A letter to the editor as published in the Cornwall Standard Freeholder in April 2006, by Tom Manley

I wish to address the flawed and inconsistent arguments in Todd Hambleton’s column on pesticides on March 27th. The flawed logic of his presentation forces us to reject his position.

On one hand, he is concerned with encroaching government and the propensity for banning things. Then he applauds Health Canada and the Environmental Protection Agency in the US for putting pesticide products through rigourous tests. One can either appreciate government involvement or reject it completely, but one cannot selectively applaud it and condemn it when the results suite one’s position. If the government has the authority and duty to review pesticides for approval, then it must also review them for possible withdrawal.

I agree that we do not want governments intruding in our lives. But that position applies to matters within the scope of individuals. On the contrary, pesticides affect everyone, every thing, every where. 69% of people who do not use pesticides still have pesticide residues in the carpets in their homes. The effects of pesticides are not limited to the person making the decision to use them, just like smoking, speeding, and drunk driving affect people around us. Therefore, the government and civil society have a duty to protect the many from the potentially harmful actions of the few.

Mr Hambleton also has incoherent views on the competence of scientists. On one hand, he ridicules scientists who link pesticides with health problems. Then in the same breath, he cites the apparent volume of science that discounts any such links. Are the scientists competent or not? We cannot both condemn and use science in the same argument without explanation or context.

If Mr Hambleton had attended the presentation in Ingleside last week, he would have learned about important new scientific discoveries, which could not have been foreseen when pesticides were first approved. Science has this habit of making erroneous predictions without sufficient evidence and then later learning and regretting from experience. We can draw a long list of such cases: PCBs in transformers, asbestos in insulation, lead in gasoline, to name just a few.

At the presentation, he would also have learned that science is not exact as our world in complex; science is about observations, learning, and probabilities. Therefore, we cannot simply accept pesticides merely by the absence of the smoking gun. Contemporary science is now learning about the long term cumulative and indirect effects of pesticides.

Thirdly, he would have learned that the question is not strictly about the danger of pesticides. The question is more about the risk-benefit analysis. Dangerous pesticides can still be valuable in cases of deadly infestations where the benefit clearly outweighs the risk. However, the cosmetic use of pesticides on lawns fails to produce significant benefits versus the known risks. At best, lawn pesticides may offer private benefits for the lawn owner, but that cannot outweigh the many public risks.

If a newspaper column is to be reputable, then the presentation must at least be reliable and coherent.

Tom Manley

As published in local newspapers in March 2005

The Future of Agriculture.By Tom Manley

I had the pleasure of joining the 7,000 farmers at Queen’s Park on Wednesday March 2nd, 2005. The bus ride of 5 hours each way was worth the opportunity to understand the many facets of the crisis in contemporary agriculture in Ontario and Canada.

On one hand, there were loud demands for immediate actions to address the current crisis: direct financial support comparable to Quebec, the USA and Europe, delays or reduction in the regulatory load, withdrawal of trade embargoes. People could clearly grasp the short-term problems and solutions, as demonstrated by the reading material, the rhetoric of the speakers, the cheers of the crowd, and the discussions on the bus.

There were also great statements from the podium about long term solutions, a hand up instead of a hand out, the future of agriculture, long term sustainability, systemic changes, the priority of food in our survival and quality of life, feeding Canadians first, the need to connect the grower and the eater, etc... Unfortunately, the participants usually came up short on specific long-term solutions. Quite often, a question about long-term direction was often answered with the usual short-term band-aids.

I fear that farmers either do not grasp the long-term dilemma or refuse to imagine the significant changes required to make agriculture sustainable. That is quite understandable since systemic changes are very uncomfortable for the current paradigm in agriculture.

Let us first understand that the current income crisis is not a sudden event caused by a border closure or a crop surplus or a subsidy disparity. The trend has been clear for many decades as mechanization, high energy inputs, globalization and consolidation have eaten away at margins. Foreign trade policies have then amplified the problem.

I will leave the short-term debate to current governments. Rather, let me focus on a vision for agriculture in 10 years, one that a progressive government could implement.

Above all, the world has a limited supply of fossil fuels and we will run out of cheap energy. The rising cost of energy will make long distance transportation and fossil fertilizers unaffordable and uncompetitive with low input and organic agriculture. Cheap foreign commodities will not longer afford the high cost of transportation to flood the Canadian market. The US farm subsidies will be a victim of the crushing US debt.

Farmers will walk away from the disenfranchisement of globalization and the export-import commodity business. We will feed Canadians first with a rich and varied offering to satisfy our culinary and cultural diversity. Local economies will flourish. Farmers will cut out the middleman and re-connect with consumers through farm stands, farmers markets, and home delivery. Miniaturization will make on-farm or community processing the norm. 

The average age of farmers will drop considerably. The current generation of so-called “production farmers” will have retired, to be replaced with a generation of new and second-career farmers focused on food, health, and lifestyle. Marketing systems will evolve to reduce the capital cost barrier, open the bottom to entry-level farmers, allow for direct marketing, diversify and distribute production on mixed family-scale farms. Farm credit organizations will facilitate start-up farms, small acreages, local processing, and farmer coops.

I see farmers doubling their political clout by simply doubling their numbers from 2% to 4% of voters. I can read the headline in this paper in 2015: “Ontario registers its 100,000th farmer!” Farmers will also have become political and will ensure their own direct impact on their urban friends, thanks to direct contact thru direct marketing.

But that also means a 50% reduction in the average farm size. History will have swallowed the industrial scale commodity farm serving the export market. The next generation farm will be more labour intensive, as farmers re-connect with their consumers and respond with organic food, high value crops, fresh produce, wool and fibers, on-farm processing, and pastured livestock. 

We may think that Ontario agriculture today is safe, nutritious and ecological. But health conscious consumers and budget sensitive governments have a much more demanding definition of sustainability for our farms, our ecology and our health. As provincial health care budgets overtake all other departments, we will undertake a great paradigm shift towards greater nutrition, raw food, less meat and more produce, and local production and consumption. 

By the way, our farms will be profitable through the price of food, not through subsidies to farms, energy, or industry. The food portion of our disposable income will rise from 10% to 15% with a corresponding decrease in taxes as we reduce subsidies, transportation infrastructures and sick care costs. We will have rediscovered the culture of agriculture, the pride and appreciation of farming, and the ecological value of land stewardship.

Tom Manley

A letter to the editor as published in the Cornwall Standard Freeholder in January 2005, by Tom Manley

As the Freeholder reported last Thursday, the current prices of corn and soybeans hardly cover the cost of production, let alone allow the farmer a decent living. While farmers may feel that they cannot do anything about it, I must highlight the organic option that is plainly available.

Certified organic crops have maintained stable prices at about double the conventional price, and sometimes more. For the 7 years that I have been purchasing organic crops, corn has sold between $200 and $300 per tonne, compared to $100-$160 for conventional. My current spot price for organic corn is $270, versus about $110 for conventional corn.

Organic crops also obey supply and demand pressures, hence the variations in the organic prices, But the demand for organic food among consumers has continued to rise without being matched by local crop producers. I must import corn from Québec, south western Ontario and the USA on a regular basis to keep up with my processing needs.

Organic crops consistently sell for twice the price, provide a yield that is usually about 75% of conventional in similar circumstances, and require far fewer inputs. Organic farmers manage fertility with crop rotations and organic amendments. They control weeds with crop rotations and mechanical weed control. At the end of the day, everyone wins with better net income for the farmer, less environmental impact in the field, and high quality food for the consumer.

Organic farming is clearly not for everyone. It is knowledge and management intensive. The learning curve and the transition period can scare off timid people. But for committed farmers, the conversion to organic production pays off in many ways.

Tom Manley

Livestock Can Be Environmentally Friendly.As published in local newspapers in August 2003, by Tom Manley

The intense debate over the benefits and risks of intensive livestock operations (ILO), especially large hog farms, has clouded the real issues. The media has not helped either, preferring to highlight entrenched positions, neighbours against neighbours. 

The argument over ILOs is not about food, farming, nor simply odours. It is about excessive concentration. The large concentrations of food, that we do not eat, leave the area through vertically integrated supply chains. The large concentrations of putrid manure threaten our environment and our quality of life. They are treated as waste and not as valuable sustainable resources The government focus has been on containment instead of quality.

Farming cannot concentrate like other manufacturing industries because we are dealing with biological systems and not widgets. Biological systems react to our management practices. The contemporary practice of mono-cropping of either field crops or concentrated animals creates a breeding ground for disease, reliance on antibiotics, and the massive displacement of nutrients.

People want food and people want farmers, but not any kind of food nor farms. People want diversity, quality, great taste, and excellent texture produced in a country side that is appreciated as much for its food as for its beauty and its lifestyle.

There are ways to produce pork or any livestock that are friendly to the animal, the farmers, the environment, the neighbours and the consumers. The mixed farm, both small and large reduces the concentrations of single species. The diversity reduces the farmer's risk and leverages the complementarity of the enterprises. Direct marketing improves the margins on smaller herds. Local economies put people in touch with each other and they work together for a common goal. Local slaughterhouses and processors facilitate the links between the producers and their markets.

Dry bedding packs bind the nitrogen and carbon and eliminate the odours. Proper composting manages the valuable manure resource without environmental impacts. Diet changes that favour more forages and less grains solidify the manure and reduce the odours. Putting hogs on pasture improves the health of the animal, reduces the use of antibiotics, and improves the flavour of the meat. Selecting species for both meat quality and outdoor production wins friends everywhere.

Let's drop the limited arguments over ILOs. Let's work on better ways to produce good food in a local economy. 

Because small is beautiful.

Tom Manley