The NFU has over the years supported good public policy such as crop insurance, the Crow Rate, orderly marketing, supply management, the Canadian Wheat Board, public plant breeding, and the PFRA, which included the tree nursery and water programs.

Yet, despite this record, the NFU has somehow become part of a group called Farmers for Climate Solutions (FFCS).

That group recently issued a report on business risk management (BRM) programs, which include AgriStability, AgriInvest, and crop insurance. This report drew from a panel of ‘experts’ that included many agriculture economists who are and have been the problem, not the solution, for improving farmers’ economic conditions.

This report described farm BRM programs as having ‘moral hazard’, so the suggested solution becomes privatizing them or ending government funding.

The NFU says they are proud of their experts and their report. The committee members included mostly economists from private organizations and universities.

The committee members are from Smart Prosperity Institute, The University of Guelph, Farm Credit Canada, Agriculture and AgriFood Canada (Agri-Food Economic Systems), and the universities of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

At the report’s release the NFU website stated “Let’s talk Business Risk Management programs! These are essential to protect farmer livelihoods, but they are also costly for governments. As climate change continues to increase risks to farmers, these programs will become more expensive if we don’t proactively invest in climate-friendly farming. That’s why we’re calling for a change!”

It is concerning to see the NFU using this language to support the FFCS’s report. The concession to government that crop insurance is “costly for government” seriously undermines farmers ability to retain these programs.

Farmers have already lost the CWB, the Crow Rate, then the WGTA Crow benefit, and the PFRA with its environmental programs. Research facilities that did public plant breeding have been shut down, while the privatization of the seed genome is being pushed hard. If it succeeds it will burden farmers with more costs.

Given this context, the loss of crop insurance and other BRM programs would be devastating, since they are one of the few programs farmers have left.

The NFU “calling for change” that would disadvantage farmers is strange. Our current environmental problems, especially truck hauling, rail line abandonment, and port inefficiency, are the result of the so-called need for change that ultimately removed the efficient coordinated marketing and transportation of grain.

Farmers are right to be wary of groups cheerleading for changes when so far change has resulted in system-wide problems, more greenhouse gas emissions and more costs downloaded onto the farmer.

These business risk management programs have been under attack for the last 10 to 15 years. The report by these so-called experts says that government-funded crop insurance has moral hazard. But I believe that claim is simply not factual.

When farmers have an insurance claim — or successive claims — their premiums increase and their net bushel coverage per acre is reduced. There are no farmers living off crop insurance. It provides income protection in a bad crop year but will not do that over many years due to how the program is designed.

Crop insurance has its own mandate that is simple, easy to administer, and that mandate should not be tied to environmental programs.

Most farmers require the protection and coverage of crop insurance to receive an operating loan. The lack of these operating loans would make many farms unviable. Combine two or three crop disasters with no government-supported crop insurance and farmers will be forced to sell their farms.

Moreover, the recommendations contained in this report would make crop insurance a bureaucratic nightmare that would result in huge administrative costs and would be a direct intrusion into farmers managing their farms.

The report says: “we anticipate that overall enrolment in AgriInvest will decline with new cross-compliance requirements, limiting the increase in government spending.”

This clearly demonstrates that the ultimate goal of the proposals put forward by FFCS is to remove crop insurance as it stands. The claim that government-funded business risk management programs have moral hazard is the first step in undermining these programs.

NFU policy does not support privatization or eroding the basis of crop insurance, which raises the question: Why would the NFU support this through its involvement with FFCS?

Another serious question remains: Who paid for this report? Ag economists do not come cheap.

The NFU should never support policy that undermines farm programs or by stating essential farm programs are costly to government and have “moral hazard”. It is demeaning and disrespectful of the great work the NFU and NFU members have done for generations.

This is not the NFU vision I have been involved with for over 40 years.

– Kenneth Sigurdson is a longtime member of the National Farmers Union. He has made many presentations to governments and the public on numerous farm issues for the NFU.

The post Comment: NFU stance on business risk management programs mystifying appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The Canadian and various provincial governments are again increasing biofuel mandates as a simple solution to the serious climate change crisis we face. But are biofuels the solution politicians claim?

Biofuels sound good and with mandates they cost government nothing because mandates pass these increased costs to fuel users. So, everyone who fills their car, construction equipment, or farm equipment with diesel or gasoline will pay every time they fill up. This could add up to 30 cents a litre for farm diesel, yet achieves nothing for the climate.

No gains

Several years ago, at the National Farmers Union convention, Dr. Tad Patzek from the University of California at Berkeley explained claims of energy gained with biofuels underestimate the energy required to grow and process a crop into biofuel.

Patzek states in his peer-reviewed report “one burns one gallon of gasoline equivalent from ethanol from corn. Then this ethanol is burned as a gasoline additive or fuel. Burning the same amount of fuel twice to drive a car once is equivalent to halving the fuel efficiency of those cars that burn ethanol, and will cause manifold damage to air, surface water, soil and aquifers.”

Patzek is not the only one who has raised serious concerns about biofuels. World-renowned climate scientist Vaclav Smil at the University of Manitoba also criticizes biofuels. He describes how low crop yields and high water requirements make growing crops for biofuels in the Prairies totally impractical. Smil calls ethanol production an “egregious, excessive, incredible, unspeakable crime.”

Journey to nowhere

Canada uses about 110 billion litres of refined fuel annually. There is no way to produce enough biofuel to fulfil that demand. Simple math makes this obvious. Canadian farmers grow about 45 million acres of canola and wheat. An acre of canola yields 37 bushels (10-year average yield) and a bushel of canola produces nine litres of oil so that gives 333 litres of oil per acre. Even if we turn all 45 million acres into canola it would only produce about 15 billion litres of fuel. This biodiesel would fuel Canada for about 45 days.

Turning all the wheat and canola acres into biofuel would mean no wheat or canola exports, no canola oil, no wheat for flour for a hungry world. Even worse, the reality is that it would not create any energy as it takes more fossil fuel energy to grow the crop and process it than biofuels provide.

Regina project

It was recently announced that Federated Co-operatives Limited in partnership with AGT Foods will process canola at Regina and build a biodiesel plant by 2027. This announcement had the usual fanfare of being good for the environment yet FCL delegates once passed a resolution to oppose biofuels because of the costs of the mandate and the costs of transporting ethanol to the refinery.

All of the canola crushing in Regina (FCL, Cargill, and Viterra) creates infrastructure problems as most of the canola will have to be hauled by semi-truck into Regina. Taking grain off the rails and creating more greenhouse gas is not good for the environment. Of course, FCL will pass these costs on to the users of diesel and FCL members will pay the price when they purchase diesel.

Expensive process

A bushel of canola costs $24 and provides nine litres of biodiesel. That means it costs $2.70 a litre just for the seed to make it.

We must also consider the cost of the highly energy-intensive and expensive oil extraction and refining processes for making biofuels. These costs are why biodiesel is 2.8 times more costly than petrol diesel.

Making canola oil into biodiesel is not something you do in the backyard or in your garage. Refining raw canola into biodiesel requires expensive equipment, hazardous chemicals, protective equipment, and specialized waste disposal. Biodiesel refining uses many toxic chemicals such as hexane, sodium hydroxide, sulphuric and hydrochloric acids, and methanol. These present health hazards for workers and waste disposal issues in our communities. Ironically, farmers using petrol diesel will produce fewer greenhouse gases than they will using biodiesel.

Positive initiatives

When government pushes non-solutions such as biofuels it shoves aside more important initiatives. Using more rail to move bulk commodities, the electrification of transportation, wind energy, solar, ground-sourced geothermal, home insulation, and even planting trees are all effective ways to cut greenhouse gases. With thousands of commuter trips a day our cities need to step up by enhancing their public transit systems. Paris, France and Portland, Oregon have developed 15-minute cities where all people’s needs can be met within a 15-minute walk.

If we are serious about climate change, we should shut down all biofuel production in Canada and focus on these positive cost-effective solutions instead.

– Kenneth Sigurdson is a longtime member of the National Farmers Union and has researched biofuels extensively for the National Farmers Union.

The post Comment: Biofuels are a fake climate change solution appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

We welcome readers comments on issues that have been covered in the Manitoba Co-operator.In most cases we cannot accept open letters or copies of letters which have been sent to several publications. Letters are subject to editing for length or taste. We suggest a maximum of about 300 words.

Please forward letters to ManitobaCo-operator, 1666DublinAve.,Winnipeg, R3H0H1 or Fax:204-954-1422 or email: news@fbcpublishing.com (subject: To the editor)

Stand for something, or you fall for anything

Regarding John Morriss s Nov. 3 editorial concerning the CWB, this issue is about who will control a multibillion-dollar grain industry in Canada.

Will it be farmers with the CWB or agribusiness corporations?

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives represents these agribusiness corporations. The CCCE includes Maple Leaf Foods, Agrium, Cargill, Viterra, Loblaw, Ethanol Greenfield, James Richardson, McCain Foods and PotashCorp. The railway companies and Canadian banks are also members.

In his letter of congratulations to Harper following the May 2 election, John Manley, former deputy prime minister and CEO of the CCCE, wrote, As a demonstration of Canada s strong commitment to trade liberalization, we endorse your plan to reform the marketing practices of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Consistent with that, we believe the time is right to phase out the national supply management system for eggs, dairy products and poultry, which penalize consumers and have seriously damaged our country s reputation as a champion of open markets.

The other side has not won the argument. Farmers continue to support single-desk selling through the CWB. The CWB plebiscite and the election of directors supporting the CWB single desk are a testament to that support.

Democracy is not dictators ramming legislation through Parliament, limiting debate, etc. Democracy is not making our farmers and indeed our country conform to the needs of U.S. agribusiness corporations.

John, could you explain to your readers how farmers are to re-establish some measure of influence in the handling, marketing and transportation system? All of the committees Ritz establishes are composed of CWB haters.

The CWB board of directors has attempted to meet with Ritz on numerous occasions. Ritz has no desire to meet or do any of the things you suggest. In fact the Harper government s legislation removes the elected farmer representatives from the CWB and leaves the appointed CWB haters in charge.

Policies of appeasement would have no greater success than Neville Chamberlain achieved in the early stages of the Second World War. There is a country song the lyrics go something like this, you ve got to stand for something or you will fall for anything, you ve got to be your own man not a puppet on a string.

Our CWB directors are standing up for farmers; it s time for you to grab a glove and get in the game.

Better Than Hand-Wringing

Eduard Hiebert s letter of October 27 contains good points and valid observations, while advocating a new voting arrangement where your second choice would also count for something.

Such a system would almost certainly help Manitoba s rural vote to have a voice. As he notes, the (NDP) government controls 65 per cent of the seats in the legislature while getting the vote of only 20.5 per cent of eligible voters. Not terribly democratic.

If we want to reverse the trend of lower voter turnout, this would work better than more hand-wringing.

The post Letters – for Nov. 17, 2011 appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.