The Rural Voice, 1990-01, Page 31ing is in opposition to the way farmers
actually want to go. As committee
member Ted Zettel remarked, "Some
of those things that we hold as the
basis of farming are slipping away
from us."
"The first thing that we've got to
do is dream," he told the workshop.
And after you develop a vision, then
you take personal ownership of it.
Poechman hopes that Bruce
County's work, and the work of the
participants and facilitators in the
workshop, is only the beginning.
He'll be attending an OFA board
meeting in the near future to follow
up on the OFA resolution. And he
hopes to hear more discussion at the
local level as well. "What people can
do is spend a little time getting in
touch with what they really would
like," he says. "You've got to go right
back to the basics and you've got to
believe in something."OLG
THE FUTURE OF FARMING
COMMITTEE REPORT
The idea to investigate the future
of farming in Ontario was born out of
numerous discussions at meetings of
the Bruce County Federation of Agri-
culture. In tackling issues that came
before a general farm organization, a
common frustration emerged. Farm-
ers and our organizations are always
reacting to changes in the circum-
stances under which we live and carry
on business. Many of these changes
result from actions taken by forces
outside our control. These forces are
political (at the local, national, and
international levels), economic (trade,
credit policy, consumer demand), and
environmental.
This sense of frustration and
powerlessness is demoralizing to
farmers. Agriculture appears to move
from one crisis to the next. Many
farmers are apprehensive about the
future of their families and their farm
businesses. They are discouraged and
apathetic.
Our committee believes farmers
need to take a strong role in influenc-
ing our own destiny in agriculture.
We believe in a strong general farm
organization with a vision for agri-
culture in the year 2000. Our gener-
al farm organization needs to ask three
basic questions.
1. What do we want agriculture to
look like in ten years?
2. Where is agriculture headed on
its present course?
3. How do we make changes to
steer agriculture where we want it to
go?
When these questions have been
addressed, then the OFA can operate
within the framework of a long-term
vision for agriculture in Ontario.
Farming in Ontario appears to
be rushing headlong towards indus-
trialization. This industrial type of
agriculture means units will be larger,
often more specialized, and more
highly capitalized with ever more
sophisticated management. Short-
term financial considerations will be
the driving force behind decisions. As
units become larger, fewer and fewer
people will be involved in primary
agriculture. More and more of these
people will be employees rather than
the traditional owner -operators.
Keeping as large a population
base involved in agriculture as pos-
sible should be an important goal in
rural Ontario. Rural communities
need the farming sector as a basis for
their economies. From a social and
community point of view, the greater
the number of families involved in
farming, the better.
Governments and academics must
abandon the idea that farming is a bus-
iness run like any other. It is capital -
intensive and this capital earns a very
low return. The capital in agriculture
does not flow in and out of the sector
easily in response to returns. If it did,
much of it would have left long ago.
SUSTAINABILITY
One of the most glaring defects
in the present agricultural system is
in the arca of environmental impact
or, as it is commonly termed, "sustain-
ability." While the introduction of
"crop inputs" to the farm has dram-
atically increased yields, the previous-
ly unknown side effects of this new
technology continue to grow. The loss
of productive soil through misuse has
been thoroughly documented. Agri-
culture contributes heavily to the pol-
lution of lakes and streams and there
is growing evidence of groundwater
contamination by farm chemicals.
While these concerns urgently
require attention, the task of educating
ourselves to abandon inappropriate,
ecologically devastating practices
takes time. Research and education
to encourage environmentally sound
technologies should be a top priority
for farm organizations. That good
stewardship is essential to the long-
term viability of farming is impossible
to deny.
Many modern farm enterprises,
however, would require significant
structural changes to become ecologi-
cally sustainable. Monocultural crop
systems are heavily dependent on
chemical inputs and tend to decrease
soil quality. Large intensive livestock
operations, often situated on too small
a land base, can become major pollut-
ers of waterways. Diversification of
these enterprises would be at least a
partial solution to many environmental
ills, but the short-term economic
implications of diversifying a highly
specialized operation are, to say the
least, undesirable.
This dilemma is symptomatic of
the struggle between long-term objec-
tives and short-term necessity. In a
competitive market, with perpetu-
ally low profit margins, the individ-
ual who desires to be a good steward
is too often forced to squeeze the last
penny out of this year's crop. In
such a predicament, the opportunities
for adapting to improve ecological
soundness are non-existent.
Farmers have more at stake in
this discussion than anyone else. In
the past, they have felt threatened by
environmentalists and have developed
an adversarial relationship with forces
that should be their allies. With the
help of these allies, society in general,
and governments in particular, could
be made aware that only in a secure,
stable financial setting will real pro-
gress be made towards the goal of
sustainability. (cont.d)
JANUARY 1990 29