Canada cuts, U.S. watches
Federal Agriculture Minister Ralph Goodale will find himself
in a precarious position when the U.S. administration approves
the new seven-year Farm Bill.With the federal government facing an $540-billion debt, Goodale has been eager to help Finance Minister Paul Martin meet his deficit reduction targets. In the last two federal budgets, Goodale has added his consent to the dismantling of Western grain transportation, farm research cutbacks, an end to freight assistance for Northern and Eastern Canadian farmers, and a death-by-five-year-reduction sentence for the federal dairy subsidy.
Goodale has sold farmers his cash reduction plan by continually spouting his get-ready-for-world-trade mantra, armed with impressive figures showing farm exports steaming along on a pace to reach $23 billion annually by 2000.
This competitive rhetoric started two years ago when Goodale and government negotiators emerged from the GATT. Since then, the weakening of supply management and constant wrangling with U.S. grain farmers have proved nothing but a budget-cutting bonanza for federal bean counters.
After last month's federal budget Goodale told reporters he would be keeping a sharp eye on the U.S. Farm Bill "to make sure it does not constitute an unfair trading subsidy or policy."
As in Canada, U.S. politicians had intended to reform farm subsidies radically, planning to cut about US$20 billion from new farm legislation. But along the way, lawmakers lost their resolve to cut. The U.S. has committed US$47 billion to farmers over the next seven years, and now plans to save only about US$2 million. In February, the United States Department of Agriculture said that when all the numbers are crunched, the government could actually increase spending by US$2 billion.
The final numbers aren't in, but U.S. grain farmers can look forward to seven years of declining payments, regardless of how the markets perform. Corn producers will get up to US 27 cents a bushel from the government this year, despite near-record prices. That figure is due to increase to 52 cents in 1997, and then decline to US 28 cents a bushel by 2002. Thanks to high prices and low domestic stocks, the U.S is expected to spend only US$350 million on the Export Enhancement Program this year, but the cap remains high. If farmers need it, the U.S. administration will cough up as much as US$478 million in 2002 to get farm product into foreign markets.
So where does this leave you're-on-your-own-guys Goodale? He says he will continue pressure the U.S. to change its subsidizing ways, but that's little comfort for Canadian farmers.
He's in a bit of a pickle. After the GATT was struck before Christmas, 1993, Goodale, pushed by the finance department, bolted from the starting gate in the race to cut subsidies. Over two years later, he finds himself leading a race that no one else wants to win.
It's time for Goodale and the Canadian government to take off the blinkers and come back to the pack. If the reins aren't pulled tightly, Goodale and his finance friends will have an agriculture industry that's out of the race altogether.
Sans everything
One sure way to guarantee loss of output is to introduce job
security. The classic example of this is the post office
clerks who, contracted to work for 35 hours per week, only put
in some 12 hours actually attending to the work. From this
example, one can readily conclude that if provincial employees
gave an hour's work for an hour's pay, one would need only
one-third of the workers.
It is common knowledge that workers whose jobs are secure are
low producers. They have no incentive to work hard and no
penalty for slacking off. Everyone else around them is taking
things easy. In a successful society, job security is earned,
not a right.
It is regrettable that Canada has, for the last 30 years,
lacked the wit to look abroad to see that socialism, no matter
how or where practised, is for the birds. Without exception,
it has proven to be the parasite that has destroyed the energy
and will to succeed in every country that has unwittingly
embraced this warped ideology. The end result is that Canada,
once ranked fifth in the industrial nations of the world, has
now gained Third World status with one of the highest per
capita debts.
The 67,000 striking civil servants are funded by taxpayers. I
do not expect the unionists to appreciate the magnitude of the
problem which looms over the province. Premier Mike Harris is
taking the only steps that will save this province from
bankruptcy and, should his aims be thwarted, the unionists
will be able to loll in Ontario sans pay, sans medical, sans
U.I., sans pension, sans everything.
R.W. Ormerod
Kingston
Globe heats up
I was distressed by the coverage you gave the uninformed view
of apple grower Keith Matthie in the Feb. 27 issue. Mr.
Matthie cited some dubious pronouncements by Sheila Copps on
the costs of global warming, suggesting that she listened to
closely to "diehard environmentalists".
He went on to say that if we heard from scientists, we would
realize that there is no agreement on whether global warming
is occurring. He criticized a "United Nations computer model"
as being based on several fallacies and concluded that global
warming is fiction on which our gullible government spends
millions of dollars.
A recent issue of Delta, newsletter of the Canadian Global
Change Program (CGCP), contained two articles on global
change. The CGCP is managed by the Royal Society of Canada and
is funded by, amongst others, Environment Canada.
Here are some quotes:
"There is now strong scientific evidence that the greenhouse
gas emissions resulting from human actions will affect the
climate system. There is also some scientific evidence that
the current warming of the global atmosphere is being caused
by these human actions."
"Global mean surface temperature has increased by between 0.3
and 0.6 C since the late 19th century."
"For Canada, the greatest health impacts would probably be
concentrated in large, southern urban centres due to heat
stress, and more prolonged and intense smog episodes."
"Increased agricultural production on the Prairies is a
possibility provided adaptation measures are undertaken and
adequate rainfall occurs."
Coping with the effects of global warming will require major
shifts in attitude and behaviour on the part of Canadians and
the world's population.
John McRuer
Wellesley
Forgettable you
Regarding your article, 'Spray Course Isn't Scary', in the
March 12 issue, after taking the course last year, I agree.
But the scary part is that it keeps farmers away from work for
a nine-hour stretch around which many of us have to work a
minimum of eight hours of chores.
As I am one of the many people who have back problems that
barely allow us to continue farming, I found myself that night
getting out of bed to spend part of the night on the bathroom
floor because of muscles that were shot.
I'm at a loss to remember one thing from the course.
Art Perkins
Perth
Mad Cow fallout felt far from British shores
The uproar over mad cow disease in the U.K. has given new meaning to the term "the British disease". The term mad cow disease applies to the disease Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) wherein adult cattle suffer from progressive nervous system destruction.
The British health ministry suspects a link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) which affects one person per million every year in Canada and Britain. While BSE is epidemic in British cows, it isn't present in Canada. In 1993, Canada ordered the destruction of 363 animals and offspring. There were lawsuits and media stories over the inadequacy of compensation for the animals' owners.
Contrast this with the latest response to the health ministry position in Britain: Germany, France and many European Union countries banning British beef imports. France jumped on the chance to erect a non-tariff barrier to British beef even though some of its cattle have BSE.
And while the media ran large stories on BSE, the same day, the World Health Organization got scant media attention for predicting three million deaths this year from tuberculosis. Britain has destroyed over 150,000 cattle over the last 10 years to deal with the disease. But inadequate compensation to destroy diseased animals is now clearly seen as a mistake. Several undercurrents underlie this story. Politically, Britain has had problems with public disclosures about salmonella because of weak consumer groups, little litigation and few disclosure requirements. So the battle for increased consumer activism and new regulations just landed on the Tories' plate.
Labour has been handed a plum target while Conservative-voting farmers see their industry pilloried.
The media has been on alert for disease transmission from animal to human such as the Australian story of morbillivirus stalking and killing horses and humans. Why this focus? On the medical frontier looms the transplantation of animal organs or tissues to humans to prolong or improve human life.
The New England Journal of Medicine has expressed concern about an unpredictable human epidemic set off by the animal tissue transplants. There has been a lingering concern, never proven, that the 1917 world 'flu epidemic was set off by a virus leaping from pigs to humans. Three biotechnology companies are now working on using pig hearts for humans to offset the shortage of human organs.
The British disease has the potential to spread its impact far
from British shores.
Hugh Zimmer grows tobacco and corn in Oxford county.
Marketers of the '90s must cultivate customers
Is it possible to make a gross generalization about a group of people without being brought before the Politically Correct officials? Can I go so far as to say that, from where I sit, farmers seem to be a real ornery lot who really don't seem to like people?
Farmers don't even seem to like each other too much. The dairy farmers don't talk to the sheep farmers, who wouldn't dream of having a beer with a fruit grower. Getting farmers to form a marketing co-operative is like trying to get water and oil to mix - difficult.
But when it comes to customers, and customer relations, this character trait becomes a serious liability. A conversation with one of the farmers attending the winter symposium of Knives and Forks (a Toronto-based organization of chefs and organic farmers) was a real eye-opener. He is a sheep producer, also raising wild turkeys and chickens in Northumberland county. He would like to break into the restaurant market, but because of his attitude, it may be more difficult than he thinks. He seems to have got his story back to front. He has no plans to adapt his production to what the chefs want. By his account, the chefs should be adapting their menus to what he can provide.
Farmers have tried telling customers what they ought to want, and they've gotten away with it for a long time. They just can't do it any longer. It may seem unfair that the farmer is asked to be farmer, processor, trucker, marketer and advertiser, but as one chef at the conference said, this is the way of modern life. This chef runs his own restaurant, is both cook and businessman; he is building a network of chefs and farmers in the Chicago area, and is writing a book. He practises what he preaches.
Sandra Hainle, one of the keynote speakers at the symposium, was a wonderful ambassador for her Hainle Vineyards Estate Winery, in Peachland, British Columbia.
Hainle genuinely likes people, and this is the key to her success in business. She goes out of her way to attract people to the farm that she operates with her husband, Tilman. She calls it "relationship marketing" - in other words, having a retail store on the farm, and forming a direct relationship with her customers. "We build loyalty by dealing face to face with customers. We tell the story behind the wine. We let them know who the people are behind the bottles. We keep people hooked into what we are doing and cultivate them. This brings them back."
The Hainles are not only growing grapes and bottling wine. They are marketers and advertisers. They have a monthly newsletter that goes to "our valued customers". They attend festivals, and have tastings, wine seminars and dinners. And they even have catalogue-ordering for their customers' convenience.
If small farmers are to survive, they have to unite, with each
other and with their customers. Give customers what they want:
not only convenience, but a personal relationship with the
growers of the food they eat.
Dee Kramer writes on consumer issues.
Buzzard benefactors can clean my patio
A buzzard has been roosting under a chimney stack on the roof of our farmhouse for almost a year. The buzzard is a protected bird, and I'm sure he knows it.
I loathe the sight of him. His habits are disgusting. He spends each night regurgitating at one end and defecating at the other and every morning we have to sweep the splatters from our sun-deck.
To discourage the wretched bird I have fired warning shots across his bow, tied balloons and an assortment of coloured tins near his perch and dangled a stuffed parrot on the guttering below. But all in vain; as dusk falls each evening he flies back to his chosen perch to stare down his patrician nose as I wave and shout from below. He know now that I am all bark and no bite.
When this protected predator is wheeling overhead, song birds, doves and pigeons disappear from the surrounding fields and our normal busy bird-life is suspended as they take cover in trees and hedgerows. But alas, they don't all make it; their numbers are decreasing and the feathered remains of those too slow to react are scattered around for all to see.
There is, of course, a balance in nature and I suspect that for thousands of years man has been the fulcrum. Without his interference many predators would have decimated their quarries and become extinct themselves as their food source dwindled. Now, however, under the supervision of myriad well-meaning societies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the World Wildlife Fund, the balance of nature has been subverted and only too often the results have been disastrous.
Nothing, it seems, pleases the media more than an ecological horror story and, as their preference is to turn natural history into a series of children's fairy tales, it seems remarkable that Disney's Mickey Mouse hasn't given rise to a Rodent Protection Society.
Judging by the scattered remains on our sun-deck, our local
field mice must be working hard to reproduce their species, a
feat that rodents, of course, are better at than song birds.
Nevertheless, it does seem that love is in the air at
Riversdale Crayfish. I recently saw the buzzard wheeling
overhead with a new mate. I only hope they don't decide to
settle down on the other side of our chimney pot and raise a
family.
Ken Richards raises sheep and crayfish in Dorset, U.K.
Maple Leaf losses. Maple Leaf Foods has reported a
$43.7-million loss for fiscal 1995 compared to a $75.7-million
profit in 1994. The drop to a 52-cent-per-share loss from a
94-cent-per-share profit in 1994 is linked to a $97.7-million
restructuring charge and higher interest rates, the company
says. For the 1995 fourth quarter, the three-month period
ending Dec. 31, 1995, Maple Leaf reported a 36-per-cent drop
in operating profit. The company blamed poor results from its
prepared meats section and poultry business for the decline.
Overall, fourth-quarter profits fell from $40.7 million in
1994 to $26.2 million. Sales for the quarter fell to $771.7
million, a 16-per-cent decrease.
All for one in Niagara. Niagara's corn, soybean and wheat producers have agreed to consolidate their three groups and form the Niagara Commodity Council. Late last month, producers from each board agreed to work together to create a stronger, more efficient operation. The council's six-member executive will include two representatives from each commodity. Norm Gill and Ron Steele will represent corn producers; Lenny Aarts and Bill Loeffen will represent soybean growers; and Helmut Rempel and Henry Dyck will represent wheat producers. Secretary-treasurer is Barb Henderson.
It's been a year since CKCO TV Kitchener broadcaster David
Imrie lost his weekly half-hour Country Life farm program. The
transition for the former full-time farm broadcaster has been
a bit of a learning experience.
He no longer has his daily 3.5-minute farm spot at noon, but
Imrie says he nevertheless manages to get in some farm
stories, such as the Agricultural Adaptation Corp. meeting in
Mississauga late last month.
He says in some ways he's actually freer to do more in-depth
farm coverage.
Perhaps the biggest culture shock came when he was assigned to
cover a training session put on by the local fire department,
involving donning an asbestos suit, entering a training
chamber, and experiencing a "flash-over", with real-live fire,
and creosote dripping down.
What was a nice farm reporter doing in a place like that?
Acronyms (technically only initials forming a word, such as
GRIP) were once the private domain of the bureaucracy, but now
it seems everyone's an acronymoholic. And with only 26 letters
in the alphabet there's bound to be some confusion.
Take the following sentence, for instance: The farmer went
down to the ACC office to borrow some money from the AAC, but
he should have gone to the ACC. Translation: The farmer went
down to the Agricultural Commodity Council office to borrow
some money from the Agricultural Adaptation Corporation, but
he should have gone to the Agricultural Commodity Corporation.
To make things even more confusing, the ACC, the other AAC,
and the ACC are all at the same address: 90 Woodlawn Rd. W.,
Guelph.
As Peanuts cartoon character Lucy Van Pelt says whenever
Snoopy licks her face - AAACK!
Speaking of acronyms, the people at that well-known acronym
PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - weren't
too happy recently when another PETA group - People Eating
Tasty Animals - launched a web site on the World Wide Web. The
second PETA says its web site is a "resource for those who
enjoy eating meat, wearing fur and leather, hunting and the
fruits of scientific research," Kevin Grier, author of the
agriculture ministry's PDR notes, reports.
The PETA petters are trying to persuade the PETA eaters to
change the name of their web site.
The U.S. National Cattlemen's Association has come under fire
recently for paying out thousands of cattlemens' dollars to
have a New York firm spy on reporters. The objective: find out
which reporters eat steak. Vegetarian reporters, it seems,
aren't good for business.
One of the research companies hired by the association - the
Carma International group - charged the U.S. Energy department
US$46,500 for generating a similar list.
It would have been cheaper just to ask.