Ag Day in Canada

January 23, 2008 was the first Ag Day in Canada, presented by Farm Credit Canada (FCC). 

Members of the agricultural sector gathered in more than 100 communities across Canada yesterday to hear forecasts for the coming year from industry leaders.  I attended the session at the Italian Canadian Club in Guelph, Ontario.

Federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, Gerry Ritz, opened the session with a recorded message, promising that he is “committed to putting farmers first in every decision made”.

Greg Stewart, president and CEO of FCC, also made a virtual presentation, emphasizing FCC’s committment to the sector and its participants. 

Supporting ongoing success and, more specifically, encouraging young people to remain interested and involved in the sector was made evident through an FCC donation of $85,000 to the Canadian 4-H Council.  The Ontario council will receive $12,000 of that donation to support activities for members, ages 10 to 21. 

Topics of interest throughout the day included alternative fuels, land values, grain & oilseed marketing, and farm safety.  Industry experts, through pre-recorded videos, talked about the current situation and where we can expect to go in the near future.

The day was definitely geared to producers, which may have disappointed those in attendance who are involved in other businesses within the sector.  The advanced material talked about celebrating Canadian agriculture which seemed a broader scope than the day ended up being.

The session was really well organized and executed, with Kevin Stewart of AgVision TV doing a tremendous job narrating the various video segments.  Kudos to FCC for their wide-spread effort in highlighting the sector’s importance.

Food Fight: Global versus Local

Consumers in the Kingston area, calling themselves the ‘Food Down the Road community council’, have decided that simply supporting local foods isn’t enough. According to an article in the January 8th Ontario Farmer, they want a formal policy that ensures ‘governments, local institutions and businesses, through policy and practice, become champions for local farmers and eaters’

This is a grand plan, but even participants admit they’re ‘not quite sure how they’re going to get there’. I’m glad to hear it. I think local food proponents, or ‘locavores’ started with a good idea, and they have the ‘act locally’ part nailed. However, I don’t hear them talking about the ‘think globally’ part of the equation nearly enough, so we need to slow the bandwagon down.

It’s easy to point out countless areas of the world in which this local food craze just doesn’t work, but we don’t have to travel that far. In my home town in Northern Ontario, a local food plan means lots of protein…and not much else. Frankly, I’d miss things like grains, fruits, and dairy products, unless of course I bought a cow, which would be a radical idea.

And speaking of radical, Joel Stein, a contributor to Time magazine, recently illustrated the extremes he feels ‘locavores’ are pushing toward with a brilliant, opposing plan: preparing a ‘distavore’ meal. In his January 10th column, Extreme Eating, Stein explained the idea, noting that nothing he purchased to prepare for the meal was produced within 3,000 miles of his home. Not an easy task, considering that he lives in Los Angeles and, as he notes, ‘farmers in Southern California, it seems, can grow anything’. To add insult to injury, Stein bought everything at Whole Foods, the store he refers to as ‘the local-food movement’s most treasured supermarket, the one that has huge locally grown signs next to the fruits and vegetables’.

It’s a drastic approach for putting things into perspective, but I think it works. How can we fail to see that there are people who don’t have the same options we do, and who need to share the riches that we take for granted? The local-food movement is quick to talk about what the Kingston group called ‘an ecologically and economically sustainable local food system’ which they see as ‘essential to a vital, healthy, food secure community’. But are they sure about those benefits? Is there scientific evidence that locally grown fare is healthier or safer than the alternative? As for the environment, there is growing evidence that food produced safely and efficiently in one part of the world, and shipped to other regions, is far more energy efficient than the items we pick up on weekend trips to farmers’ markets in our Hummers and Lincoln Navigators.

The Food Down the Road group is committed to a ‘system that promotes human dignity and community food security, with fair access to healthy and appropriate foods for all citizens’. What they don’t seem to realize is that this is the perfect argument for a global food strategy, one in which countries with an overabundance of resources can readily provide for those who don’t have enough to feed their families. Let’s be careful about demanding policies that suit few and ignore many. While supporting local fare when we can, lets make sure our blinders don’t prevent us from seeing things globally.

The value of agricultural research

There are significant differences between private and public agricultural research, and the funding required to sustain these efforts.  In the end, however, the resulting benefits create the value.

Private research is more easily directed by vested interest, as the funding is internal to the company or companies involved, and the desired outcome may have already been determined.  If that sounds like a slam against the process, I don’t mean it to be.  I have seen enough first-hand evidence of the social and environmental responsibility held by chemical and seed manufacturers to know that their research isn’t just a matter of dollar signs.

Public research, however, is endowed with a greater responsibility to sponsors, including government, to ensure that public interest is served by the research and its results.  It also means that measuring the benefit of funding is necessary in order to prove the value of ongoing investment in innovation.

In December 2007, the University of Guelph released a report, prepared by Deloitte and Touche LLP, which measured the annual return on investment of their 10-year research funding relationship with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.  Since 2006, the ministry has provided the university with approximately $54 million a year.  The university manages those funds to provide agricultural research and development, and educational programs.  Deloitte calculated the annual return to be $1.15 billion, which is a 20:1 benefit – cost ratio.

This endeavour to quantify the economic impact of research funding is an admirable attempt to make the process transparent.  Although the results are likely on the extreme high side, due to the data from previous studies used for the assessment, this is not a simple calculation to take on, so kudos for the effort.  Some review may be required as it is vitally important that the numbers stand up to rigourous examination, especially when publishing the results, as someone will always question the measurement’s validity. 

The university’s openness in accounting for those research dollars, and in highlighting the return on investment of public funds as well as the need for continued agricultural research is commendable.

With environmental and health concerns what they are today, agricultural research can, and in the future likely will, impact everyone on the planet.  That, in itself, is justification for funding socially beneficial research such as enhancing a crop’s yield potential, preventing disease in livestock, developing alternative uses for plants, and improving food production processes.  The long term benefits seem clear.

Next on the Menu…Cloned Meat and Milk

It seems the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will soon be approving meat and milk from cloned animals for human consumption.  (The products will more likely come from offspring of clones, as clones themselves are used for breeding purposes.)  In addition, they will not require that food products from clone offspring be labeled as such, so consumers won’t know which is which.

It has only been 12 years since the birth of Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal.  Is that enough time to have produced more animals, studied the effects of the cloning process, and determined whether food from the offspring of these animals is safe for human consumption? 

Time is one of the critical factors in researching and replicating test results in order to be sure of the findings.  Let’s hope that Health Canada takes considerably more time than their southern counterparts in allowing these food products to hit store shelves.

If I do reach the point where I’m ready to chase a replicated T-bone with a cold glass of fresh-from-a-clone milk, I’d like the food labels to indicate that choice.

Stevia’s Appeal

Melissa, a classmate of mine, mentioned stevia to me a few months ago and I was really in the dark, not knowing what it was.  Now, everywhere I turn people are talking or writing about it.  So what is it, and what can it do?

Stevia is a plant, a member of the sunflower family.  It’s been growing in South and Central America for centuries and it just happens to work as a substitute for sugar.  In fact, it is almost 300 times sweeter than sugar and has no calories.  How great is that?

Well, not so great that it has been approved as a food additive in North America or Europe…yet.  Caution seems to be the catchphrase.  Agriculture and Agri-food Canada is growing stevia at test sites, and sees its potential as an alternative crop, but Health Canada hasn’t jumped on the bandwagon. 

Despite being used in herbal remedies in its native region, and in several food and beverage products in Japan, we won’t be adding stevia to our coffee anytime soon.  There are too many health concerns to be overcome before we start consuming it on a broad scale.

That hasn’t stopped Cargill and Coca-Cola from teaming up to create a stevia product called Rebiana that will be used in foods and beverages.  They’ve also partnered with GLG Life Tech to build new stevia processing plants in China.  This is some serious investing for a product that isn’t even approved.

And yet, if you don’t feel like waiting for Health Canada to come through with registration, you can buy stevia now and add it to foods and beverages yourself.  Believe it or not, there is a company called Stevia Canada that offers all sorts of stevia products:  soap, herbal capsules, healing cream, sweetener for hot and cold beverages, and even the seeds so that commercial growers can grow stevia themselves.

I think I’ll hold out for a while and see what the researchers find.  In the meantime, what about other uses for the plant?  Melissa thought stevia might be a great alternative source for biofuel and she could be right.  We’ll have to wait and see.

2007 Word of the Year – Locavore?

The 2007 word of the year, chosen by the Oxford University Press, is locavore.  This is quite impressive for a word that is barely three years old. 

Locavore was coined by a group of people in San Francisco who are dedicated to eating food that comes from within a 100 mile radius of home.  They even have their own website with guidelines and recipes.

Supporting local food is not a bad thing.  It makes sense to buy fresh fruits and vegetables when they are available.  But they’re not available locally all year long, at least not where I live.  And not every region in the world can produce everything needed to sustain the local population.  There are also regions that produce far more than they can consume locally, so they export.  Should they stop producing more than they need for their own consumption, or does it make sense to share that wealth of resources with others? 

There is always more than one way to get something done.  We have responsibilities, social, environmental, and economic, that should allow us to work together, but there always seems to be a desire to group together and throw insults at others who see things differently.  Have we proved, conclusively, that local foods are more economical and environmentally friendly than imports?  Not by a long shot, looking at just one example:

New Zealand lamb is raised in pastures covered with clover.  The process of shipping lamb 11,000 miles over water to Britain produces 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton.  Large number?  Not when you find out that lamb raised in Britain produces 6,280 pounds per ton.  How can it be four times more energy efficient to purchase lamb raised half way around the world?  Simple.  British pastures are not clover-rich so farmers must purchase feed which adds processing and transportation to the equation.  Environmentally sound decisions require much thought and are not always as simple as you might think. 

In fact, nothing is ever as cut and dried as it seems.  This brings me to another word that is now much maligned and, in fact, used negatively rather than generically.  Agribusiness is simply the business of agriculture, from farm to fork.  If you own a family farm and you sell your crop or livestock, you are in business.  So are seed suppliers, chemical manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers.  Working together to get products from producers to consumers is what’s known as a supply chain. 

However, somewhere along the way it became convenient to use agribusiness as a disparaging description of “corporate” farming.  Let’s get real!  We live in a global community, not a vacuum.  There are ups and downs in every business and, for some, the downs lead to the exit.  Not everyone will succeed, but the small farm is not destined for extinction yet.  Good management means finding market opportunities that allow farms of all sizes to run efficiently and profitably. 

Let’s make the words for 2008 cooperate and collaborate (and, as Owen says, graduate).

Sweet Substitute in Ethanol Production

There is no shortage of commentary on the good, the bad, and the ugly of ethanol.  For corn producers – good.  For livestock producers – bad.  Those with opposing views are busy attacking the integrity and credibility of their foes – ugly.

While this war of words rages on, scientists at North Carolina State University are focused on a potentially sweet alternative to corn in producing ethanol - the industrial sweet potato. 

Whereas ethanol from corn causes an increase in food prices, the industrial sweet potato will not have any impact.  And, since it isn’t the sweet potato you buy in the grocery store, there won’t be an uproar over diverting a food source to a fuel source. 

According to Craig Yencho, lead researcher on the project, “these are not your grandmother’s sweet potatoes.  The industrial sweet potato is edible, but not palatable.”  That’s because the high starch content takes away the sweetness.  This root vegetable’s starch content, almost double that of corn, is what makes it so attractive as a source of ethanol.

The problem right now is the cost of production.  Planting by hand is a costly endeavour.  If researchers can develop a way to plant them mechanically, like regular potatoes, then production costs drop and this alternative becomes, well, sweet.

Wouldn’t it be great to see those involved in all sides of the ethanol debate admit that there are concerns, and focus on solving problems?  In the meantime, kudos to these, and other researchers, who are seeking viable alternatives.

AC Barrie is Seed of the Year

Researchers at Agriculture and Agri-food Canada were acknowledged Wednesday when AC Barrie, a hard red spring wheat variety was named Seed of the Year.  In a ceremony at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair on Wednesday, the wheat variety overcame competition from white bean, peach, and barley varieties.

Seed of the Year is a competition designed to highlight Canadian public research and development of seed for field crops, forages, fruits, vegetables, and herbs. 

The program, designed by SeCan and the University of Guelph, and the recognition it brings to public breeding programs is about to become more important than ever before. 

The fall issue of Top Crop Manager includes an article on the shortage of breeders in North America.  It seems that the number of people taking part in both public and private sector breeding programs is falling rapidly, and may indeed become a crisis in the very near future.

The article suggests that government funding has become a challenge as other areas of spending have taken precedence, so the challenge of attracting new breeders has fallen onto the shoulders of researchers at universities in Canada and the US. 

Kudos to those already involved in the field for their determination in creating plant breeding programs, and their efforts to ensure funding for these advanced education opportunities.  And congratulations to those who created Seed of the Year, for encouraging continued excellence in Canadian public plant breeding.

I, the consumer

The American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund just released a report warning that people with extra body fat have a higher risk of cancer.  That would be me.  As well, those who eat red meat should be concerned.  Again, me.  Those who consume alcohol aren’t safe either.  Okay, there is nowhere for me to hide.

Reports are released to the media and, especially in this case, receive a great deal of coverage.  Those who rebut the findings, like the organizations involved in the production and processing of these “threatening” products react, and people say they are being defensive.  Of course they are, and rightly so. 

Then we end up with some people taking drastic measures to change their lifestyles, and others who yawn and turn to the next news item.  What do I, the consumer, need to know in order to make informed decisions about what’s safe and what’s not?  Where do I find the information that will help me decide?

Not everyone has the same pool of resources to draw from, so many are at a disadvantage when it comes to learning more.  The web is a great tool, but when does a tool become a weapon?  Is it when readers can’t discern a reliable source from a questionable one?  Are we skeptical when information comes from someone we feel has a vested interest in a topic?

Back to the cancer report for a minute:  Has anyone thought to ask whether genetic predispostions, lifestyles, pre-existing conditions, environment, stress level or myriad other concerns exacerbate the risk of cancer?  What about using moderation as a guide.  There are a lot of naturally occurring substances that can be toxic at a certain level, but we use common sense to protect ourselves from risk, don’t we?

Here is another prime example of an unbalanced issue:  The push to ban cosmetic pesticides from municipalities in order to protect citizens, especially children.  It is a growing concern, but who is causing it to be so?  Special interest groups who base their opinions on emotion, rather than science? 

The Ontario Green Party claims that the risks of pesticides outweigh the benefits.  Several health organizations agree, but what conclusive results are they basing their opinions on?

Then, we have manufacturers of these products trying to balance the equation and they are accused of having ulterior motives like profit.  This is a rather ignorant accusation.  These people are consumers too, they have families, and they are very well educated.  They are governed by a strict set of standards and tests that measure the safety of the products before they ever reach the store shelf.  A great educational tool available to consumers comes in DVD format, and was produced by Syngenta Crop Protection Canada.  It contains easy to understand information on the risks and benefits of manufactured pesticides.  The DVD, titled “Primer on Pesticides: What do we really know about them?” has already been sent to schools, and to municipalities currently debating the cosmetic pesticide ban. 

The one factor that seems to me to be out of control is the person buying the product and using it incorrectly.  Yes, the human factor is the biggest problem we face in this debate.  People buy a pesticide, take it home, and start spraying.  I’ve seen them in shorts and T-shirts, in bare feet, and puffing away on a cigarette while they’re at it.  Guess what, products have a label for a reason.  The label lists the ingredients, the approved method of application, the rate at which it should be applied, and the conditions under which it should be used.  The greater danger than the product is the person holding the bottle.

Don’t take things at face value.  Take the time to ask questions, get involved, learn more.  It is your right as a consumer to do so.  Don’t allow yourselft to be railroaded into something, or have control over your own property taken away when it doesn’t need to be. 

For the Love of Beer

Beer drinkers – now there’s a group that should be interested in what’s happening with Canadian agriculture.  After all, the value chain is a relatively short one, barley growers to malters to brewers to retailers to consumers. 

So, educating beer drinkers about the importance of continued success for grain growers in Canada seems to make sense.  If dairy farmers can “rap”sodize about drinking milk, why not involve malt barley growers in campaigns directed at beer lovers.  Better barley = better beer could work.

The campaign would also be fitting in international markets, especially China, the land of future opportunities for Canadian exports.  According to Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, China is the largest producer and consumer of beer, and importer of malting barley, in the world.  And Canada just happens to be one of the top three exporters of malting barley to China, along with Australia and the EU.  In fact, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development estimates that Canadian malting barley exports will increase to over two million tonnes by 2011 and China will account for almost 50% of those exports.  Whether we’re talking about supplying major or microbrewers, there are significant opportunities on the horizon for Canadian barley producers. 

So, the next time you raise a frosted mug of ale at your local pub, remember to thank a barley grower.  I’m sure the gratitude is mutual.