Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 1997-03-19, Page 43THE CITIZEN, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1997. PAGE A-23. Agriculture '97 Rollin says issues more polarized in U.S. Making changes New technology has allowed poultry farmers to look at production and animal welfare in a new light. Continued from A-22 They came out against the practice, allying themselves with surprised animal rights activists. One of cat­ tleman told him "I appreciate you taking this on Doc, because if I saw someone branding an animal on the face I'd have to kick the shit out of him". Quality Penalty Program Effective August 1,1996 * In addition to routine testing for inhibitors, Ontario processors screen incoming loads of milk daily. If violative residues are detected, the load Is rejected and disposed of. In addition to the penalty, producers who cause a rejected load or tanker do not receive payment for the shipment of milk that contained inhibitors and will be assessed the value of other producers' milk on the load plus the disposal and additional transportation costs. Testing Frequency Penalties are Applied per hl 1st Violation 2nd Violation 3rd Violation 4th Violation 5th Violation 6th Violation Bacteria Monthly If results are higher than 99,000 2 out of 3 months $3 $4 $5 $5 and shut-off Somatic Cell Count Monthly If results are higher than 499,000 3 out of 4 months $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $5 and shut-off Inhibitors (Drug Residues) ‘One monthly sample and on each load per occurrence .01 1U/mL for Beta Lactams 10 ppb for sulphamethazine $6 and if applicable load damages and costs $9 and if applicable load damages and costs $12 and shut-off and if applicable load damages and costs Freezing Point (Excess Water) All composition samples screened each month If freezing point is between 0 and -0.524°C $2 $4 $6 $8 and shut-off Non-Grade A Farm Premises Upon inspection Per 30 day period that Grade A status is removed $2 $4 $8 shut-off after 90 days Program helps farmers diversify The new year brings potential new business opportunities for Ontario farmers and their associates. Fanners and those working with farmers can benefit from a recently-introduced program that offers financial assistance for developing business plans to explore, expand or diversify into value-added ventures for farm operations. "We want people to think about whether there are opportunities for them in a little bit different fashion "Let me tell you something folks, coming out against that and getting it stopped did not hurt the western U.S. ranching community one bit with the urban population — with the people at whom Jeremy Rifkin had directed his 'Beyond Beef campaign". Rifkin, in his book Beyond Beef, had attacked western ranchers as abusers of animals and said beef consumption was respon­ sible for everything from heart dis­ ease to the oppression of women. More and more western ranchers arc coming to understand that they are doing exactly what the majority of the public wants done: raising animals the way they were 100 years ago, Rollin says. Animal rights vs. animal welfare The issues are much more polar­ ized in the U.S. than in Canada, Rollin says. It’s easier to talk about animals rights isjsues in Canada because people speak more for themselves than as representatives of large groups. It's a dogma in agriculture that there is a difference between ani­ mal rights and animal welfare, Rollin says, but he doesn't think there is. The last 20 years have been a precipitous growth in animals wel­ fare legislation around the world, Rollin says. "If you look the U.S. congress and you go back 20 years, than what they’re doing now," says Lynn Pardoe, Ontario co-ordinator for the Business Planning for Agri­ Ventures (BPAV) program. BPAV, a three-year Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada pilot project, helps farmers develop comprehensive business plans for new projects. Pardoe says this increases the chance^of success. BPAV will link farmers with experienced business planners, paying up to 50 per cent of professional consulting fees. With international trade you'll find that there would have been no bills in federal legislature pertaining to the welfare of ani­ mals. In the last five or six years you'll find that there are 50-60." Much of the animal rights move­ ment grew from evidence of mis­ treatment of animals in medical research labs. This mistreatment didn't fall under the old concepts of cruelty by those who tortured ani­ mals. It was for a good cause. The researchers felt they were doing good for humanity. But the general public was appalled by what they saw and began to develop a new ethic for animal treatment. All new ethics develop from pre-existing ethics, and the model for the new animal ethic came from the human rights movement. At about the same time, industri­ al principles were being applied to agricultural production. Because of new technologies like vaccines and antibiotics, farmers were able to do things with animals that weren't possible before. Chickens kept in cages before these drugs, would have died because of rapid spread­ ing of disease. These new technolo- gies were able to separate productivity from the welfare of the animals. "The animal can be pro­ ductive but not happy and having its fundamental needs met." Rollin argues that animals have fundamental natures just as humans agreements changing the way farmers do business, many now want to start new on-farm businesses. "It's a question of diversification, of not having your eggs all in one basket," says Pardoe. "But it's a tough business being in agriculture. We can't be experts in everything and, while farmers are used to making financial plans, they could use assistance in planning marketing and sales." Pardoe expects applications to Continued on A-24 do. "There's a pigness to a pig, a cowness to a cow. We respect that nature even though we use animals, just as we should respect human nature as we use people. And if it's no longer guaranteed the way it was by husbandry agriculture, because husbandry agriculture will be out of business, then it must be protected by legislation." That’s why Sweden passed a law in 1988 saying that any system that is out of sync with the animals' basic biological nature is illegal and unacceptable. While family farms can’t com­ pete in terms of capital and technol­ ogy with huge corporate farms, they can compete in terms of hus­ bandry, Rollin says. "You know how to do it and they don't. The only reason a lot of pork producers in the U.S. do not use husbandry­ based systems is that it requires being pig smart." In the large farms like Murphy Farms, the intelligence is in the system, not in the minimum-wage employees. Family farms also have the advantage that, as much as society PLETCH ELECTRIC LIMITED •ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR* MOTOR SALES, REWINDS & SERVICE, POLES SALES, INSTALLATION & TRENCHING WINGHAM 357-1583 Geothermal Heating/Cooling/Hot Water Water Systems Air Conditioning Qualified dealer for Furnaces AwK Fireplaces r Carrier I Making Your Home | More Energy Efficient f is concerned about animals, it is even more concerned about the future of the small family farm. In the 1980s, for instance, animal rad­ icals like People for the, Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) tried to get law passed in Massachusetts, banning veal crates. They chose that state because they.thought there were no veal producers in Massachusetts and, it being a liber­ al state, they thought they could get support for a piece of model legis­ lation that could then spread to other states. But the Farm Bureau found one veal producer and filmed her in a traditional farm setting, as she said that if the legislation passed, it would be the end of the family farm. The public was more affected by the notion of the end of the fam­ ily farm than they were by the idea of calves with big eyes, and the bill was defeated. If you put the concern for ani­ mals together with the concern for the family farm then small opera­ tors should be providing the sort of animals and animal products that the general public wants, he said.