The federal government plans to set up a new and voluntary producer checkoff to bridge the funding gap for Prairie wheat and barley research for the next five years at most.

 

Draft regulations for the checkoff are to be available online this week and printed in the Canada Gazette on Saturday (May 26) for a 30-day comment period, to take effect for the start of the new crop year on Aug. 1.

 

The Alberta Barley Commission, which has run the research checkoff for Alberta's barley growers since 1991, is proposed in the regulations as the administrator for the new Prairie-wide checkoff.

 

The government, in announcing the program Tuesday, said it intends for the Western Grains Research Foundation (WGRF), Canadian International Grains Institute (Cigi) and Canadian Malting Barley Technical Centre "to continue to receive the same level of funding they received through the previous arrangement."

 

The new checkoff is temporary, though, and is proposed to last only up to five years.

 

Beyond that time frame, the government said Tuesday, "it will be up to the grain industry to have developed and administered its own checkoff, if it considers this to be a priority for the sector."

 

The new checkoff follows from Bill C-18, the federal Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, which removed the Canadian Wheat Board's single marketing desk for Prairie wheat and barley, as well as the CWB's authority to collect checkoffs to fund wheat and barley variety research, both as of Aug. 1.

 

C-18 also provided for development of regulations to put a new voluntary checkoff in place, specifically to support:

- research activities into "new and improved" grain varieties;

- promotion of the marketing and use of grain grown in Canada; and

- technical assistance relating to the use of grain grown in Canada.

 

The new checkoff is to be done at point of sale and will appear as a deduction on the cash purchase tickets issued to farmers when they deliver grain, the government said Tuesday.

 

"This will be done in a manner that is fully transparent so that farmers can see the full amount of their support to grain research," the government added.

 

Support for such research is currently provided through a combination of producer checkoffs and direct grants from the CWB pool accounts. Those CWB grants, the government said Tuesday, have been "non-transparent to farmers, as these lowered the final payment for all farmers."

 

The new checkoff will not apply to imports, producer-to-producer sales, sales of feed and/or exports not delivered through licensed facilities. It will apply to sales of wheat and barley grown in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Peace River region of British Columbia and delivered to licensed facilities issuing cash purchase tickets.

 

Producers will be able to request refunds of their checkoff dollars, the government said. However, it noted as an example that only about five per cent of producers, on average, request to opt out of the WGRF checkoff each year.

 

The current checkoff for WGRF funding will continue for the 2011-12 crop year, the government said.

The proposed regulations "will not impede the development of additional checkoffs under existing provincial and federal regulation," the government said.

 

The WGRF, for one, "is committed to working with the established and emerging provincial wheat and barley commissions to synchronize check-off collection and regional research investments," foundation chairman Dave Sefton said in a separate release.

 

"Clarity"

 

Cigi board chairman Murdoch MacKay said in a separate release that Tuesday's announcement brings "clarity" to the institute's planning for the near- and longer-term.

 

"With the transition to an open market in Western Canada, customers have been asking Cigi if we will continue to provide them with the technical support and expertise that they have come to rely upon," Cigi executive director Earl Geddes said Tuesday.

 

"This funding ensures that we are in a position to continue to meet customer needs as we work on behalf of farmers to position their crops in key markets."

 

WGRF executive director Garth Patterson added that the new checkoffs "will allow producers to leverage additional public and private investment to increase our overall breeding research efforts and remain competitive with other exporters."

 

Alberta Barley Commission chairman Matt Sawyer said in a separate release that the organization's goal as the "agency of record" for the checkoff "is to ensure there are no funding disruptions for these organizations when (C-18) goes into effect on Aug. 1, 2012.

 

"As a grassroots, farmer-run organization, we understand the weight of this responsibility and we take that very seriously."

 

The Alberta commission was proposed as the new checkoff agency "after much consultation with the industry," the government said, adding it was the organization "best prepared to take on the role."

 

Country Guide, May 22, 2012

 

Back to top

 

 

 

Governments should use financial incentives to get farmers to participate in environmental programs, says the leader of Manitoba's leading farm organization.

 

Producers must be compensated for environmental practices instead of just being regulated to do them, says Doug Chorney, Keystone Agricultural Producers president.

 

Chorney says KAP recognizes there are times when regulations are necessary. However, Chorney also told a recent House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development meeting that sometimes environmental regulations, though well intentioned, are introduced without sufficient research and consultation.

 

"The result is a regulatory environment that stifles industry growth, adds significant costs to farm operation and fails to achieve conservation goals," he said in his presentation.

 

The committee is conducting a study into a National Conservation Plan announced in last year's Speech from the Throne. The committee has called for ideas from the public on what an NCP should be and what it should do.

 

Chorney says if farmers are expected to provide society with environmental goods and services, they should be rewarded for it. "An NCP must ensure that this principle of society paying for ecological

benefits is a pillar in its program development."

 

He gives the Alternative Land Use Services, a program originated by KAP that pays producers for sound environmental practices on their farms, as an example. ALUS pilot projects have been conducted in several provinces, including Manitoba.

 

ALUS is a good example of giving farmers incentives to carry out environmentally friendly practices that benefit all of society, he says. "If done correctly and with adequate funding amounts, this is a very effective program."

 

The committee voted in January to undertake the study, which began with meetings in Ottawa in March and April. It is holding further public hearings in Vancouver, Calgary and Halifax this month to hear from more people involved in conservation efforts.

 

Ron Friesen, FCC Express, May 18, 2012

 

Back to top

 

 

I'm among that crowd of Canadians who feel they're getting taken to the cleaners by Big Oil, while governments stand by and collect tax on inflated gas prices.

Greed is the only reason that's emerging after last week's mean-spirited spike at the pumps. Other excuses - such as switching from winter to summer gas, problems in the Middle East and shortages due to refineries closing - have been written off as lame by industry experts.

Some people say complaining about the price of gas is like a junkie complaining about the price of dope. But I don't accept that. Mass transit works well in many situations, but it doesn't always fit the bill in an expansive country such as ours. In many case, driving a vehicle is a necessity.

Periodically, advances are made in renewable fuel, an energy source that's already arrived and shows great promise for further refinement. Efforts are underway in labs and facilities across the country, including the University of Guelph, to create and improve reasonably priced bio-based fuels and products made from feedstocks, or biomass, which can be grown in Canadian farmers' fields. As an example, a consortium of 10 scientists from seven Ontario universities came together last month, led by Guelph-based Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, to form what they've called the Ontario Biomaterials A-team, to zero-in on these opportunities.

Biomass production comes with its own critics who say using land to grow crops for energy is diverting it away from food production. Others say it's not and argue farmers should be able to grow whatever they want. It's their land. We need to recognize that despite whatever altruistic image we have of farmers - stoic, humble, serving society first - they must make a profit on whatever they grow. If we won't pay them a reasonable price to grow food, then who can blame them for growing more lucrative crops that are turned into renewable energy, particularly if they help lessen our dependence on Big Oil and prove to be easier on the environment?

For farmers, the price of biomass has been a problem. Traditionally, they've been able to sell corn headed to ethanol production for a decent price. But it turns out other feedstocks - miscanthus, switchgrass, sorghum and tall prairie grass, in particular - can also produce profitable energy, according to a new report released last week. The report, Assessment of the Business Case for Purpose-Grown Biomass in Ontario, says farmers here have the potential to grow "hundreds of thousands of tonnes" of these crops. And more importantly, they can fetch a margin comparable to that of traditional cash crops, such as corn, wheat and soybeans.

That's a significant finding. Profitability is relative compared to some other forms of energy, says Don Hewson, managing director of the Bowman Centre for Technology Commercialization in London, which had a lead role in the study. In local markets, he says, biomass is less than half the cost of heating oil and propane, which now supplies a large portion of rural Ontario. Indeed, space heating applications, using heating oil and propane, are potentially profitable markets for purpose-grown biomass pellets in Ontario.

Hewson admits large energy utilities are currently best served by coal or natural gas. But, he adds, in the near term other opportunities could arise such as agricultural biomass exports to Europe. The business case for energy crops is expected to improve even more as additional acreage is grown, especially as research in plant breeding and advances in production practices help increase yields.

"There is a future for the purpose-grown biomass industry," says the report. "Farmers are encouraged to include these crops in Ontario's agricultural system."

 

Owen Roberts, AgriLink, May 22, 2012

 

Back to top

 

 

 

Canadian farmers will have the opportunity to increase their profits while mitigating their impact on the environment with the support of the Harper Government. Member of Parliament Laurie Hawn (Edmonton-Centre), on behalf of Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, announced today an investment of nearly $600,000 to the University of Alberta to study greenhouse gas mitigation in agroforestry systems.

 

"Our Government's top priority remains creating jobs and long-term economic prosperity for all Canadians," said MP Hawn. "This investment reinforces our Government's commitment to providing farmers with tools and knowledge to maximize returns from their land while ensuring the preservation of our environment."

 

The University of Alberta will use the investment to measure the amount of carbon that can be stored and the amount of greenhouse gas reduced with the use of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry provides opportunities to integrate productivity and profitability with environmental stewardship. Results of this research may lead to new diversified farm income and new employment opportunities through the development of bio-based products. These may include renewable bio-energy products (biomass), pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals.

 

"Environmental research is a strength and a priority at the University of Alberta," said Dr. Lorne Babiuk, Vice-President (Research). "Our researchers are conducting innovative research that is providing solutions to some of the most pressing issues the world faces today, including environmental issues. It is very gratifying for us to receive strong support on this project from the federal government as we continue to partner in ways that improve the quality of life for all Canadians."

 

"This project will enhance the understanding and accessibility of beneficial management practices (BMPs) that can be adopted by farmers to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in Canada," said Dr. Scott Chang, professor and researcher, University of Alberta. "If the beneficial roles of agroforestry systems are demonstrated, opportunities exist to tie the BMPs to economic gains for producers, for example, through payments for carbon offsets."

 

This project is supported through the Agricultural Greenhouse Gases Program (AGGP), a five-year, $27-million initiative that focuses on the development of on-farm greenhouse gas mitigation technologies. The AGGP will provide funding to various partners across Canada to investigate innovative mechanisms, tools, and approaches that provide real solutions for the agriculture sector.

 

The AGGP is Canada's initial contribution to the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, an international network of more than 30 member countries that coordinates and increases agricultural research on greenhouse gas mitigation and makes new mitigation technologies and beneficial management practices available to farmers. For more information on the Global Research Alliance, visit http://www.globalresearchalliance.org.

 

AAFC Press Release, May 23, 2012

 

Back to top

 

 

AAFC is investing $200,000 for two projects with the Manitoba Pork Council. The first investment of over $150,000 will help improve the air quality of swine barns by testing the effectiveness of an electrostatic space charge system (ESCS) to reduce and prevent the airborne transmission of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), a highly infectious virus that costs the Canadian industry an estimated $130 million per year.

 

A second investment of over $57,000 will be used to conduct a comparative study of cropping systems to promote use of swine manure on Manitoba farms. The study is expected to help identify sustainable land management practices, which would also reduce waterway pollution and, in turn, help lessen the environmental impact of the province's farming practices.

 

"These are potentially valuable projects for hog producers in Manitoba. As more farmers move into liquid-solid separation of manure, it is important to increase our understanding of how we can better utilize the resulting products in an environmentally sound manner," said Karl Kynoch, Chair of the Manitoba Pork Council. "As well, we are always looking for ways of improving air quality in barns and to find better disease prevention techniques. We also need to meet the provincial government's regulatory process, and we believe these research projects can assist us in these goals."

 

These projects are being supported by the Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (CAAP), a five-year (2009-14), $163-million initiative that aims to help the Canadian agricultural sector adapt and remain competitive. Eligible CAAP projects could be in the areas of traceability, environment, climate change, capacity development, pests and diseases, and more. In Manitoba, the regional component of CAAP is delivered by the Manitoba Rural Adaptation Council (MRAC).

 

AAFC Press Release, May 23, 2012

 

Back to top

 

 

 

The Harper government has shut the door on loosening the Product of Canada labelling rule despite complaints from farmers and domestic food processors about the high threshold.

 

The final decision comes after Conservative ministers hinted about pending changes to the Product of Canada policy to exempt minor ingredients that are hard to source locally, such as sugar and vinegar.

Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz told Postmedia News on Wednesday the government is sticking with the 98 per cent ingredient threshold, excluding products such as Canadian-made jam with Saskatoon berries and imported sugar or a jar of pickles processed in Canada from Canadian cucumbers with imported salt and vinegar.

 

"Everybody wants to know what's in the can or in the jar and that's why we're pushing forward to make sure it says Product of Canada. Having said that, it's a voluntary label. If you feel it's going to help you market your product, then by all means use it, provided you're at the 98 per cent level. Should you decide to go to a lower level, you can certainly say 'Made in Canada' with Quebec blueberries' or 'processed in Canada with Ontario peaches,'" Ritz said in an interview.

 

In the case of Smith's Quality Meats, the Winnipeg company had to drop the Product of Canada label for its sausages because the company can't certify the added salt and seasonings, which account for three per cent of the total ingredients in their sausages, are domestically produced.

 

"It's all Manitoba meat, grown by Manitoba farmers, slaughtered in Manitoba and produced by a Manitoba company," said operations manager Andy Van Patter, who also serves as president of the Manitoba Food Processors Association.

 

"Now I produce a product and don't put anything on it. Now my consumer is going to look at this, they don't have a clue whether it's a Canadian product. We have the option of putting 'produced in Canada with imported ingredients,' and for some reason Ottawa thinks that's a real nice selling feature, but it doesn't say what's imported," said Van Patter, who added the Product-of-Canada line seems limited to "raw produce or raw meat, with no processing at all."

 

The government has been wrestling with what to do ever since Ritz announced the new threshold in 2008. Until this policy change, a food product could be labelled as a Product of Canada if 51 per cent of the total production cost occurred in the country, even if all the ingredients were imported.

 

The old policy was panned universally, but Canadian producers and food processors said the government went too far. Opposition parties agreed, and pressed for an ingredient threshold of 85 per cent as way to encourage the use of local produce and meats.

 

By the spring of 2010, Ritz and Jean-Pierre Blackburn, who served as minister of state for agriculture until his defeat in the 2011 federal election, started to muse about the possibility of exempting minor or functional ingredients that are not easily sourced in Canada, as long as the main ingredient or produce was Canadian.

 

Blackburn went further, saying at the time he hoped to resolve the issue flagged by Canadians farmers and processors before the end of 2010, following online consultations by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

 

According to Ritz's office, the results of the consultation showed consumers were split on the question of exempting sugar, salt and vinegar, with a razor thin majority supporting the exemption. Responses from industry showed an even split on exempting sugar (48 per cent for and against), but with support for exempting salt and vinegar slightly higher (52 per cent support compared to 44 per cent who opposed).

 

The CFIA followed up with public opinion research, carried out in fall of 2010. The survey by Ekos Research found 57 of Canadians supported exempting sugar, compared to 37 per cent who disapproved. Exempting salt and vinegar was supported by 54 per cent, while 39 per cent opposed the idea.

Ritz said the government launched the consultations after hearing about concerns from industry groups, and the results helped inform the final decision.

 

"There were a number of people disgruntled with that, so we said, 'OK, as a good government, we'll go back and take a second look at it,'" he said of the 98 per cent threshold. "We've done that. With over 3,100 interventions and the majority are saying, 'Stay with what you've got.'"

 

Sarah Schmidt, Postmedia News, May 23, 2012

 

Back to top

 

 

AIC Notes is a weekly update provided as a service for AIC members.  Please do not circulate or post.  The content of AIC Notes does not represent official positions, opinions or support of AIC or its members.