Newsletter - Spring 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greetings and welcome to our spring 2002 newsletter. In this issue we have some very interesting stories to relay. The first is a report found at www.gefoodalert.org posted Feb. 21, 2002 called Premium Price for GMO Bt Corn Costs Farmers, Boosts Biotech Firms. The report is part of a series being published by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and Genetically Engineered Food Alert that promotes awareness on economic and legal issues related to GE (genetically engineered) crops. The report found that farmers are financing a big share of research & development and legal costs for the biotech industry. This is through the near 35% price premium that farmers pay for genetically engineered Bt Corn compared to conventional seed prices. US Farmers spend in the neighborhood of $659 million every year on Bt corn seed when the investment has actually only delivered $567 million in benefits as shown in a November 2001 article (www.gefoodalert.com) When does it pay to plant Bt Corn? According to this article every acre planted with Bt corn has increased farmers' seed expenditures an average of $9.80 per acre -- a 35% jump. Farmers' net income per acre for corn production has declined sharply from a profit of $40 per acre in 1975 to a loss $26 per acre in 1985 and a loss of $35 per acre in 1997. What is most interesting is that the biggest jump in seed and pesticide costs occurred between 1994 and 1996 when Bt Corn was introduced. The report's author, Dr. Charles Benbrook, says "Corn seed expenditures grew at $1.34 per acre annually between 1995 - 1999 as Bt Corn was being introduced, compared to just $ .30 per acre per year in the previous 5 years."

The impact of Bt Premium corn on seed industry profits has been remarkable. Bt Corn premiums boosted earnings for Pioneer 7.3%, Monsanto by 9%, and Syngenta by over 18% between 1998 and 2000. Kristen Dockins is with the Institute for Agricultural and Trades Policy, which is a member of the Genetically Engineered Food Alert. Kristen mentions that these findings are significant because they show that farmers are heavily subsidizing the big increase in research and development costs associated with the commercialization of GMO Corn varieties, triggering further erosion to farm income.

This is at a time when the USDA estimates that corn farmers are losing about $1.00 on every bushel of corn that they produce. This transfer of net income from farmers to biotech companies could not have come at a worse time. An article by Brewster Kneen in his Ram's Horn Publication suggests that many of these companies are changing their logos and making new statements and policies. New statements of what it is that they think people will perceive them as. Cargill apparently, according to the article, no longer seeks to take advantage of others but to give them advice, as "partners". At least this is what they are telling farmers. It seems to be utterly amazing that many of these big corporations are now becoming multinational in scope and seem to get on the inside track with the politicians and the executives of so-called food protection scams run by the government. Sometimes it seems that the bigger the poison, the easier it is to get registration for these products. I imagine it would have nothing to do with having the right people in the right places.

HOG WASTE CONTAMINATION The next story of interest is from a Wisconsin farm paper called The Country Today. An article in the February 2002 issue mainly discusses how Cargill has been ordered to pay $1 million (U.S.) for its illegal dumping of hog waste that contaminated five miles of the Loutre River in central Missouri. It killed about 53,000 fish in this river, which is a tributary of the Missouri River. The dumping of waste from the 17,000-head pig farm was a result of improper operation of equipment, officials say.

Don Drost a Barron County Extension Agent wrote the following article, in the February 2002 issue of The Country Today:

THE ENRON STORY IN AG TERMS

"In case you were wondering how Enron came into so much trouble, here is an explanation reputedly given by an Aggie professor to explain it in terms his students could understand:

Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiples, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

Enron Venture Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly traded company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Repeat as necessary until you have $62 billion in assets, then declare bankruptcy."

ORGANIC KELP FERTILIZER MIX Research done in the 1960's at Iowa State University demonstrated the use of this fertilizer applied in the row at time of planting was found to be very effective in controlling corn rootworm. Many of our farmers are also finding that the Brix (sugar) readings in their corn plants are much higher and as a result are feeling that their corn will withstand cooler weather and even the occasional drop below freezing. As long as the sugars are high enough, the plant will not necessarily freeze at 30( to 32(F (-1( to 0(C) and will probably withstand some of the cooler temperatures. **Orders need to be placed ahead of time in order to ensure timely delivery** Application Rate: 15lb/acre 25 KG BAG $38.00 + GST

ORGANIC FLAX IS BACK For any farmers in the organic trade we now carry organic flax meal, which is a wonderful source of energy, containing approx. 7% oil. Flaxseed is the richest known food source of omega-3 fatty acids (which have beneficial effects on heart health and the autoimmune system), and a source of essential nutrients, such as protein, vitamins and minerals. It is also a good source of both soluble and insoluble dietary fibre and is a rich source of lignans. Lignans are phytoestrogens, compounds found in plants that protect against certain types of cancers by interfering with the effects of estrogen.

The benefits of feeding flax are improved reproduction, increased milk production and increased butterfat. The elevated maintenance and energy gain values for flax relate to excellent weight gain in beef cattle. Whereas other oils will add fat to the body, flax oil helps convert food to more useable nutrients. A recent study in Manitoba has revealed that when flax was fed to sows, they experienced less weight loss and maintained more backfat during lactation than sows fed regular rations. They also took less time to come into heat after farrowing. Improved weanling weights were also realized from feeding flax to the sows.

Organic Flax Meal is available in 25 Kg bags or tote bags; Conventional Flax Oil & Meal are also available. Call your dealer or our Head Office for more information regarding flax or any of our products

PRODUCT NEWS - BIO-BOOST Many of you may be interested in a new product called Bio-Boost that Bio-Ag has developed. Bio-Boost is a combination of Bio-Lac and Soluble Seaweed Extract. It is rich in both micro and macro elements, comparing in nutrient content to manure. An all-natural product, Bio-Boost energizes seeds or plants, with trace minerals to enhance soil life. Bio-Boost primes the germ in the seed to sprout faster and promotes a hardier root system. It also activates the defense mechanism in the plant, which may help it to guard against disease. It could be used as a seed soak, a natural fertilizer or as a foliar spray. We did a field test with this product last summer on a farm in Iowa and found dramatic results. During a dry spell in the summer the oats treated with the product showed less problems with drought than untreated oats. Yields for oats treated with our product were almost 15-20 bushels higher per acre. You gardeners will love this product as well.

Application Rates:

• Seed Soak: 8 oz. Bio-Boost per bushel
• Foliar Spray: 500 ml per acre in 20 Gallons of water
• Introductory Price: 1L $24.95* 4L $80.00* * Plus GST

BIO-LAC/KELP MIX Last year, several of our customers applied a combination of Bio-Lac and Kelp to their forages when harvesting. You may have seen samples of these forages at our seminar in January. The haylage was green and leafy and forages were very sweet smelling and had good lactic acid fermentation. Bio-Ag Consultants & Distributors Inc. does not sell these products for this forage additive purpose. We are simply commenting on the fact that some farmers and custom operators have done this and report satisfactory results. For more information, contact Head Office or your local dealer.

INTRODUCING SHEEP PREMIX We now manufacture a special Sheep Premix formulated with a lower amount of copper. The small amount of copper that is included, is a chelated copper. We strongly believe that copper is an important mineral for sheep as a copper deficiency will result in anemia, bone disorders, infertility and "steely" or "stringy" wool. This Sheep Premix is based on our 1:1 Premix, and sells for $41 for a 25 kg bag. We recommend adding 100 kg of Sheep Premix per tonne of grain. It is organic, as sheep tend to have a negative reaction to Halt; therefore this can be used for both conventional and organic sheep farmers.

THE ROAD TO ORGANIC VERIFICATION WITH OCPP As many of Bio-Ag's customers know, Bio-Ag sells premix that has been Verified Organic by the Ontario Crop Producers and Processors Ontario Inc. (OCPP, the eastern affiliate of OCPRO). What you may not know is how long it has taken to meet the necessary standards required for us to display OCPP's Verified Organic logo. In fact it has been a process that has taken several years to get where we are now. Starting with our first application in 1999, to the ongoing research today, we are continually making sure we are meeting not only the Canadian Organic Agriculture Standards, but also the National Organic Program in the United States.

It was in June of 2001 that the latest round of the renewal process was begun. And after nearly 6 solid months of research, paperwork, phone calls, etc., we received our renewal on December 15, 2001.

The process involved contacting over 25 suppliers for verification of approximately 60 different ingredients. Where these ingredients fell short of the standards, other sources or alternatives had to be researched and located.

There were four drafts of the recent Bio-Ag application. The final application itself consisted of 16 pages, with approximately 70 pages of supporting documentation. Following the application review there was an on-site inspection done by an independent inspector. And, as a follow up to the inspection there were some items identified by OCPP and the inspector that had to be addressed prior to Bio-Ag being issued our Certificate of Organic Conformity.

Already this year Bio-Ag has done a lot of preliminary work towards completion of this year's renewal application. This, in addition to the work that Bio-Ag continually does to remain current and up to date with constantly changing trends in organics and organic regulations, demonstrates Bio-Ag's commitment to our customers and to the certified organic industry.

The Country Today By Richard A. Levins

New Policy goal should be more farmers, not fewer

I spent a week this fall visiting farms in Holland and the European Union headquarters in Brussels. As I had expected, we talked about high-profile issues such as food safety, mad cows and genetically modified organisms. But the discussions I found most interesting were about policies that would save small farms and preserve the character of rural areas.

The current member countries of the European Union have almost eight million farms, four times as many as we have in the United States. As other countries join the EU, millions more farms will come under Common Agricultural Policy. Should that policy demand that these farms "get big or get out," the path we have taken here, or should they try something else?

I think the answer depends on what you expect from a farmer. In the United States, our policies most often take a fairly narrow view of what a farmer does; plant and harvest for fewer people to do these vitally important tasks. Hence, we hear solutions to the farm income problem that would reduce the number of farmers. In short, we have too many farmers.

The Europeans I met took a different, broader view of the fanner's job description. In addition to producing food, the European farmer is expected to play a significant role in supporting rural economics and in protecting the environment. This is additional work, and it requires more farmers, not fewer.

Don't American farmers have the same goals for their communities and their environment? Of course they do. Two decades of working with farmers have, if nothing else, taught me that the farmer's heart is in the right place. But it is unrealistic for public policy to on the one hand ask farmers to do more, and on the other hand, to talk of needing fewer farmers.

The European idea may not seem new for US farmers, but we apply it all the time to other professions. Teachers, for example, must pass textbook knowledge along to students. But they also must encourage students and lend excitement to learning. They must be the first to diagnose all types of student problems. They must participate in the overall process of making sure that their school provides the best possible Iearning environment.

This is why, in spite of new teaching technologies, we continue to prefer smaller class sizes and more teachers. The same reasoning applies to nurses, police officers and many other professions. We want more of them, not fewer.

But somehow, the language of teachers, of nurses, and of police officers does not apply to farmers in this country. Surely, the best of farmers cannot do as much for the environment when they are responsible for 2000 acres instead of 200, or 500 dairy cows instead of 50. And no one thinks that rural communities will be better off if we pursue a policy that basically "lays off' good farmers and asks them to move elsewhere.

It's time we stopped inventing policies to reward the largest farmers and do without the rest. Instead, we should be talking of farmers the way we do teachers, nurses, and other providers of services we all value. We would be better off with more farmers, not fewer.

Richard Levins is a professor and economist with the university of Minnesota Extension Service. He may be reached at (612) 6255238, or dlevins@apec.umn.edu).

Wednesday, December 26, 2001

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE