September / October 2005
Index
The Ontario Grain & Oilseed Safety Net Working Group
The OCPA has been working with the six other Ontario grain and oilseed commodity groups (Ontario Bean Producers' Marketing Board, Ontario Canola Growers' Association, Ontario Coloured Bean Growers' Association, Ontario Soybean Growers, Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board, and the Seed Corn Growers of Ontario) for the last year to better co-ordinate lobbying efforts relating to common safety net issues at both the provincial and federal level. By pooling resources and efforts, we have ensured that the message coming from this sector on safety nets is always the same, and that the "divide and conquer" strategy customarily employed against us will no longer work. The umbrella Working Group is charged with implementing policy decisions and strategy adopted by the 7 parent groups. Chaired by Peter Tuinema, the Working Group has a number of sub- committees/teams working on specific areas and projects. Because of the efforts of the Group and some of these teams, this sector:
* launched & vigourously pursued the Farmers Feed Cities campaign to increase agriculture's share of the provincial budget from 0.7% to 1.4%
* had a major presence at the Outdoor Farm Show and the Plowing Match
* will be hosting another Grain & Oilseed reception (the second this year) for MPPs & their policy staff at Queen's Park on Tuesday, November 15
* has developed Risk Management Program (RMP) Speaking Teams which have made several presentations at county, regional, and special events across Ontario
* and will visit every MPP, again, when the Legislature resumes sitting this fall.
Risk Management Program
The Ontario Safety Net Working Group co-ordinated the development and adoption of the Risk Management Program as a replacement program for Market Revenue Insurance. The Working Group is co- ordinating efforts to have RMP adopted and implemented by both levels of government commencing with the provincial government.
The Working Group co- ordinated 6 RMP Grower Awareness sessions across Ontario in June and July at which more than 1,000 producers were presented with the details of the RMP.
The RMP has also been presented to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and OMAFRA staff, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and AAFC staff, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, Grain Growers of Canada. The RMP is scheduled to presented to the Safety Net Committee of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in October.Risk Management Program Created by farmers, for farmers Key Points for Growers
The RMP represents a new way of doing business; but, the Program will happen only if growers across Ontario support it and push very hard to get it. Check former Minister of Agriculture and Food Steve Peter's letter to judge the provincial government's reaction! Check Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Andy Mitchell's letter to judge federal government reaction!- RMP is a replacement program for Market Revenue Insurance.
- MRI worked to offset low prices, but needed improvements
- Support was based on historical prices, not costs
- Took years of lobbying to get support levels up from 80%
- Even at 90%, support levels didn't cover cost of production
- Ontario withheld 33% of triggered payments in lieu of premiums
- No premium meant governments didn't contribute as they should
- Payments were made about 20 months after planting
RMP is designed to correct these problems; but, MRI was scrapped. Without RMP, there is only the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) and Production Insurance (PI) for 2005 crops.
- RMP meets the needs of grain and oilseed producers; CAIS doesn't.
- CAIS is whole-farm, where the problem is commodity-specific low prices
- CAIS provides stabilization, but does not offset artificially low prices
- Grains &Oilseeds production and reference margins have declined sharply meaning CAIS cannot meet the need
- CAIS controls and limits government support
- RMP is designed to integrate with CAIS to correct these problems.Ontario needs to provide more support for all of agriculture.
- Ontario agriculture is the 3rd largest sector but is provided with only 0.7% of Ontario's budget
- $15 million increase for 2005/06 budget still leaves OMAFRA $108 million short from previous governments' spending of
$672.7 million in 2003/04, all of it in under-funding for safety net programs
- All Ontario agriculture sectors are developing new programs, all need support
- We must work together to "grow the pie, not split the pie differently"
- We are committed to work with all of Ontario agriculture in a unified voice
- RMP may require about $88 million/year on average in new Ontario funding.RMP highlights
- Timely payments, twice per year if triggered
- Growers can choose their level of support to protect their own cost of production
- Premiums are required and match coverage level chosen
- Farm-fed grains are included, similar to MRI
- Based on individual's yield history and individual planted acreage
- Linked to CAIS with payments counting as CAIS paymentsRMP is an evolving program, grower input is needed
-Growers are asked to forward any suggestions for improvements to any of the 7 Ontario Grain and Oilseed commodity groups
-Growers need to speak out, this is their program.RMP needs grower support to make it happen.
-Growers are asked to complete a "yellow card" and mail it in
-More "yellow cards" will be coming in the Conveyor and in the Corn Producer; growers are asked to get more people to complete them and send them in too
-These cards will be hand delivered to the Premier
-Growers are asked to contact their local Member of the Provincial Parliament by phone, by mail, by email, or better yet in person.
WITHOUT GROWER SUPPORT, RMP WILL NOT HAPPEN. GET INVOLVED; STAY INVOLVED!
(per Bushel) CORN SOYBEANS WINTER WHEAT Note: Support prices are indexed annually using Farm Input Price Index
Farmers Feed Cities Campaign
The OCPA, through participation with our patners in the Ontario Grain & Oilseed Safety Net Working Group, developed and is vigourously promoting the 'yellow card' Farmers Feed Cities campaign to increase agriculture's share of the provincial budget from 0.7% to 1.4%. The intent is to gather 40,000 yellow postcards and hand delivery them to Premier McGuinty during the fall legislature. The McGuinty government increased funding for agriculture by $15 million in the 2005 budget to $569 but that is only 0.7% of the overall provincial budget for a sector generating more than 10% of provincial GDP. Twenty years ago, agriculture garnered 1.4% of the provincial budget. The $569 million total is $108 million less than the allotment for agriculture in 2003, the last year of the previous government, with all of the cut coming from safety net expenditures.
To highlight the on-going need to focus increased provincial financial support on agriculture in Ontario, the Ontario Safety Net Working Group developed the following resolution to have the Saturday before Thanksgiving Day declared "Farmers Feed Cities" Day. The resolution was adopted by the OFA, and it is to be presented to the provincial government and various municipal organizations to have it implemented.
A RESOLUTION TO PROCLAIM THE SATURDAY BEFORE THANKSGIVING "FARMERS FEED CITIES" DAY.
Whereas the 60,000 farms in Ontario are the foundatino of the third largest industry in the province accounting for 10.3% of provincial economic activity;
And, whereas Ontario farmers produce more than $8.6 billion in farm-gate receipts, which contributes more than $13 billion in agri-food sector manufacturing in the province, and generates $47.5 billion in total personal expenditures for food and beverages in Ontario accounting for 16.3% of personal disposable income;
And, whereas 85,000 Ontario farm operators produce much of the food consumed by the 11.4 million people of Ontario, but many citizens of the province do not appreciate the role these Ontario farmers play in putting food on their daily plate;
And, whereas the budget of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food is only 0.7% of the Ontario provincial budget, but was
1.4% not very long ago and should be again in order to ensure that the high quality, safe food consumed in Ontario continues to be produced in Ontario;
Therefore, be it resolved that the municipal and provincial governments of Ontario declare the Saturday prior to Thanksgiving Day as
"Farmers Feed Cities Day" as a means of focusing attention on the farmers of Ontario and the need to ensure a strong, vibrant, and sustainable agriculture and food industry in this province.
This APF research funding proposal was introduced in the last report given at the joint corn/soybean/wheat annual meeting in March. Since then, the program has been finalized and dollars are flowing to fund new research projects.
The new program is called the Canada-Ontario Research and Development (CORD 4) Program. Anyone who has been involved in research during the last decade will realize that CORD 4 is a continuation of previous CORD rounds with certain improvements. This program is very important to OCPA members in that it provides increased access to research dollars which are very important in tackling current and emerging corn related issues.
The CORD 4 allocation to Field Crops sector was approximately $4.5 million. Responsibility of these monies is charged back to the sector committees which were formed with the intent of encouraging full sector participation in the consideration and submission of research and development proposals. These sector committees have proven valuable in the allocating of funds amongst the commodity groups in past CORD allotments, conducting due diligence on applications, providing peer review and promoting projects that would benefit multiple commodities. The sector committee which OCPA falls under is the Ontario Field Crops Research Coalition (OFCRC). The OFCRC group consists of 11 commodity groups; corn, soybeans, wheat, small grains, forages, white and coloured beans, canola, seed corn, Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association, Innovative Farmers of Ontario and sugar beets being the newest member. This group met in February to discuss how the 'wedge' funding monies would be allocated between groups and the details outlining how the program would be implemented. In the past, funding levels were based on farm gate receipts, with accommodation made to provide the smallest commodities with a minimum level of funding such that meaningful projects could be conducted. Using a similar format (which the coalition groups supported), OCPA was allocated just over $1.1 million. The largest constraint with this funding is the deadline; the money must be spent by March 31, 2008.
Any projects approved by OFCRC are forwarded to AAC (Agricultural Adaptation Council), a group that has in the past administered other CORD programs. AAC has developed a research project proposal template that needs to be completed in order for them to accept an application. In an attempt to streamline the process, OFCRC has adopted this application for project approvals at their coalition meetings. Once majority approved, the projects are forwarded by the OFCRC secretariat to gain final approvals from the AAC board. From there, the projects can commence.
Since this spring, OCPA has brought forward 6 project proposals for approval. All 6 received the support required by OFCRC and AAC. These projects are listed below:
If any members wish to gain more detail around the aforementioned projects or any other research related material, feel free to contact your local or regional OCPA Director, or the OCPA office in Guelph. You can also visit our website at www.ontariocorn.org to view our most recent call for proposals.
During the
past 6 months, my predecessor Ken Hough (who is currently working at the
University of Guelph in the Office of Research) has been visiting the
various commodity organizations and agricultural coalitions to explain
some of the changes when performing research at the University of Guelph;
whether it is at the main campus or satellite campuses such as Ridgetown
College. Two of the biggest changes are Research Station Costs and Overhead.
Early in the year, Ken unveiled the first major change. He revealed that he was in charge of a project designed to get a better handle on the 'true costs' of performing research at the University of Guelph. One of the major drivers for this project was OMAFRA and the money that is spent at the university through the OMAFRA/U of G contract. In the past through this contract, OMAFRA had covered off many of the infrastructure costs such as land. Obviously, expenses such as land costs are an important element of the research. OMAFRA had concerns that these costs were being 'taken for granted' and not giving OMAFRA the public profile for this research they deserved. Therefore, the rationale for this project moving forward was to determine these research expenses and to share these costs of research station operations (including inflation) among all users.
In Ken's effort to transparently show all costs associated with performing research at a research station, a template was developed. This template outlines what is now referred to as Research Station Services and Access (RSSA) fees. Within these RSSA fees, land costs are captured as well as other associated costs that include technicians and machinery. As an example, if OCPA is interested in a research project at the Elora research station, the RSSA fee will be $1650/acre/year. As another example, if a researcher decided this charge was too high and moved their research off station, this charge would still apply IF the researcher was still making use of station resources (ie. people, equipment, etc.)
So, what does this mean to Ontario corn producer members? As long as the research project is an OMAFRA approved project, nothing will change in terms of the total budget of the project. All that stands to happen is that part of OCPA's research project contribution will be targeted to research station fees (this has not happened in the past) and the OMAFRA dollars which are 'freed up' will move to the more visible operating side of the project. If the project is not OMAFRA approved, then OCPA would pay the full RSSA cost with no 'freed up' or off-set dollars.
One detail I briefly mentioned that will affect every project is the inflation charge. On all projects in which RSSA fees apply, there will be a 3.5% inflation charge that will need to be build into the budget of any multi-year research projects.
The change which will have the biggest impact on OCPA is in the area of overhead charges. It has been reported to OCPA that universities across the province are following a similar course of action and in the case of OCPA funded research, there will be applicable overhead charges where none existed before. These costs will cover central University and departmental indirect costs such as human resources, finance, utilities and facility upkeep.
From now on, all contract work performed at the University of Guelph will be subject to a 40 percent overhead charge. For all grant work (the type of research OCPA usually engages in), the overhead charge will be dependent on the location of the research. For instance, if the research occurs at the University of Guelph main campus or Guelph area research stations, a 25 percent overhead charge would apply. If the project is contracted out to a regional campus such as Ridgetown College, a
15 percent overhead charge would apply. Research performed at Simcoe, Bradford and Vineland research stations are subject to 20 percent overhead fee.
The university has attempted to 'soften the blow' by allowing some exemptions. If a research project budget includes expenses such as graduate student stipends, RSSA fees, research awards such as NSERC or OMAFRA contract money, OCPA would not be charged overhead on these particular project budget items.
The university is starting to draw a line when it comes to outlining these new overhead charges. If OCPA or other researcher applicants fail to budget these indirect costs into their research proposals, the applications will be rejected until they are revamped to include all necessary information. This could cause some untimely and therefore costly delays.
OCPA has also learned that one of the 'matching' funds programs that the association has made use of extensively in the past may soon be a thing of the past. The Matching Investment Initiative (MII) from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will continue through to the end of this fiscal year; however once the new fiscal starts in April 2006, there is some concern this program will not be continued.In summary, as of June 2005, the cost of performing research at the University of Guelph is increasing. When talking about RSSA fees, it will cost OCPA at the least the 3.5 percent/year (inflation charge) more and could include some or all of the RSSA fees, depending on whether or not the research is supported by OMAFRA. Expenses outside of RSSA fees (and the other exemptions mentioned above) will be subject to overhead charges that could be as little as 15 percent to as high as 40 percent. Bottom line is that with these increased expenses, OCPA just had its research budget cut - in other words to perform the same amount of research as last year, OCPA would have to come up with more money.
Since the update given at the joint Corn/Soybean/ Wheat annual general meeting, the national Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) has been launched in Ontario. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) signed an agreement to deliver more than $57 million in Government of Canada support for programs to help Ontario farmers expand their environmental stewardship activities and make environmental considerations a farm business priority. This funding is provided under the Canada-Ontario Environmental Farm Plan Program (EFP) and Canada- Ontario Farm Stewardship Program (COFSP).
The OFA is a signatory to the agreement on behalf of the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition (OFEC). OFEC represents more than 50 farm organizations in the province, with leadership provided by OFA, Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO), Agricultural Groups Concerned About Resources and the Environment (AgCare) and the Ontario Farm Animal Council (OFAC). OCPA is a regular participant in OFEC working group meetings. OFA has contracted delivery of the EFP with the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA).
OSCIA has qualified local program representatives to deliver the 3rd edition EFP workbook and workshops across the province. Trained facilitators and technical assistants will be available at these sessions to help producers complete their risk assessments and action
plans. Once producers have a peer-reviewed environmental farm plan, they are eligible to apply for financial assistance under the Canada-Ontario Farm Stewardship Program to help with the implementation of specific beneficial management practices (BMPs).
In Ontario, producers can choose from 25 categories of BMPs designed to reduce environmental risks. The program will cost-share either 30 or 50 percent of eligible costs of implementation, depending upon the BMP, up to a maximum of $30,000 per legal entity. The program is set to run until March 31, 2008.
The delivery of the EFP program will be co-ordinated with other related federal and provincial environmental initiatives, including
Ontario's $20 million Nutrient Management Financial Assistance Program (NMFAP).
In June,
the provincial government announced its incentive program, the Ethanol
Growth Fund
(EGF), aimed at encouraging expansion of domestic ethanol production in
Ontario. The provincial government had previously announced its Renewable
Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring that ethanol sales as of January 1, 2007
equate to 5% of total gasoline sales in Ontario. That RFS target implies
about 750 million litres of ethanol need to be sold as of January 1, 2007.
The question has always been; where will that ethanol come from? Ontario
imports more fuel ethanol than it produces already. It would be a simple
matter to merely expand imports from the U.S. and/or Brazil in order to
meet the sales target.
To be clear, the OCPA has always been, and continues to be, supportive
of ethanol produced in Ontario using corn grown in Ontario.
It is the position of the OCPA that taxpayer- supported business ventures
should be held to a higher level of accountability than business ventures
not dependent on government assistance. Therefore, government assistance
for ethanol should maximize benefit to rural Ontario and to Ontario corn
producers which is the specific promise Premier McGuinty made in September
2003. To that end, the OCPA proposed that taxpayer assistance to
ethanol producers be based on their purchases of Ontario-grown corn. The
provincial government chose not to implement our proposal. The provincial
government choose instead to provide EGF operating grants to ethanol producers
based on their output of ethanol, all ethanol not just new production
and regardless of corn source. Ethanol produced from imported subsidized
U.S. corn would reap the same taxpayer funded assistance as ethanol produced
using Ontario-grown corn. However, ethanol made from imported subsidized
U.S. corn obviously cannot provide anywhere near the same economic benefit
to rural Ontario and Ontario corn producers as ethanol made from Ontario-grown
corn. Taxpayer assistance could have, and should have been provided in
a manner ensuring maximum benefit to rural Ontario and to Ontario corn
producers. The OCPA views the EGF as "an opportunity missed"
and said so in the July/August editorial of the Ontario Corn Producer.
As stated
above, the OCPA supports ethanol made in Ontario from Ontario grown corn.
One good thing that the RFS and EGF announcements did accomplish is finally
bringing clarity to the policy environment surrounding ethanol in Ontario.
Because of this long-overdo clarity, several projects were announced following
the EGF announcement and the following is their status to the best of
OCPA's knowledge:
a) Suncor, Sarnia - build- from-scratch fuel ethanol plant, projected
200 million litres of fuel ethanol output, will grind 20 million bushels
of corn annually, turned sod June 2005, targeted completion Sept-Oct 2006
b) Power Stream, Collingwood - conversion of moth-balled Nacan corn wet
mill facility, projected 55 million litres of fuel ethanol, will grind
5.5 million bushels of corn annually, targeted completion May-June 2006
c) Integrated Grain Processing Cooperative, Brantford - build-from- scratch
fuel ethanol plant, projected 120 million litres of fuel ethanol output,
will grind 12 million bushels of corn annually, finalizing equity drive,
no construction commencement date announced
d) Seaway Valley, Cornwall - build-from-scratch fuel ethanol plant, projected
68 million litres of fuel ethanol output, will grind 6.8 million bushels
of corn
annually, finalizing re-costing estimates, no construction commencement
date announced
e) Upper Canada Malting (UCM) Engineered Fuels, Barrie - conversion of
moth-balled Molson brewery facility, projected 300 million litres of fuel
ethanol, will grind 30 million bushels of corn annually, no construction
commencement date announced
f) Commercial Alcohols Inc., Windsor - build-from- scratch fuel ethanol
plant, projected 150 million litres of fuel ethanol output, will grind
15 million bushels of corn annually, no construction commencement date
announced
The OCPA, in conjunction with our partners, the Ontario Soybean Growers and the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board, conducted three "marketing needs assessment" sessions across Ontario this summer with 15-20 invited producers at each. The purpose of the sessions was to assess the need, if any, for marketing education courses, programs, training etc. If such marketing education was needed, what type and level of course(s) was needed and how would such training best be offered to our members? The responses from the sessions are currently being compiled into a summary report to be presented to the steering committee this fall.
It is anticipated that results from these marketing education assessment sessions will become the foundation for the marketing course(s) proposed within our Risk Management Program.
On August 31, 2005, the Canadian Corn Producers (a consortium of the Manitoba Corn Growers' Association, La Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec, and the Ontario Corn Producers' Association) published the following press release detailing three trade initiatives are jointly pursuing against the injurious affects of U.S. subsidies:
Canadian Corn Producers Fight Back Against Illegal U.S. Subsidies and Dumping
Canadian Corn Producers today unveiled their commitment to pursue a sustained three-pronged attack against unfairly traded U.S. grain corn imports. The attack will (a) enable Canadian corn farmers to earn a fair return on their crops and (b) level the playing field for Canadian corn farmers who for years now have suffered injury from low corn prices caused by billions of dollars of illegal U.S. subsidies and dumping.The three prongs are:
Byrd Amendment Retaliation
Canadian Corn Producers have asked the Canadian Government to add U.S. grain corn imports to the list of products targeted for retaliation by Canada against the U.S. for its refusal to repeal the Byrd Amendment (i.e., the U.S. law, already declared illegal under the WTO, that allows the U.S. Government to pay to affected U.S. industries anti- dumping and countervailing duties collected in the course of unfair trade possible retaliatory measures are imposing a surtax against such imports or suspending the injury requirement in a dumping and subsidy complaint under the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA).
Canadian Corn Producers believe that taking such retaliatory action against U.S. grain corn imports will help Canada maximize political pressure on Washington to repeal the Byrd Amendment. While measures against U.S. grain corn were not included in the first phase of Canada's retaliation strategy implemented this past spring, Canadian Corn Producers are confident that U.S grain corn is now on the Government of Canada's radar as a strategically important retaliation candidate should the stakes in the Byrd Amendment dispute be raised (e.g., if the U.S. Government ever funnels the almost $US 5 billion in illegal softwood lumber duties to U.S. producers) and Canada commences a second round of public consultations on proposed retaliation strategies.WTO Case
Canadian Corn Producers have also asked the Canadian Government to commence WTO dispute settlement proceedings by requesting consultations with the U.S. regarding the illegality of U.S. grain corn subsidies in light of (a) the expiry of the so-called "peace clause" in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and (b) the recent WTO dispute settlement reports in the Upland Cotton complaint initiated by Brazil which found that several of the major U.S. agricultural subsidy programs (which also apply to grain corn) violate U.S. WTO obligations.
Canadian Corn Producers believe that Canada challenging the types of subsidies invalidated by Upland Cotton will increase pressure on the U.S. to remove them. This is the same approach that Brazil, Australia and Thailand have taken to force the reduction of EU sugar subsidies.
Canadian Corn Producers also believe that commencing WTO consultations will increase Canada's leverage in the current Doha Round of WTO negotiations. As well, they believe that using the WTO dispute resolution process to attack such massive and illegal U.S. agricultural subsidies fits into Prime Minister Martin's vision, expressed in Canada's International Policy Statement (2005), of Canada's leadership role in liberalizing world trade to benefit all nations including developing ones. Furthermore, they believe that Canada's position within the Cairns Group will be enhanced by demonstrating its willingness to follow Brazil's breakthrough in Upland Cotton with its own proceeding.
The essence of Canada's WTO Case is that U.S. grain corn measures are specific subsidies that, contrary to the WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement, have conferred a benefit on U.S. grain corn producers and have caused adverse effects/serious prejudice to Canadian interests (e.g., through (a) displacement of Canadian grain corn production and sales, (b) significant grain corn price undercutting, suppression or depression and (c) an unfair increase in the U.S. share of world grain corn sales). Billions of dollars in illegal subsidies are received by U.S. grain corn producers annually. Indeed, in a recent speech to international trade lawyers in Toronto, Canada's Minister of International Trade, The Honourable Jim Peterson, called the level of U.S. subsidies under the 2002 U.S. Food Security and Rural Investment Act "obscene". These subsidies effectively guarantee U.S. growers a certain return regardless of the market price of corn.
As a result, corn acreage in the U.S. has remained artificially high and is set to increase again this year, despite low corn prices. At current price levels, illegal U.S. subsidies of grain corn represent a large portion of the export price of U.S. grain corn. This has lowered the price of grain corn in the U.S. and Canada. Lower prices directly harm Canadian Corn Producers who are currently selling the
2004 crop at a loss. Absent U.S. subsidies, Canadian Corn Producers are competitive both in terms of quality of product and cost
of production. Before the U.S. significantly expanded its subsidy programs, Canadian Corn Producers were able to fulfil all domestic demand with enough left over for modest exports. Challenging U.S. subsidies is not an attempt to save a non-competitive industry, but rather an effort to rescue a competitive industry that understandably cannot compete with the U.S. Treasury.
Canadian Corn Producers have filed a domestic trade remedy complaint under SIMA respecting the injurious subsidization and dumping of imports of U.S. grain corn.
Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has already determined that the complaint is properly documented and Canadian Corn Producers are confident that CBSA will soon announce publicly that it has initiated a formal investigation. As a consequence of the CBSA's investigation, Canadian Corn Producers are hopeful that countervailing and anti- dumping duties will be imposed before year's end.
Canadian Corn Producers have taken great care in preparing the complaint to ensure that any countervailing and anti- dumping duties arising from it cannot be circumvented and will, if warranted, be imposed retroactively to the maximum extent permitted by law.
At the June 14-15, 2005 meeting of the Ontario Soil Management Research and Services Committee (OSMRSC), new provincial nitrogen fertilizer recommendations for corn were approved. These new recommendations will come into effect in the spring of
2006.
New or revised nutrient recommendations in Ontario must be approved by the Ontario Soil Management Research and Services Committee (OSMRSC), which is made up of representation from OMAFRA, AAFC, University of Guelph, farm organizations and agribusiness. The OSMRSC members must be satisfied that there is sufficient data to support the new recommendations, that the interpretation of the data is correct, and that the changes represent an improvement in the economical and environmental management of nutrients in Ontario. This is always a challenging task, since the data is never as clear- cut and unequivocal as one would like. The review of the corn N response data was, certainly, the largest data set to ever be presented to OSMRSC in support of revised recommendations.
This corn N response data set was a direct result of a collaborative project between the Ontario Corn Producers' Association, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and the University of Guelph. Funding for the original gathering of the data was also provided by the CanAdapt program. Data from the past four decades was gathered from Ontario researchers to build the database and the associated nitrogen rate calculator. The calculator allows growers to input factors such as soil type, previous crop and application timing in order to estimate the most appropriate amount of fertilizer N to apply to their corn crop. A second dataset of N response trials, separate from the data that was used to create the N calculator, was used to validate the model. In the final analysis. OSMRSC expressed enough confidence to support the calculator approach as the new general N recommendations for corn.
New Early Season Insect Protection for Corn, Soybeans and Edible Beans
Corn, soybean and edible bean growers will soon have a new tool to help them in their fight against early season insect damage. The treatment is called Cruiser, and is a seed insecticide that targets wireworm, European chafer (white grubs), seedcorn maggot and corn flea beetles in corn.
Cruiser contains the active ingredient thiamethoxam, a new generation insecticide that works systemically to protect against a number of important insect pests. Wayne Bennett, seed treatment specialist for Eastern Canada and Cruiser lead with Syngenta Crop Protection Canada Inc. stated when an insect, such as a wireworm, feeds on the young seedling and ingests the insecticide, it almost immediately stops feeding. Since the product is highly targeted to those insect pests that feed on your crop, it has minimal effects on beneficial insects.
Bennett also suggested that Cruiser would be offered in conjunction with a fungicide seed treatment so growers could get broad spectrum protection against seed and soil borne diseases along with insect control. Corn growers will be able to ask their seed company for CruiserXL, which is an 'on the seed' combination of Cruiser and Maxim XL. This combination of insect and disease protection all-in-one package should mean faster starts and stronger stands for growers, with far more convenience than drill box options.
In early August, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its comprehensive assessment of the herbicide, 2,4-Dichloro- phenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) under the agency's reregistration program. The EPA's decision document concluded that 2,4-D did not present risks of concern to human health when users follow 2,4-D product instructions as outlined in EPA's 2,4-D Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document.
This announcement completed a 17 year EPA review process. 2,4-D was discovered sixty years ago and is one of the most widely used herbicides in the U.S. and worldwide. It is used for a wide variety of applications in agriculture, non-crop, residential and aquatic settings. The EPA's comprehensive findings were consistent with decisions of other authorities such as the World Health Organization, Health Canada, European Commission and recent studies by the U.S. National Cancer Institute on 2,4-D.
An economic evaluation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded that the loss of 2,4-D would cost the U.S. economy $1.7 billion annually in higher food production and weed control expenses.
European Union Clears Monsanto Biotech Corn for Animal Feed
On August 9th 2005, the European Union head office cleared a form of genetically modified corn made by American biotechnology company Monsanto Co. for use in animal feed. The approval is only for the import of the corn product, called MON 863 (intended to be resistant to corn rootworm), and not for cultivation or human food usage. Hybrids containing MON 863 are grown in the U.S. and Canada. The European Commission cleared the imports after the EU's 25 member states failed to take a decision.
The EU ended a six year moratorium on accepting applications for new genetically modified foods in May 2004. However, several EU countries remain reluctant to authorize biotech crops because of public health and environmental concerns.
Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, France and Greece have outlawed three types of corn. The U.S. launched a World Trade Organization complaint against the EU's ban on biotech imports in 2003. A WTO panel is to release a preliminary ruling on the case this month.
1