The Rural Voice, 1987-05, Page 19U OF G INITIATES CONSERVATION CENTRE
The University of Guelph has
responded to increasing concern
about soil and water conserva-
tion by establishing a centre which
will co-ordinate research on environ-
mental degradation carried out at the
university.
In operation for a few months
now, the Centre for Soil and Water
Conservation hopes to be heavily
involved in the evaluation and devel-
opment of technology under SWEEP.
The centre is responsible for raising its
own funds, says its director, Professor
Murray Miller, and its directions will
depend largely on funding sources.
About 25 faculty members in
various disciplines at the university
have expertise in soil and water con-
servation, says Miller, and interdis-
ciplinary projects could provide new
insights.
He notes that awareness of con-
servation issues has "increased very
markedly in the past 10 years," partly
because of Senator Herbert Sparrow
and his committee's work on defining
the extent of the problems in Ontario
and partly because of SWEEP, which
began with the problem of phosphorus
caused by soil polluting the Great
Lakes and ended up addressing other
issues of soil conservation as well.
Soil erosion costs Ontario farmers
at least $68 million a year, notes
Miller, and runoff from farm land is
the source of about two-thirds of the
phosphorus that is destroying marine
life in Lake Erie.O
EFAO PRESENTS BRIEF TO POLITICIANS
The Ecological Farmers Associ-
ation, which grew out of the Natural
Farmers Association formed in 1979
and is now led by Lawrence and
Mathilde Andres of Tiverton, recently
presented a brief at the Meet the Mem-
bers night held by the Bruce County
Federation of Agriculture. The follow-
ing isan excerpt.
Today, with the problem of soil
erosion gaining prominence as
a major threat, with growing
evidence that agriculture contributes
heavily to water pollution, with the
cost -price squeeze intensifying, more
and more farmers are considering the
ecological approach.
We sense, in the agricultural com-
munity at large, a great deal of disil-
lusionment with the philosophy that
has motivated the great changes in
farming over the past 50 years. High-
er production has been the battle cry,
almost always made possible by the
application of new technology pur-
chased from off the farm. Little
thought has been given to the long-
term environmental impact of these
new practices, or to the economic
effect of overall increased production.
PEST RESEARCH HAS SPIN-OFFS
The problems still outstrip the
solutions, but research work on pest
control with insect predators and fewer
chemicals continues apace at Agricul-
ture Canada's London research centre.
"It's not been as successful as we
would have hoped," says Dr. Alan
Tomlin, research scientist. "But on
the other hand it's been informative."
The benefits of breaking new
ground with research into insect pre-
dators may not be seen for a decade or
two, but well -directed research provides
useful spin-offs.
Better knowledge of timing helps
to lower pesticide requirements, seed
treatments are proven more effective
and safer than broadcast treatments,
and the intensive monitoring of crops
has confirmed the value of such com-
ponents as shelter belts on the farm.
The main problem with putting
insect predators to work on the farm,
says Dr. Tomlin, is the cost of mon-
itoring fields (which requires intensive
scouting).
A second hurdle is that natural pre-
dators cannot ensure the production of
unblemished crops. Most of the cen-
tre's work has been with vegetables,
and consumers, Dr. Tomlin notes,
want a virtually unblemished product.
And many agricultural crops
mainly affected by weeds don't merit
the cost of pest control by natural
predators.
Research is also continuing on the
control of weeds through insects. But
the multiplicity of weed varieties in
Canada, Dr. Tomlin says, makes in-
sect control impractical in most cases.
Using insects may eliminate one or
two weeds from a field, but the other
weed varieties will fill their place.0
The effects of this unbalanced way
of thinking come to rest now, not on
the experts, but on farming families.
We must ask ourselves, who pays the
cost of soil erosion, of flooded world
markets? The professors? The sales-
men? The politicians or bankers? Of
course not. The farmers! And who
reaps the benefits of an industry more
and more dependent on purchased tech-
nology? Not the farmer!
Agricultural research, when testing
new methods, has too often studied
only the financial returns to the pro-
ducer in a one-year period. But we do
not farm in one-year segments. We
farm in lifetimes, and when our life-
time is ended we hope to pass on to
the next generation the same life we
cherish. Agriculture is more than just
food production. It is the substance
and fabric of rural culture, the roots
through which all of human culture
draws its sustenance from the earth.
We are aware that the practices we
advocate for ensuring the sustainability
of agricultural production are long-
term in nature. They require an effort
now which is rewarded later on down
the road. These will not gain wide-
spread acceptance in an economic at-
mosphere of extreme instability. The
individual farmer is unlikely to devote
time and money to long-term conser-
vation measures when due to world
markets over which he has no control
this year may be his last. It is crucial
then that producers be insulated from
the effects of the power struggle now
being played out on international
commodity markets.0
MAY 1987 17