Neville Nankivell

[parsley]

I'll pass on the organic bait, agstar77.

But read this this e-mail, as it seems to have a practical easy solution:
_______________________________________

The Governor in Council can order the Canadian Wheat Board to grant export licences for any wheat and barley that falls under the constitutional head of "Agriculture".

1. Sections 3, 6 and 18 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act state:

QUOTE FROM CWB ACT

Duty to comply

3.12 (2) The directors and officers of the Corporation shall comply with this Act, the regulations, the by-laws of the Corporation and any directions given to the Corporation under this Act.

6(1)(j) to act as agent for or on behalf of any minister or agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada in respect of any operations that it may be directed to carry out by the Governor in Council

Directions by Governor in Council

18. (1) The Governor in Council may, by order, direct the Corporation with respect to the manner in which any of its operations, powers and duties under this Act shall be conducted, exercised or performed.

Directors

(1.1) The directors shall cause the directions to be implemented.....
END OF QUOTE FROM CWB ACT



2. In his March 12, 1997, written address to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Director General Adaptation and Grain Policy, Howard Migie stated that in the early 1980's the Government had ordered the CWB to provide an export licence for barley from Ontario.


The Governor in Council can order the Canadian Wheat Board to grant export licences for any wheat and barley that falls under the constitutional head of "Agriculture to PRODUCERS".

A simple way to get dual marketing for farmers isn't it?

_______________________________________
agstar, wouldn't less than 1% bother to apply for an export license?

Parsley

[parsley]

charliep,
A no-cost license means you must sell your grain to the CWB, and buy it back again buyback but the buyback cost is $0.00.

A no-buyback license means you do not sell it to the Board, in fact you do not go through Board pooling or marketing. THis is what Ontario enjoys.

Do you mean to say a no-buyback license, charliep?

Parsley

[charliep]

Yes. A no-buyback license.

[lakenheath]

Agstar77. Nitrate poisoning across all of North America is not a mirage. Dead spots in Oceans across the world (acriculture nitrates)are not mirages either. Look in the mirror before taking a poke at organics. I am not an organic, but I do give organic producers a lot of credit. They are many times more enivornmentally responsible than conventional farmers. I believe this has to be factored into what price they recieve for their product. Not to mention the fact that their product is in fact "organic".

[agstar77]

I didn't say I don't approve of the decrease in use of herbicides etc. My point is organic has not proven to be of health benefit to consumers directly. I applaud farmers for taking advantage of the market nothing more. If you produce organic food what do the rest of us produce inorganic food? If we can produce nutritionaly sound food without buying chemicals , far be it from me to be a naysayer. I just find the whole idea of organic being better food ubelievable. I would favour lower input farming if I could make money from it.

[parsley]

agstar77, You will find this post offensive because you have you seem not the least bit interested in the quality of food that farmers produce, anymore than you are concerned with the $returns the CWB produces.

You know what you know and you just want more of the same.

But lakenheath, you will be interested in this:

Published on Saturday, March 4, 2006 by the Inter Press Service

New Studies Back Benefits of Organic Diet

by Stephen Leahy



TORONTO, Canada - Organic foods protect children from the toxins in pesticides, while foods grown using modern, intensive agricultural techniques contain fewer nutrients and minerals than they did 60 years ago, according to two new scientific studies.

A U.S. research team from Emory University in Atlanta analyzed urine samples from children ages three to 11 who ate only organic foods and found that they contained virtually no metabolites of two common pesticides, malathion and chlorpyrifos.

However, once the children returned to eating conventionally grown foods, concentrations of these pesticide metabolites quickly climbed as high as 263 parts per billion, says the study published Feb. 21.

Organic crops are grown without the chemical pesticides and fertilizers that are common in intensive agriculture.

There was a "dramatic and immediate protective effect" against the pesticides while consuming organically grown foods, said Chensheng Lu, an assistant professor at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University.

These findings, in addition to the results of another study published in Britain earlier this month, have fueled the debate about the benefits of organically grown food as compared to conventional, mass-produced foods, involving academics, food and agro-industry executives and activists in the global arena.

According to the new British analysis of government nutrition data on meat and dairy products from the 1930s and from 2002, the mineral content of milk, cheese and beef declined as much as 70 percent in that period.

"These declines are alarming," Ian Tokelove, spokesman for The Food Commission that published the results of the study, told Tierramérica. The Commission is a British non-governmental organization advocating for healthier, safer food.

The research found that parmesan cheese had 70 percent less magnesium and calcium, beef steaks contained 55 percent less iron, chicken had 31 percent less calcium and 69 percent less iron, while milk also showed a large drop in iron along with a 21 percent decline in magnesium.

Copper, an important trace mineral (an essential nutrient that is consumed in tiny quantities), also declined 60 percent in meats and 90 percent in dairy products.

"It seems likely that intensive farming methods are responsible for this," Tokelove said from his office in London.

Although controversial, a number of other studies have also found differences between conventionally produced foods and foods grown organically or under more natural conditions.

Organic fruits and vegetables had significantly higher levels of cancer-fighting antioxidants, according to a 2003 study in Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

The organic plants produced these chemical compounds to help fight off insects and competing plants, researchers said.

A 2001 report by Britain's Soil Association looked at 400 nutritional research studies and came to similar conclusions: foods grown organically had more minerals and vitamins.

"Modern plant breeding for quick growth and high yields could also be affecting the nutritional quality," says Katherine Tucker, director of the nutritional epidemiology program at Tufts University in the northeastern U.S. city of Boston, Massachusetts.

Lower levels of minerals in food we eat is cause for concern, she says, stressing that "magnesium, calcium and other minerals are very important for proper nutrition."

Good nutrition and exercise are the major factors that can make a difference in the incidence of many diseases, including cancer, according to Tucker.

She recommends eating unprocessed foods, meat from free-range animals, and grains, fruits and vegetables grown organically or at least using more natural farming methods.

Farmers in other parts of the world should not adopt the intensive farming practices of North America or Europe, says Ken Warren, a spokesman with The Land Institute, based in the central U.S. state of Kansas.

"It's an unsustainable system that relies heavily on chemical fertilizers... to keep yields high and produces 'hollow food'," Warren told Tierramérica.

"Hollow food" contains insufficient nutrition and is suspected in playing a role in the rapid rise in obesity, as people may be eating more in order to get the nutrition they need, he said.

Crops take minerals, trace elements and other things from the soil every year. All that modern agriculture puts back into the land are some chemical fertilizers which do not replace all that has been lost, Warren said.

Moreover, herbicides and insecticides kill microorganisms in the soil that play an important role in maintaining soil fertility and helping plants grow.

Pesticide residues in modern agriculture are another cause for concern. A 2003 University of Washington study found that children eating organic fruits and vegetables had concentrations of pesticide six times lower than children eating conventional produce.

The Land Institute advocates what it calls "natural systems agriculture." This involves the use of perennial crops in polycultures, that is, planting several different crops together as has been practiced in traditional gardens and farm plots in many parts of the world.

"Farmers in other parts of the world should learn from American agriculture's mistakes. Looking to nature is a better model for farming," Warren said.

Stephen Leahy is a Tierramérica contributor. Originally published Feb. 24 by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialized news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Program and the United Nations Environment Program.

© Copyright 2006 IPS - Inter Press Service

Parsley

[agstar77]

I agree we should all stop using pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. We should all turn off our tractors and trucks. Yeah in an ideal world all is possible, I wish.

[lakenheath]

Agstar77. We don't have to go from one extreme to the next. Rather promote awareness. Change is not going to happen overnite. We have got ourselves into a mess right now.

I know hindsight is 20-20, but imagine this. If back in the 1960's research and developement efforts would have focused on improved organic production methods, soil fertility improvement without sinthetic fertilizers, and improved yielding varieties that competed well with weeds we would not be in the mess we are in today.

It seemed great back then. Cheap chemical, cheap fertilizer....it worked really well. We grew great and cheap crops and got good money. So what if we were doing a little poisining of society. That is what hospitals are for, to take care or the sick.

But, like it said, if research efforts were focused on an organic approach, our soils would be healthier, our ground water would be healthier, our children would be healthier and out bottom line would be healthier. We would not be over-producing like we are today and we would not be spending $50.00 to $100.00 per acres on fertilizer, chemical and fungicides.

I am not so stupid as to expect we go back to that overnight, but it a direction that is sustainable in the long-term.

I don't like a future with ???? in fertilizer prices, ????? in cost of chemicals to combat resistant weeds (which are coming faster than we realize), and super-crops that continue to flood the would grain stocks to the point where our increase in production is sadly off-set by lower commodity prices and high inputs.

[agstar77]

Yes, all fine and good , but who will bell the cat? Government won't move because it's citizens want cheap food. Will all the chemical companies and fertilizer companies switch? Will we stop promoting GMO's like the Canola growers and the Grain Growers associations? Should we say all chemicals are bad? Very difficult questions with no correct answers. As farmers all we can do is survive and try to to do the best we can with existing tech.

[parsley]

agstar,

One of the things that I find really a positive occurence among farmers is their willingness to share techniques, skills, agronomic experiences and new ways to make work a little lighter.

We learn from experience.

In the 70's when our transformer got hit by lightning in the last week in Novemeber, (go figure), I helped our electrician clean up the gooey mess, not knowing then what I know now. We all learn how we could have done things differently. Caution gets built in. Times change, and knowledge advances. And farmers ask more questions.

We all learn things at our own speed, but we really have to bell our own cats. Government won't. Belinda won't. Rick Mercer might try for fun.

If farmers sit around and wait for the Governments to come out with $Billion payments, it's not going to happen.

You don't need someone to tell you what is best for you on your farm. Waiting for something to happen only sets yourelf up for failure.

I took a short afternoon course in options and puts and trading, and bulls and bears, and even paid for it, melville, but you know, agstar, conventional farmers, no, all farmers, need to learn the skills that can make them more money than the CWB makes for you.

Your decision to want the Board or not to want the Board is then based upon your knowledge and skills.

Yearning for Government will get you exactly where you are right now. Chasing yields. Limitless expenses. No profit. And a headache.

agstar, in your postings, you remind me of the old bull that heads straight for the exact same stall in the barn, waiting to be tied up.

If you want more of the same.....I cannot argue.

Parsley