Loading...
The Rural Voice, 2000-09, Page 6Defensive tone worrisome The article by Pat Down. HCFA President, in the July 2000 edition of The Rural Voice (Huron County Federation of Agriculture Newsletter) is worthy of some reelection. Ms Down assumes a defensive stance throughout the article. She first asserts that chlorination should have made the water potable. She next states that large hog barns are not implicated with the strain of E.coli associated with the Walkerton tragedy, but rather that ruminant animals, including deer, are carriers. She then goes on to point out that animal populations have not, over all, increased in the 20 years prior to the 1996 census. And finally, she states that large barns are more visible than all the old, smaller barns. Surely Ms Down, as president of HCFA, realizes that chlorination systems are not a viable solution for private rural well systems. She must also be aware that, although animal populations have not significantly changed in the 20 years prior to the 1996 census, the number of hogs per producer went from 164.7 in 1978 in 910 in 1999 (Ontario Pork — Facts and Figures, March 2000). The relevance of barn size is significant only as it relates to the environmental impact of a high animal population density. When the president of the HCFA assumes a defensive stance on issues surrounding agriculture, I become worried on two levels. First, if Ms Down is confident that the practices associated with intensive livestock operations ensure a safe water supply for all rural residents, why is she not saying so? Why is she looking to remedial measures such as chlorination as a solution to water quality concerns? Furthermore, if agriculture is going to continue to be a progressive, viable industry in Ontario 2 THE RURAL VOICE Feedback today, we need strong, intelligent leadership. not excuse -making and reactionary defenses. The deer'? Really Ms Down!O — Janette H Smith Guelph. ON Little precision in climate change forecasting The precise manner in which Rod MacRae has specified the future effects of global warming on the climate of the Lake Huron region (Rural Voice, June 2000) differs markedly from the uncertainty which exists in projections made by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN -based assemblage of international experts which has guided global decision- making processes. The American web address for IPCC information provided by The Rural Voice does not appear to be functional. But the IPCC has its own international website where all of its reports can be found (http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm). The best that the IPCC has been able to conclude from available scientific information is that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate," and that there are "prospects for more severe droughts and/or floods in some places and less severe droughts and/or floods in other places." The IPCC states that it is nearly impossible to predict which areas will receive more or less, though it does project that the effect of global warming on North American agricultural productivity will be generally positive, especially in northern areas. MacRae's generally negative comments about benefits of no tillage must be balanced against his years of anti -pesticide advocacy, including his recent relationship with the anti- pesticide/anti-biotech campaign of the World Wildlife Fund, and the knowledge that, without pesticides more tillage is often needed to control weeds. Rod MacRae is also a known opponent of most aspects of modern agriculture and agribusiness. His new relationship with the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority is of interest.0 — Terry Davnard Executive Vice -President Ontario Cern Producers' Association Don't underestimate urban consumers Keith Roulston's column (True factory food coming? August 2000) missed his usual high standard. Its tone is crabby, it contains assertions which are highly debatable, and it seems to encourage the building of walls between the rural and urban communities. Sure it's true that some people are disgusted by the thought of manure going on fields, but it's a tactical mistake to repeat such nonsense. Most grade six kids (city and country) know enough about food chains and recycling to understand the need for manure use. Work with them! I agree completely that the industrialization of farming and the pressure for "identical, no -surprises products" are related issues, and create tremendous pressure on farmers who want to stay in farming. But don't crabbily state that consumers will accept factory farms because they will continue to demand cheap pork chops. And yes, there are probably some scientists/bioengineers trying right now to create some kind of synthetic food. But I think he has gone a bit off the deep end to suggest that this will become the norm. If he does believe this, I think he has been sucked in by the very corporate forces which he has been criticizing. Consider a few facts: synthetic food is not a new issue — bread made with CO2 gas instead of those yucky yeast organisms was a total failure back in the mid -1800s. (Real yeast or leaven gives bread its bread flavour!) Fake meats (texturized soy -protein) used by SDA's who want to be vegetarian are very expensive, and have not caught on at all with the mainstream. (In my opinion they are very boring in flavour and texture.) Fatter beef is back in fashion because it tastes the way beef should, even though those same consumers are more aware of the hazards of too much fat in their diets.