http://www.siemenssays.com/?p=24232
<b>Be ware when a proposed National Food Policy manages inputs on the farm</b>
Sunday, May 2, 2010
The proposed Liberal National Food Policy is worry some to say the least, especially where it refers to better fertilizer and pesticide management when input costs are at an all time high, and most producers are better stewards of the environment than most so-called do-gooders. Producers live off and from the land making sure it is left in the same condition or even better than when they too over the stewardship of that land.
Here is more to the last post of mine on this issue I received from Ottawa Parliament Hill correspondent Alex Binkley. This first one concerns him as it does me and it should every producer in Canada, even Ontario.
“The Liberals have an environmental farmland stewardship plank. While strengthening Environmental Farm Plans and rewarding farmers for their role in clean energy production and protecting wildlife habitat sounds positive, farmers should ask some tough questions about what the Liberals mean by “improving fertilizer and pesticide management.”
Read this next comment by Binkley very carefully.
“That sure sounds like more restrictions on the use of either input. If so, it perpetuates the myth that farmers apply fertilizer and pesticides willy-nilly. The stuff is very expensive and with their low incomes, they certainly aren’t going to be using any more fertilizer or pesticide than they absolutely have to,” said Binkley.
Remember, this is part of the proposed Liberal National Food Policy and they’re talking about fertilizer and pesticide management? Read the rest of Alex’s article.
So what does the Liberals’ newly minted National Food Policy actually mean for farmers? Although most media outlets didn’t get it, the policy is aimed mainly at consumers with a couple of sections that could benefit producers.
The main item for farmers has to be the clean slate promise to start over again in designing farm income programs. The Liberals say they will work “in partnership with farmers and restore AgriFlex to offer regionally flexible programs that help meet the costs of production.”
The opportunity to actually shape support programs is pretty well what farm organizations have been seeking since the days of Gene Whelan. Instead successive governments have presented far too many farm income programs on a take it or leave it basis. While farm groups were consulted, Ottawa and the provinces had the final say in the program designs. If they’d worked, farmers still wouldn’t be looking for help.
Laurent Pellerin, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, says farm groups have told successive governments they’re prepared to assist in developing farm programs. They’re still waiting for an invitation to the table.
The Liberals also have an environmental farmland stewardship plank. While strengthening Environmental Farm Plans and rewarding farmers for their role in clean energy production and protecting wildlife habitat sounds positive, farmers should ask some tough questions about what the Liberals mean by “improving fertilizer and pesticide management.” That sure sounds like more restrictions on the use of either input. If so, it perpetuates the myth that farmers apply fertilizer and pesticides willy-nilly. The stuff is very expensive and with their low incomes, they certainly aren’t going to be using any more fertilizer or pesticide than they absolutely have to.
The policy also talks about promoting Canadian food internationally and expanding Canada’s share of high-value export markets, which the current government has worked at. It’s a long, slow slough.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff statement that Canadians need more home-grown food will be frequently repeated. But 90% of Canadian farmers depend on export sales to pay most of their bills. While pork and beef producers do get squeezed by cheap imports, having a few more farmers’ markets around the country is a grand idea that won’t really solve many problems.
And before we put more money into the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the government needs to look harder at how it’s using its considerable resources.
Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz dissed the Liberal proposal but if the Liberals can provide more detail, they will at least get a listening to from farmers. Their challenge, as faces all parties, is to convince the voters they can deliver. Farmers have heard lots of promises in the past.
<b>Be ware when a proposed National Food Policy manages inputs on the farm</b>
Sunday, May 2, 2010
The proposed Liberal National Food Policy is worry some to say the least, especially where it refers to better fertilizer and pesticide management when input costs are at an all time high, and most producers are better stewards of the environment than most so-called do-gooders. Producers live off and from the land making sure it is left in the same condition or even better than when they too over the stewardship of that land.
Here is more to the last post of mine on this issue I received from Ottawa Parliament Hill correspondent Alex Binkley. This first one concerns him as it does me and it should every producer in Canada, even Ontario.
“The Liberals have an environmental farmland stewardship plank. While strengthening Environmental Farm Plans and rewarding farmers for their role in clean energy production and protecting wildlife habitat sounds positive, farmers should ask some tough questions about what the Liberals mean by “improving fertilizer and pesticide management.”
Read this next comment by Binkley very carefully.
“That sure sounds like more restrictions on the use of either input. If so, it perpetuates the myth that farmers apply fertilizer and pesticides willy-nilly. The stuff is very expensive and with their low incomes, they certainly aren’t going to be using any more fertilizer or pesticide than they absolutely have to,” said Binkley.
Remember, this is part of the proposed Liberal National Food Policy and they’re talking about fertilizer and pesticide management? Read the rest of Alex’s article.
So what does the Liberals’ newly minted National Food Policy actually mean for farmers? Although most media outlets didn’t get it, the policy is aimed mainly at consumers with a couple of sections that could benefit producers.
The main item for farmers has to be the clean slate promise to start over again in designing farm income programs. The Liberals say they will work “in partnership with farmers and restore AgriFlex to offer regionally flexible programs that help meet the costs of production.”
The opportunity to actually shape support programs is pretty well what farm organizations have been seeking since the days of Gene Whelan. Instead successive governments have presented far too many farm income programs on a take it or leave it basis. While farm groups were consulted, Ottawa and the provinces had the final say in the program designs. If they’d worked, farmers still wouldn’t be looking for help.
Laurent Pellerin, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, says farm groups have told successive governments they’re prepared to assist in developing farm programs. They’re still waiting for an invitation to the table.
The Liberals also have an environmental farmland stewardship plank. While strengthening Environmental Farm Plans and rewarding farmers for their role in clean energy production and protecting wildlife habitat sounds positive, farmers should ask some tough questions about what the Liberals mean by “improving fertilizer and pesticide management.” That sure sounds like more restrictions on the use of either input. If so, it perpetuates the myth that farmers apply fertilizer and pesticides willy-nilly. The stuff is very expensive and with their low incomes, they certainly aren’t going to be using any more fertilizer or pesticide than they absolutely have to.
The policy also talks about promoting Canadian food internationally and expanding Canada’s share of high-value export markets, which the current government has worked at. It’s a long, slow slough.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff statement that Canadians need more home-grown food will be frequently repeated. But 90% of Canadian farmers depend on export sales to pay most of their bills. While pork and beef producers do get squeezed by cheap imports, having a few more farmers’ markets around the country is a grand idea that won’t really solve many problems.
And before we put more money into the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the government needs to look harder at how it’s using its considerable resources.
Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz dissed the Liberal proposal but if the Liberals can provide more detail, they will at least get a listening to from farmers. Their challenge, as faces all parties, is to convince the voters they can deliver. Farmers have heard lots of promises in the past.
Comment