Canada, which late April released its third and final report on the 1996 Census of Agriculture.

A quarter of the population - 3.2 million people - lived on Canada's 732,800 farms in 1941. The 1996 Census of Agriculture reports 851,400 people (three per cent of the population) living on 276,500 farms. Farm population declined 5.6 per cent between 1986 and 1991; decline fell to 1.7 per cent 1991-1996.

Ontario's farm population numbered 221,200 - largest of any province - but accounted for only two per cent of the province's total population. The highest share of farm population was reported in Saskatchewan, where 15 per cent is engaged in agriculture.

Farm families are getting smaller and older, the census indicates. Between 1971 and 1996, the average farm family fell to 3.4 persons from 4.3. During the same period, family size in the general population declined to 3 from 3.7. In 1971, 40 per cent of farm families had at least five members; by 1996, just 22 per cent of farms had that many.

In 1971, 5.9 per cent of the farm population was over age 65. Between 1991 and 1996, over-65s rose to 8.3 from 7.6 per cent.

Total income of families on non-incorporated farms averaged $53,121, a 3.6 per cent increase from 1990 after adjusting for inflation. Average income for families in the general population was $54,562, a 4.9 per cent decline over the five-year period. - Staff

© copyright 1999 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.


back