The Rural Voice, 1983-10, Page 36Drop in today
TE -EM FARM
Farm Market & Greenhouses
Ted & Emma Vander Wouden
Pick Your Own
Tomatoes
Cauliflower
A Targe selection
of fresh vegetables
for freezing & preserving
R.R. 1, Bayfield 482-99409 a.m, to dusk
Sat. & Sun. 9-6 p.m.
13th Production Sale
MA\IMt M GENETICS
FOR
M4\IM( M PROFIT
Thursday, Oct. 13
1:30 p.m.
Stratford Fairgrounds
50 Bred Gilts • 50 Open Gilts
30 Boars
We are offering a superior group of Ox-
ford Hybrids & Purebred Landrace bred
& open Gilts plus Purebred & cross
bred Boars
WE ARE THE BRED GILT
SPECIALISTS
Our gilts for this sale are due to farrow
Oct., Nov. and early Dec.
HYBRID
SWINELId.
Murray Junker
R.R. 1,
Tavistock
519-462-2580
Peter Baxter
R.R. 3,
Tillsonburg
519-842-3225
PG 34 THE RURAL VOICE. OCTOBER
1983
The Energy Pie
The results of Statistics Canada's
Farm Energy Use Survey were releas-
ed in publication form last month and
they support what most of us have
long suspected - that there are very
real differences in the way the energy
pie is divided in the various regions in
Canada.
The energy bill for operating a
farm in one of Canada's prairie pro-
vinces was $14 per hectare in 1981,
while farmer in central Canada spent
over three times that amount -- $47
per hectare.
On the surface, it appears that the
eastern farmer is paying dearly for his
piece of the agricultural energy pie.
However, the results from the survey
show that prairie farmers suffer
under the impact of rising energy
costs more than farmers in eastern
and central Canada for a variety of
reasons.
Prairie farmers consume 62 per
cent of the total energy used by Cana-
dian farmers, which is consistent with
the fact that about 60 per cent of far-
ming activity in this country is done
in the prairies. Prairie farms are also
much larger than farms elsewhere in
Canada. The average Prairie farm is
almost 400 hectares in size, while the
average farm in central Canada is on-
ly slightly over 90 hectares. Farms in
British Columbia average under 20
hectares.
This wide discrepancy in size is due
not only to the amount of agricultural
land available but also to the dif-
ferent types of farms in operation in
these areas. Prairie farms are primari-
ly wheat and small -grain farming
operations (60010) and cattle farms
(20010) -- large farming operations.
Central and Atlantic farms are more
than 65 per cent livestock farms com-
prised of poultry, hog and dairy
operations, and therefore require less
land. British Columbia had the
greatest proportion of small farms in
the country (64010).
Prairie farms have fewer buildings
to heat and light. However, they have
greater numbers of farm machinery
and equipment for grain operations --
mainly run by diesel fuel (75010).
Central and Atlantic Canada have
more than 65 per cent livestock farms
in all farming operations. These hog,
poultry and dairy farms could be
termed "building intensive" and re-
quire significant energy for equip-
ment, heating and lighting. Central
Canadian farms use a lower propor-
tion of their farm energy on trucks
and automobiles than any other
region because of the proximity to
.major Canadian markets.
Size of agricultural holdings and
figures from the sale of agricultural
goods are not necessarily equivalent.
Although a prairie farm is approx-
imately four times the size of a farm
in central Canada, the sales figures
from the farm products are not
necessarily four times as great. The
"intensive" farming of the east
results in more dollars realized per
hectare than in the west, on average.
In Canada, the average farmer
spent seven cents for every dollar of
sales on energy. In the Atlantic, cen-
tral Canada and British Columbia,
the figure was about five to six cents,
while the average Prairie farmer
spent close to eight cents for every
sales dollar. So, Prairie farmers may
pay Tess per hectare on energy for
their farms, but they pay more in
relation to the dollar sales value of
their market commodities. In other
words, energy, as an operating cost
has greater impact on Prairie farms
than it does on farms elsewhere in
Canada. Statistics Canada
Safety of shotguns
With the approach of hunting
seasons, the safety controversy again
rises. Numerous theories exist,
together with their relative qualifica-
tions regarding safety aspects of
various types of firearms. Shotguns,
apparently based upon their shorter
range, have been touted as being
safer, specifically in areas of higher
population density.
The following are ideas concerning
the safety of shotguns to consider.
Are buckshot and slugs really safer
than rifles for hunting deer in
populous areas?
Twenty per cent of deer hunters in
one U.S. state hunted with shotguns,
but 31.3 per cent of the deer hunting
related accidents involved shotguns.
Another instance of a jurisdiction
making no distinction in the require-
ment to hunt with rifle or shotgun
reported that of eleven deer hunting
fatalities, eight involved shotguns.
One must consider the relative
ballistics and ranges of buckshot and
slugs. A twelve gauge, 2 3/4"
Magnum 00 -Buck will kill deer very
effectively at 60 yards. A 12 gauge 2
3/4" Magnum slug could do likewise
at ranges up to 150 yards.
Although agreement would appear