G rains are food, not fuel

Gib Drury

QFA President

What is with this big rush to build grain-based ethanol plants in Canada? Just because our big neighbour to the south, in a fit of well-justified paranoia, is massively building corn-based ethanol plants does not mean that we have to do the same. Americans have decided that they need to reduce their dependence on Middle Eastern oil—but they still want to burn just as much gas in their cars and trucks as ever. That means finding a substitute for gasoline and diesel fuel, hence the birth of the ethanol and biodiesel industries in America. The U.S. governments at all levels—federal, state and municipal—kick in their share of financing with subsidies, tax deferrals, grants, capital gains exemptions, interest-free loans, and mandatory content levels.

But why is Canada trying to imitate their programs? Why are we planning to build these same corn-based plants in Canada? It doesn’t make sense to me. Canada is blessed with a wealth of energy sources. With Newfoundland offshore oil, Maritime coal, Quebec hydroelectricity, Ontario nuclear power, the Western tar sands and natural gas and our recent leap into wind power generation, this country is a net producer and exporter of energy. Why we would ever consider using our valuable feedstocks of grains and oil seeds to produce ethanol? With an abundance of energy from other sources, Canada simply does not need ethanol derived from its own grains.

For starters, it is a negative efficiency situation The amount of energy used to produce and transport the grain, combined with the energy needed to convert this grain to ethanol and then deliver this ethanol, far exceeds the amount of usable energy derived by burning it up in our cars. So huge subsidies are needed to make grain ethanol economically viable. Sure, it may get us around—but what a tremendous waste of precious resources. Secondly, the corn or other grains could be used much more usefully to nourish humans or feed livestock. It has been calculated that the amount of grain needed to produce enough ethanol to fill an SUV’s 114-litre gas tank would feed a human being for a whole year! You can bet it will be the tank and not the tummy that will get the bulk of the American corn crop in the future.

Let’s take a different approach to energy production and distribution in Canada. Here’s a sensible proposal: save all that corn and feed it to a flourishing livestock sector. Build biodigestors on every farm to convert the animal manure and crop residues into methane gas and an odourless solid fertiliser residue. With this methane we can generate all the electricity we could possibly want to heat, cool and power our homes. And in the meantime, we would do well to start converting our old clunker cars and trucks to electric power vehicles.

Making any of these changes would help us on our way to meeting our Kyoto commitments. The beauty of electricity is that you can move it down the wire to where it is needed without wearing the rubber and burning up your gas getting it there. Imagine what that would do to the rural economy if the agricultural producers had surplus electricity to sell as well as beef, chicken and pork! Imagine if there was no more offensive odour of liquid manure spread in the countryside! If Canada really feels compelled to play in the “big leagues” of ethanol and biodiesel production, let’s not steal our raw materials from the mouths of the poor. Our ethanol industry could base its production on wood, forestry by-products or straw; our biodiesel sector could transform rendered dead stock, abattoir waste and recycled vegetable oils into energy.

And, to borrow a phrase from the game of bridge for the game of Canadian energy politics—let’s not follow suit, let’s trump the lead.

Census tells Canada what farmers already know

Andrew McClelland

Advocate Staff Reporter

Nearly half of the country’s farm businesses are operating in the red, says Statistics Canada, highlighting what agricultural producers have been saying for years: the nation’s farmers are suffering from an unprecedented net income crisis and subsidizing the average Canadian’s food bill.

Last month, Statistics Canada released its first official report from the 2006 Census of Agriculture. The data revealed that 44 per cent of all Canadian farms ran an operating loss in 2005.

As expected, the largest farm operations were the most likely to turn a profit, with 86 per cent bringing in receipts that exceeded expenses. By contrast, 71 per cent of farms with gross receipts of $25,000 or less ended up in debt.

“Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl should pay very close attention to these statistics,” said QFA President Gib Drury. “Canada’s agriculture policy is not effective if we are going down the road of industrialized agriculture at the expense of family farms.”

Across Canada, the profit margin for farm businesses was thin in 2005. On average, agricultural producers spent 86 cents in operating costs for every dollar they made. That figure is the largely the same as reported in the 2001 Census of Agriculture. Quebec farmers are in the most enviable position in the country, spending only 80 cents for every dollar of gross receipts.

In the past decade, however, the price paid to agricultural producers for their products has not increased as quickly as the costs of their inputs. Statistics Canada suggests that “improved efficiency, increased program payments and higher production helped to keep the ratios between expenses and receipts stable, despite this inflationary imbalance.”

Mega-farms on the rise

Census statistics also show that a greater share of money from food production continues to fall into the hands of fewer individuals. Out of the 229,373 farms counted in Canada, 5,902 can call themselves “million dollar farms,” with a gross of $1 million or more. In 2005, these agribusinesses—which make up only 2.6 per cent of all farms—took in just under 40 per cent of total receipts. That’s an even bigger share of the pie than in 2001, when mega-farms earned 34.6 per cent of Canada’s gross farm profit.

Hog, poultry and egg operations were the most likely to be classified as “million-dollar farms.” Eighteen per cent of hog farms reported a gross of $1 million or more, compared to 15 per cent of poultry and egg businesses. On the other hand, less than two per cent of field crops—the most common type of farm across Canada—reported receipts in the million-dollar range.

Working ‘out’ increases

The Census of Agriculture also showed that nearly half of Canada’s agricultural producers now work off the farm to boost their income. And while 48.4 per cent of all farmers reported an off-farm job to the census—a jump by four per cent from 2001—statistics show that 50.4 per cent of female farm operators were required to find employment off the farm to make ends meet.

“There is something seriously wrong if half of all Canadian farmers have to work off the farm in order to make ends meet,” commented Drury. “The problem does not originate with lazy, inefficient farmers but in the marketing system that pits a few concentrated buyers against many isolated sellers. The power imbalance leaves the small farmer at a tremendous disadvantage.”

The government organization also reported that agriculture “has an emotional tie for the families who do it, sometimes leading them to supplement their farm activities with unpaid family farm labour.” That has many producers groups concerned that farm families are subsidizing the weekly grocery bill of Canada’s non-farmers. Moreover, many Canadian producers are effectively working two full-time jobs, with more than one-fifth working more than 40 hours a week off the farm.

Small farms make their way

Despite discouraging trends, such as a declining number of Canadian farms and a continued lack of young farmers, the census did offer some encouraging data. Chiefly optimistic is the drift for smaller operations in niche markets to be able to turn a profit. Nearly a third of farms with a gross income of under $25,000 were able to cover their expenses, most of which were greenhouse operations, produce farms or nursery and floricultural businesses.

Pontiac feedlot operator thinks big

Andrew McClelland

Advocate Staff Reporter

It’s a cold and wet day as we make our way through the barnyard of Erwin Mohr’s cow-calf and feedlot operation in the lower Pontiac. And although there is no snow on the ground on this early January afternoon, a windy spray of rain is enough to make man and beast happy for the shelter of the newly expanded feedlot barn.

“They don’t seem to mind too much,” says Mohr as he looks over his herd of over 300 head. If anything, the heavy winds only make the already picture-perfect barn even better ventilated. The gusts blow through the central feed alley of the enclosed barn as the cattle busily eat their feed.

It was all the way back in 1813 that the Mohr family left what is now Germany to settle in Quyon, in the modern-day municipality of Pontiac. In those days, a thriving lumber industry along the Ottawa River employed enterprising settlers from all over the world, and the Mohrs’ staked out their farm while working mainly as lumbermen.

“Back then all the farming done in the region was to feed the family and to feed horses so that you could go work in the bush during the winter,” says Mohr. “Up until the era of the tractor, most of the farming around here was set up to supply the logging camps.”

Going big

A few kilometres away from the family homestead stands Mohr’s present day cow-calf operation, which he runs with his wife, Kathy Letts. At the ripe old age of 21, Mohr bought the farm from his mother and started running the business on his own while working off the farm at R.L. Crain printers in Ottawa. He decided to turn to farming full-time in 1979. And last fall, when his stepson, William Armitage, returned home after finishing with the Diploma in Agriculture program at Macdonald College, Mohr decided that the extra help would allow them to develop the feedlot.

“We went from a capacity and permit for 340 feeder calves up to the capacity and permit for 990,” says Mohr of the expansion, which saw a 180-foot extension built onto the existing 120-foot-long barn. Mohr and his family received permission to build at Thanksgiving and had the barn up by Christmas. They have an environmental permit for 200 cows, and have 110 in the wintering sites presently.

“If you’re going to stay in this business, you’ve got to keep growing,” says Mohr. “Going bigger makes the business more viable. More viable to run, and more viable to sell if William doesn’t want to run it.”

Feedlot specs

Mohr doesn’t do any work on a custom-feeding basis, but buys his calves at around 600 pounds and coming into the barn at the six-month mark. There, they’ll gain an average of 2.8 pounds per day until they are finished for slaughter at a robust 1,300 pounds.

“I buy as few of my cattle as possible during October and November,” notes Mohr. “There’s a whole pile of people calving later than the traditional period, so I’d sooner buy in late December, January or February. With most people calving on grass, it makes sense. The last group of cattle I’ll buy this spring will show up at the end of May, and I hopefully won’t buy any more until August.”

Mohr’s cowherd runs on pasture and is wintered on dry round-baled hay, with a mix of hay and corn silage during their first and second trimesters. In the feeder barn, Mohr’s ration consists of hay and corn silage in decreasing amounts during the year, until finishing cattle receive no corn silage and “just enough hay to keep their gut working.” He also feeds high-moisture ear silage, wet corn gluten along with mineral supplement.

Organic doubts

“I grew up on a farm in the 1950s that today would be considered ‘organic’ and it was tough,” recalls Mohr. “Pulling weeds by hand, growing 300 acres of hay to feed 30 cows, dandelion-flavoured milk, very little manure for fertilizer and not much in the line of machinery to apply it; no such thing as chemical fertilizer, scabby apples and worms in the cabbage.”

Mohr is an outspoken critic of the organic food movement, citing a lack of certification and standard practices as the reasons for his scepticism.

“The whole thing is so loosey-goosey since there is no Canada-wide system in place that a lot of organic farms can do whatever they want compared to the regulations that mainstream farms must comply to.”

But for Mohr, the main problem with organic production is that the farmer may not be any further ahead when it comes to earning a living, something he has been doing all his life.

“What really gets me is the fact that it’s not going to matter for producers,” Mohr believes. “Maybe the first few guys in on organic farming will make money, but once it goes to market it’ll become a price thing, and soon it will be the same old story of there being no money in it for the farmer.”

Supply management a “ reasonable sacrifice ” ?

Barry Wilson

Special to the Advocate

For Quebec dairy, poultry and egg farmers who depend on supply management border tariff controls for stability and profitability, there is good news and bad news from world trade talks in Geneva.

The good news is slim and of the negative variety, but here goes.

World Trade Organization talks are going nowhere and the negotiators’ dream of a deal this year is all but impossible. The negotiations likely will be in limbo, in wheel-spinning slow motion, for several years at least.

For Canada’s export-dependent farm sectors, this is bad news. For Canada’s protected sectors, it is the only good news possible out of Geneva.

Here’s why.

It became abundantly clear this spring that any WTO deal would involve a substantial undermining of supply management protections, both in over-quota tariff decreases and an expansion of tariff rate quota imports.

WTO agriculture negotiations chair New Zealander Crawford Falconer issued a “challenges paper” that says countries with sensitive sectors must be willing to compromise.

It was a message reinforced over and over again through the winter and spring by Canadian agriculture negotiator Steve Verheul (himself a son of a dairy farming family) who offered to various farm sector annual meetings a bleak assessment of the impact a WTO deal would have on their stability.

In truth, that is not new. Negotiations aimed at liberalizing trade almost certainly will pose a challenge to a farm production and marketing system that depends on import tariffs of 200 per cent or more to protect it from cheaper imports.

What makes the news worse for supply management this year is that the domestic critics are taking off the gloves.

Until recently, it was a somewhat genteel domestic debate.

Leaders of the pro-free trade Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance (CAFTA) typically refused to get into the debate about whether the government should abandon support for supply management. They insisted their interest was in promoting the need for international access for their products rather than what should happen to Canada’s protectionists.

All that has changed.

After the Falconer paper, CAFTA issued a call for the federal government to abandon its stance of refusing to negotiate any supply management compromises. Exporters need a deal.

The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, a CAFTA member, was more blunt.

“The paper has sparked outrage from those whose unsustainable positions have been discarded,” said the CCA. “This would include the small but vocal segment of Canadian agriculture that hopes to maintain high tariff protection for ‘sensitive products’”.

Then two icons of Canadian conservatism—Reform Party founder Preston Manning and former Ontario premier Mike Harris—piled on with a May report co-published by the conservative Montreal Economic Institute which argued that supply management should be phased out as an anachronism that echoes from Sir John A. Macdonald’s protectionist National Policy.

Canada’s “implacable defence of supply management in the barns of the nation” should be abandoned, they argued. “It is certainly bizarre that Canada, a major net exporter of farm products, remains rooted in the protectionist camp on this account.”

So far, the Conservative government of Stephen Harper remains committed to refusing any compromise at the WTO but agriculture minister Chuck Strahl says he questions whether the industry really is serving its own interest by refusing compromise.

A WTO deal will happen and Canada will sign, he says. It will include sensitive product rules and if Canada is not at the table, those rules will not be designed to limit the damage to Canadian interests.

In other words, a WTO deal equals undermining supply management and significant parts of Canadian agriculture are insisting that is a reasonable sacrifice.

In its history, the system has never been more threatened.

Barry Wilson grew up on a West Quebec farm and has spent more than a quarter century covering agricultural, rural and trade issues on Parliament Hill as National Correspondent for The Western Producer newspaper.

A legacy of lamb farming in the Eastern Townships

Claudia Villemaire

Advocate Eastern Townships Reporter

Everyone should take the time. Just a few minutes with these leaping bundles of curly wool is better medicine than any bottled variety. This was an afternoon spent talking about the future of the family farm, understanding the challenge of producing lambs almost year-round from around 300 ewes (females) which, traditionally only reproduce as winter wanes and the first signs of spring appear.

The Lone Pine Farm in St Felix de Kingsey, where Steven and Susan Mastine look after a large flock, is where generations of Mastines have managed to keep mind and soul together. “But it has never been easy. My dad worked off the farm and eventually moved away to find a better living in northern Canada.”

Today, in spite of expanding the acreage to 200 from the original 50, building new facilities to better house and manage their flock, both these people work at day jobs off the farm. “Makes life pretty stressful at lambing time,” they both agree.

Considering their average lamb production is 1.5 per ewe, it means most of the flock of ‘mommas’ are presenting twins at birth. There are females who won't accept their baby; most every lambing time will find at least one or two following Susan in the hopes it’s feeding time because their ‘real’ Mom has turned her back on them.

The Mastines are proud of their flock which includes purebred Dorsets, Suffolk and Border Cheviots. “We are trying to upgrade the quality of not only the replacement and exhibition stock we raise, but for meaty, fast-growing lambs and good maternal instincts in the females," Steven explained. Dorsets are quite a large, square-built breed with white faces. The Suffolk breed is a bit taller than the Dorset, a bit lankier with black open faces. The Border Cheviots are just about half the size, known for their meaty carcass and quality fleece.

“But wool is worth nothing these days. A few years ago, we grumbled about prices hovering around $0.70 per pound of fleece. Today, we’re lucky to get $0.20 per pound,” Susan explained.

But once again, a love of animals wins the day for these folk. “We’ve spent quite a bit to upgrade and modernize the stable and we’re not sorry. But it means those bills come around regularly and that’s why we’re both working.”

Of course, there’s the added expense of raising a family of three—two sons and a daughter. “I don’t discourage them from considering farming in their future, but I don’t encourage them either,” Susan admits, adding there’s no way this operation could be self-supporting. “The best would be a good job in town and simply live out here,” adds Steve.

There is a stabilization insurance that, in some ways, saves the day for the Mastines. “But after they’ve calculated production costs, current market prices and all the complicated ways government has of coming up with an offer, they retain a certain percentage and then send us a cheque four times a year. But the money I get now is payment for last year’s production so you have to have a handle on costs as they arrive. Feed bills and operation costs don’t wait a year for their money,” Steven explains. “It’s not an easy life.”

The lambs, just waking up from their afternoon sleep-time, live up to their reputation as entertainment. Beginning the ritual of play that prepares them for adult life, they learn to kick and strike, lowering heads to bunt time and again.

“Oh yes, I love the animals and so do our children,” explains Susan. “We love the land and our ultimate hope would be to see this farm stay in the family. But I think we have to face the facts. One day, this farm will probably pass into the hands of someone else, not family. It’s too bad. If you have that kind of connection to the land and this way of life, makes you wonder about the future of the family farm. I’m sure we're not the only people trying to deal with this dilemma.”

Farm property taxes

FAQs

1. Can I request reimbursement for a municipal service tax or property tax supplement account?

Yes, if the tax account is for fiscal 2006. In such a case, you must:

• Send the tax account to the Department within a maximum of one year after the date the account was issued

• With the tax account, enclose a note indicating the name, address, phone number and MAPAQ identification number (NIM) of your farm operation. This is mandatory.

2. What about the same tax accounts in fiscal 2007?

Under the new farm property tax credit program, tax accounts for municipal services and property tax supplements will be deducted at source. Since the new municipal tax system for farm operations was introduced last January, municipalities have been using their own tax management software in granting the property tax credit and providing MAPAQ with tax data in the form of a file. This way, farm producers can get the farm property tax credits that apply to their farm units.

3. Why didn’t I receive any credits on my 2007 municipal tax account?

Some tax accounts may not have gotten a credit. There are two possible reasons for this:

• There were problems in applying the tax credit. Even if the farm operation met all the criteria for the program, due to conditions beyond the municipality’s control, the credit was not deducted when the account was made out and sent. MAPAQ will be fully informed about this situation when the municipality forwards the credit data after the tax account is sent out. MAPAQ will then, as of next May, make a payment that will be sent directly to the owners of the assessment units concerned.

• The farm operation or certain assessments units were not entered and, therefore, no credit could be granted. This is because MAPAQ did not have all the information needed to determine whether the farm operation was eligible for the program or because the joint application for payment was missing or incomplete.

MAPAQ will contact the farm operations concerned and will work with them to decide on the terms and the timetable for payment of the credit.

4. Will I get a credit for my 2006-2007 school tax account?

No. With the new farm property tax credit program, school tax account credits will be added to municipal tax account credits.

5. Is there information about the credit for my 2007 tax accounts?

Yes. You can obtain this information by contacting MAPAQ’s customer services. Note that credits for 2007 municipal tax accounts are approximations only. The credit is determined based on the information MAPAQ had in 2006. When the ministry has received 2007 tax data from the municipalities, it will then be able to do the required calculations and, as a result, make the adjustments to the credits applicable in 2008.

6. When should I update the registration file for my farm operation?

The registration file must always be up-to-date. You are responsible for notifying your service centreof any changes with regard to your registered farm operation, e.g. purchase, sale, leasing. The purpose of registration is to:

• Determine the assessment units recognized as registered farm operations on the farm property assessment roll

• Identify the assessment units to which the farm property tax credit program applies.

In the case of leased farmland, the owner and the lessee must have a valid lease and complete a joint application for payment.

For further information, contact MAPAQ toll-free at 1-866-822-2140 from 8:30 a.m. to noon, or 1 to 4:30 p.m., or visit the web site at www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca (Souvent demandé section, Taxes foncières agricoles tab.)

1

QFA Juin 2007

Quebec products at Longo’s in Ontario

It looks like Quebec products are getting top grades from Ontario consumers. Recent tests show that some Ontario shoppers taste-tested demo products in their supermarkets only after it was clear that the products were from Quebec.

When it comes to conquering new markets, most Quebec companies think of the United States, even though often-forgotten Ontario is a very worthwhile option for Quebec businesses. At times requiring lower initial investments and, sheltered from fluctuating exchange rates, development of Canadian markets can be an enriching experience and, in some cases, a springboard to other export destinations.

That’s why export advisers at Transformation Alimentaire Québec (TRANSAQ) launched a project in November 2005 to put Quebec food processing companies in touch with Longo’s, an Ontario supermarket chain. This is a choice opportunity for Quebec businesses to make major inroads into other markets because the typical Longo customer is exactly the kind of consumer our companies are looking for.

Given the scope of the project, TRANSAQ enlisted big partners such as the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Fédération des producteurs de veau de lait du Québec and Agri-Food Export Group Quebec-Canada. A total of 20 businesses with a wide variety of features took part. The result: now more than 60 Quebec products are on Ontario grocery shelves. And then there are the upscale cheeses, specialty meats, and gourmet products, food categories for which Quebec is well known.

The project was a resounding success. Longo’s is thrilled and hopes to meet other Quebec suppliers. TRANSAQ is currently putting together a second component of the project. This time, Quebec bakery products will make their Ontario debut at Longo’s.

QFA Juin 2007

Is heating my sugarhouse floor feasible?

Raymond Bernier, Engineer

Maple Sugaring Expert

MAPAQ

Outaouais Sector

When it comes time to prepare your sugarhouse for sugaring season, the concrete floor underfoot is usually freezing cold. And as the average age of syrup producers increases, many would like to have warm feet as they prepare and operate their evaporators, especially early in the season and during long, cold nights.

Certain businesses have answered their call, enabling boiler room workers to now work comfortably and keep their feet warm. These businesses have added radiant floors heated with hot water and ethylene glycol. The technique is not new—even the Romans used radiant floors in their public baths!

How does it work?

Radiant heating involves circulating hot water (or another hot liquid) through a network of polyethylene tubes inserted in the reinforced concrete floor at the time of construction. Thermostatic valves are used to control heating by floor section.

Radiant heating system components

A radiant heating system consists of four components: a heat source, supply ducts, control mechanisms, and a circulating pump.

The heat source can be an electric, oil-fired, propane, or even wood-fired water heater. For large surfaces, a boiler is preferable. Contractors experienced in installing this type of heating system find that electrical units are the easiest to install and also the most inexpensive. However, it is important to check that the electrical service panel has the required capacity to meet the additional demand for power. In certain cases, it is better to use fuel oil (heating oil), particularly if the evaporator is already oil-fired.

The supply ducts are generally fastened to the reinforcing mesh of the concrete floor (Figure 1). The concrete is then poured over the tubes, which must be designed to withstand the chemical elements in concrete and not be altered by the liquid that distributes the heat energy. It is highly recommended that the foundation wall surrounding the radiant floor be insulated vertically to a minimum height of 600 mm. If the building is heated all winter, this height should be increased to 1,200 mm. It is crucial that the concrete floor not crack or bulge due to freezing, as the ducts could break. Good peripheral drainage and an appropriate sand subfoundation will help prevent this type of problem. Lastly, rigid 50 mm insulation beneath the floor will reduce heat loss and greatly diminish the risk of the floor bulging due to freezing.

The thermostatic valves help distribute the heat by floor section. An expansion tank is needed to offset the increase in volume of the liquid when it is heated. Thermostats make it possible to control room or floor temperature. Indoor/outdoor ‘smart’ thermostats can even ‘predict’ heating requirements by gauging how fast the outside temperature is dropping. Lastly, the control system also includes the following devices and instruments: liquid temperature gauge, pressure regulator, air vent, low liquid level safety sensor, high temperature safety sensor, safety valve, etc.

A circulating pump moves the water from the flow header to the supply ducts in the floor. The flow of each duct circuit is balanced by manual valves, while the thermostatic valves are controlled by temperature sensors in the floor or room.

Advantages of a radiant floor

Like the sun, radiant heating uses energy-carrying waves, instead of forced air, to heat objects. Physiologically, a room with floors that are warmer than the ambient air feels more comfortable than a room with floors that are colder than the ambient air.

Heated or radiant floors also offer the advantage of drying quickly. Heating is uniform, and even if the ambient air is much colder, people in the room will feel comfortable. In maple sugaring, it is preferable to maintain a cooler ambient temperature when the evaporator is not in operation between production days. The radiant floor provides comfortable heat for the feet without unnecessarily heating the ambient air. According to certain sources, a radiant system provides energy savings of 15 to 20 per cent when a room must be heated throughout the cold season. In maple sugaring, radiant heating may be more inexpensive than other heating systems since the purpose is to heat only the floor, not the entire room.

Radiant systems are also advantageous for other types of farm buildings such as shops, processing plants, and certain livestock buildings. They are invisible and silent. Hidden in the floor, they provide more freedom with respect to interior design. They do not collect dust like some unit heaters that are fastened to the ceiling in livestock buildings and shops.

Some disadvantages

Disadvantages include the high initial cost, especially since radiant floors must be installed by a specialized contractor. In addition, the system can be damaged if the concrete floor slab shifts and cracks due to freezing.

The system is slow to respond to sudden heating demands. Ideally, it should be turned on one to three days in advance, depending on the initial slab temperature. Lastly, backup heating may be necessary if the building is used year round or the doors are frequently opened.

Radiant floor costs

Given that sugarhouses are generally not used during the coldest months of the year, non-toxic ethylene glycol must be used in order to prevent the system from freezing. The cost of ethylene glycol varies from $500 to $1,500.

For a 7.2 m by 7.8 m boiler room, the estimates provided by three contractors that install this type of heating system range from $4,500 to $12,000 (i.e., $80 to $210 per square metre of floor). This significant variation in price is tied primarily to the type of heating unit used. A household electric water heater with a water/ethylene glycol heat exchanger is the least expensive system, while oil- or gas-fired wall water heaters and wood-fired water heaters are the most costly to install. It should be noted that for areas larger than 58 m ², the cost of installation might be as low as $60 per square metre.

So, is a radiant floor cost-effective? Not at all! Like air conditioning inside your truck or tractor, it is not economical, but it is comfortable and long lasting. Most importantly, it is the most appropriate heating system for shops and boiler rooms.

References: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

Leaflet M-9735, Canada Plan Service

Sweet pearl millet for ethanol and fodder

Marc F. Clément, agronome

MAPAQ

Outaouais sector

Since it was first cultivated in 1997, pearl millet has constantly amazed us. A strain that produces highly sweet sap now heralds a significant change in farming methods in the sandy soils of Quebec, as it provides not only fodder but also ethanol. It’s like having your cake and eating it, too!

Introduced in the late 1990s by AERC Inc., fodder pearl millet is known for its ability to reduce lesion nematode ( Pratylenchus penetrans) populations and adapt to light and acidic soils like potato soils. Fodder pearl millet occupies approximately 1,500 hectares in Quebec and 2,650 hectares in Eastern Canada; it is primarily used as green manure and also provides a backup fodder supply. The potential yield is eight to ten tonnes per hectare (t/ha) for a base consisting of 100 per cent dry matter. Given that pearl millet provides no direct income as a rotation crop, many potato producers still choose rye and oats, even though these grains offer no protection against the lesion nematode—different from the golden nematode discovered recently in Quebec.

Introduced in the early 2000s, grain pearl millet has an estimated seed yield of 2.5 t/ha. It could be sold on both human and feed grade food markets. In addition, since the grain is rich in omega-3 fatty acids, poultry and hog producers are very interested in the animal nutrition testing underway in Guelph, Ontario, and Macdonald College in Quebec. Grain pearl millet cultivars provide the same nematicidal properties with respect to crop rotation as fodder pearl millet. However, this plant suffers from competition with annual grasses, as it is short and allows light to penetrate down to the ground. For this reason, herbicide is needed for the plant to grow. Despite this major difficulty, grain pearl millet is cultivated on some sixty hectares in Eastern Canada, including 20 hectares in Quebec. On March 26 at the Canadian Minor Use Pesticide Priority Setting Workshop organized by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Pest Management Centre, this problem (lack of a graminicide) was chosen from a long list of registration applications. Work begun three years ago by Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation (MAPAQ) and Centre de recherche et de développement technologique agricole de l’Outaouais (CREDETAO) will continue with a view to securing graminicide registration.

More recently, new data has shown that selected fodder pearl millet produces highly sweet sap, consisting of over 20 per cent sugar. This sap could be used for ethanol production, while the fodder itself could be used to feed cattle. Ethanol production using this plant is akin to production from sugarcane, with one major difference: once pressed, foliage and stems can be used as fodder. CREDETAO and MAPAQ are working on this project in the Outaouais region by calling on area producers and community organizations to help finalize the financing package required to carry out scientific research. According to preliminary studies conducted in the Outaouais, sweet pearl millet could produce 6 to 8 t/ha of fodder (100 per cent dry matter base) of equivalent quality to grass silage, as well as over 3,000 litres of ethanol.

There are many benefits for the Outaouais region. Pearl millet cultivation would double the fodder yield of sandy and acidic soils, and strengthen cattle production in the area. Additional revenue from sap sales would increase and diversify the income of farmers. Although pearl millet is an annual crop, it is grown in narrow rows and yields a significant amount of stable humus. While the objective is not to do away with perennial crops in favor of an annual crop, increased crop rotation in the Outaouais would be highly beneficial.

The area currently occupied by all forms of pearl millet represents only a tiny portion of what Quebec and Eastern Canada farmland could become in terms of crop rotation. With its considerable adaptability to sandy and acidic soils, as well as excessive drainage, pearl millet could be the key crop for all rotations across hundreds of thousands of hectares.

For more information contact Marc F. Clément, Agronomist, Large Scale Farming and Agroenvironmental Consultant, MAPAQ, Outaouais Sector, tel. 819-986-8544, ext. 225

SRM: collateral damage resulting from new regulations

Jean-Sebastien Laflamme, agronome

Research and Development Officer

FPBQ

As of July 12, 2007, Specific Risk Materials (SRM) will be banned in all animal feed and in fertilizers. This new federal regulation aims to speed up the eradication of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Canada. It will have a significant impact on the entire Canadian beef industry.

What are SRM?

Specific risk materials are cattle tissues that can potentially contain the infective agent responsible for the transmission of BSE. The SRM are defined as follows (see figure):

• for bovines of all ages (example: steers and calves): the distal ileum (part of the small intestine)

• for bovines over 30 months of age (e.g. cull cows): all the tissues indicated in the figure.

At the slaughterhouse, the weight of SRM amounts to about 250 pounds per cull cow, 35 pounds per steer and ten pounds per calf. At the farm level, bodies of dead cattle of all ages (e.g. calves, steers, cows) are considered as SRM. Approximately 50,000 tons of SRM are produced annually in Quebec.

Impact on farms and slaughterhouses

The new regulation will result in additional costs for slaughterhouses and rendering plants. These operators will have to invest in equipment and labour to separate the SRM from the other by-products. In addition, meat and bone meal containing SRM will have no commercial value since they will no longer be allowed to be sold as animal feed.

This situation is expected to cause an increase in the cost of dead animal pick-up at the farm. This is particularly worrisome in the fact that previous cost hikes resulted in a reduction in the number of animals being picked up. The end result could be increased risks to health and the environment.

The FPBQ is taking action!

The FPBQ regularly intervenes at the federal and provincial levels to ensure that regulations do not affect the competitiveness of the beef industry. However, the present situation is disturbing. American slaughterhouses will have an advantage since the U.S. does not intend to pass similar laws. Therefore, the federation has hired the firm SNC-Lavalin to evaluate new methods of using dead animals and slaughterhouse by-products. A technique to transform animal tissue into biodiesel fuel seems promising. Furthermore, a study has been initiated to evaluate the cost of recuperating dead animals at the farm. The objective is to establish a collection network that would be accessible to all farmers at the lowest possible cost.

This article was prepared in collaboration with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

SRM: Farmers’ responsibilities