https://static.agcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CGW170314.pdf
Consider for a moment what Cana-
dian agriculture would look like
today if farmers had never made
the switch from horse power to
tractor power. It isn’t such an absurd idea
if you understand why farmers here actu-
ally resisted mechanization when it first
appeared roughly a century ago.
An interesting read is the text of the
speech called “An Economic Comparison of
the Horse Vs. Motor†that H.L. Hare of the
University of British Columbia, gave to the
North Western Veterinary Association in
the early 1920s. His paper was subsequently
published in the
Canadian Veterinary Record
(Volume 4, No. 4, 1923).
Hare presented case after case from right
across Canada showing that horses were
more economically efficient than tractors
and trucks. For example, he told of the expe-
rience of C.S. Noble of Alberta who in 1918
and 1919 used both trucks and horses to
haul grain 20 to 30 miles from the 30,000-
acre ranch he was managing to the nearest
grain elevators.
Hare wrote: “... even on this long haul,
Mr. Noble states that freighting can be done
more economically with horses.â€
Hare backed up the individual cases with
statements from revered agricultural educa-
tional institutions such as the Ontario Agri-
cultural College, which concluded: “Farm
tractors have been used with some degree of
success, but speaking generally they have not
been a success with the average farmer... â€
Then Hare presented studies from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Pur-
due Agricultural Experimental Station, and
the Dominion Experimental Farm at Prince
Edward Island. All showed the cost per acre
of operating a tractor was higher than doing
comparable work with horses.
Finally, Hare presented evidence that
after their initial tractor purchases, many
farmers soon went back to horses.
Hare concluded, “Greater production
was achieved but at the expense of econ-
omy. Now that the war is over, efficiency and
economy are the slogans and we find that
horses are fast coming back to their field.â€
So why did farmers make the switch to
the tractor?
While some farmers chose to become
early adopters of mechanization, most
North American and European farmers
were, instead, pushed into the switch.
The First World War had drained farms
of both horses and manpower, and farmers
were forced to find alternative crop produc-
tion methods.
This also explains why the number of
tractors and trucks sold to farmers actually
declined following the war, when govern-
ment demand for horses dropped off and
soldiers returned to farms and rural com-
munities.
Why history repeats
Today farmers are facing a similar scenario.
Society is demanding a cleaner, greener
world, and modern agriculture is again
caught in the middle.
It is irrelevant whether you as an indi-
vidual believe in climate change or the need
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Soci-
ety as a whole does, and it is taking action
to reduce man’s carbon footprint globally.
Modern agriculture will have to get on
board whether we like it or not.
Most Canadian farmers simply cannot
understand society’s obsession with reduc-
ing fossil fuel use. We live in a relatively pris-
tine environment, and if we travel at all, it
is likely to be to an even cleaner, greener
place like the mountains, northern lakes, or
first-class resorts in Mexico, Hawaii or the
Caribbean.
However, those postcard-perfect places
are not at all like the world that most of the
global population resides in.
If you travel to India or China or any
major city in the world, you’ll experience
the pollution they live with. In coastal cities
worldwide, as well, you will see first-hand
the impact of rising ocean levels. Travel to
many equatorial regions and you will see the
effect of prolonged drought in the form of
dry lake beds and parched soils.
Want to experience the Arctic? No prob-
lem; you can even take a cruise ship through
the Northwest Passage where just a genera-
tion ago no ships could sail.
Now, too, there is an overwhelming con-
sensus among scientists that man is contrib-
uting to these environmental and climate
change issues.
This is the evidence that is leading societ-
ies worldwide to adopt measures designed
to reduce man’s footprint; from putting a
price on carbon to restricting the use of
some energy sources like coal and moving
to renewable energy sources like wind, water
and solar generation.
t
h
e s
W
i
tch to solar
Without question, the energy source with
the greatest potential at this time is solar. We
now have the technology to efficiently col-
lect solar power, and in most areas the grid is
already in place to distribute power.
But, like our forefathers balking at the
use of tractors, the resistance to solar is huge,
Go into any coffee shop and you’ll hear
complaints about the carbon tax and how
solar power could never work in the frozen
north where we live. You will hear how solar
is way too expensive and will never be com-
petitive with fossil fuels, even if it could be
generated here.
Farmers complain about the potential
loss of farmland for all the solar panels that
would be needed. And you will hear over
and over again that the politicians who
want to shut down the oil sands are basically
destroying the economy of Canada simply to
appease environmentalists and to clean up
the problems of the third world.
But are these doomsday claims accurate?
Just 40 years ago, the United Arab Emir-
ates was a sparsely populated, nomadic des-
ert. Now, it is a globally recognized urban
paradise, primarily funded by the sale of oil
and natural gas.
But rather than defending the use of the
fossil fuels that are the backbone of their
economy and that power the mega cities of
Abu Dhabi and Dubai, and that even desali-
nates the sea water needed for the greening
of the desert, the UAE is at the forefront of
solar power generation.
Dubai Clean Energy Strategy’s goal is
that seven per cent of Dubai’s energy will
come from solar power by 2020, 25 per cent
by 2030 and 75 per cent by 2050. Rather
than continuing to base their economies on
a finite resource, they see the future in solar
power generation.
Consider for a moment what Cana-
dian agriculture would look like
today if farmers had never made
the switch from horse power to
tractor power. It isn’t such an absurd idea
if you understand why farmers here actu-
ally resisted mechanization when it first
appeared roughly a century ago.
An interesting read is the text of the
speech called “An Economic Comparison of
the Horse Vs. Motor†that H.L. Hare of the
University of British Columbia, gave to the
North Western Veterinary Association in
the early 1920s. His paper was subsequently
published in the
Canadian Veterinary Record
(Volume 4, No. 4, 1923).
Hare presented case after case from right
across Canada showing that horses were
more economically efficient than tractors
and trucks. For example, he told of the expe-
rience of C.S. Noble of Alberta who in 1918
and 1919 used both trucks and horses to
haul grain 20 to 30 miles from the 30,000-
acre ranch he was managing to the nearest
grain elevators.
Hare wrote: “... even on this long haul,
Mr. Noble states that freighting can be done
more economically with horses.â€
Hare backed up the individual cases with
statements from revered agricultural educa-
tional institutions such as the Ontario Agri-
cultural College, which concluded: “Farm
tractors have been used with some degree of
success, but speaking generally they have not
been a success with the average farmer... â€
Then Hare presented studies from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Pur-
due Agricultural Experimental Station, and
the Dominion Experimental Farm at Prince
Edward Island. All showed the cost per acre
of operating a tractor was higher than doing
comparable work with horses.
Finally, Hare presented evidence that
after their initial tractor purchases, many
farmers soon went back to horses.
Hare concluded, “Greater production
was achieved but at the expense of econ-
omy. Now that the war is over, efficiency and
economy are the slogans and we find that
horses are fast coming back to their field.â€
So why did farmers make the switch to
the tractor?
While some farmers chose to become
early adopters of mechanization, most
North American and European farmers
were, instead, pushed into the switch.
The First World War had drained farms
of both horses and manpower, and farmers
were forced to find alternative crop produc-
tion methods.
This also explains why the number of
tractors and trucks sold to farmers actually
declined following the war, when govern-
ment demand for horses dropped off and
soldiers returned to farms and rural com-
munities.
Why history repeats
Today farmers are facing a similar scenario.
Society is demanding a cleaner, greener
world, and modern agriculture is again
caught in the middle.
It is irrelevant whether you as an indi-
vidual believe in climate change or the need
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Soci-
ety as a whole does, and it is taking action
to reduce man’s carbon footprint globally.
Modern agriculture will have to get on
board whether we like it or not.
Most Canadian farmers simply cannot
understand society’s obsession with reduc-
ing fossil fuel use. We live in a relatively pris-
tine environment, and if we travel at all, it
is likely to be to an even cleaner, greener
place like the mountains, northern lakes, or
first-class resorts in Mexico, Hawaii or the
Caribbean.
However, those postcard-perfect places
are not at all like the world that most of the
global population resides in.
If you travel to India or China or any
major city in the world, you’ll experience
the pollution they live with. In coastal cities
worldwide, as well, you will see first-hand
the impact of rising ocean levels. Travel to
many equatorial regions and you will see the
effect of prolonged drought in the form of
dry lake beds and parched soils.
Want to experience the Arctic? No prob-
lem; you can even take a cruise ship through
the Northwest Passage where just a genera-
tion ago no ships could sail.
Now, too, there is an overwhelming con-
sensus among scientists that man is contrib-
uting to these environmental and climate
change issues.
This is the evidence that is leading societ-
ies worldwide to adopt measures designed
to reduce man’s footprint; from putting a
price on carbon to restricting the use of
some energy sources like coal and moving
to renewable energy sources like wind, water
and solar generation.
t
h
e s
W
i
tch to solar
Without question, the energy source with
the greatest potential at this time is solar. We
now have the technology to efficiently col-
lect solar power, and in most areas the grid is
already in place to distribute power.
But, like our forefathers balking at the
use of tractors, the resistance to solar is huge,
Go into any coffee shop and you’ll hear
complaints about the carbon tax and how
solar power could never work in the frozen
north where we live. You will hear how solar
is way too expensive and will never be com-
petitive with fossil fuels, even if it could be
generated here.
Farmers complain about the potential
loss of farmland for all the solar panels that
would be needed. And you will hear over
and over again that the politicians who
want to shut down the oil sands are basically
destroying the economy of Canada simply to
appease environmentalists and to clean up
the problems of the third world.
But are these doomsday claims accurate?
Just 40 years ago, the United Arab Emir-
ates was a sparsely populated, nomadic des-
ert. Now, it is a globally recognized urban
paradise, primarily funded by the sale of oil
and natural gas.
But rather than defending the use of the
fossil fuels that are the backbone of their
economy and that power the mega cities of
Abu Dhabi and Dubai, and that even desali-
nates the sea water needed for the greening
of the desert, the UAE is at the forefront of
solar power generation.
Dubai Clean Energy Strategy’s goal is
that seven per cent of Dubai’s energy will
come from solar power by 2020, 25 per cent
by 2030 and 75 per cent by 2050. Rather
than continuing to base their economies on
a finite resource, they see the future in solar
power generation.
Comment