It was encouraging to see the Manitoba Government's press release "Northern Communities Improving Self-Sufficiency with Healthy Food Projects,", but I could not help asking myself why not pursue Healthy Food Projects throughout Manitoba including Winnipeg?
The Government boasts about how its contribution of "$600,000, ... has leveraged support from a number of other sources" helping to ensure that "more than 400 vegetable gardens have been planted in communities all over the North."
In Winnipeg, however, the Province failed to keep the plants blooming at 198 Sherbrook this past spring. Originally a vacant lot that was repurposed into a garden by local residents in 1991, it was purchased for $30.500 by the West Broadway Development Corporation in 2001 with the help of a provincial grant. This past spring the WBCD decided that the $2000 in annual taxes was "...a cost that is not sustainable"; opting instead to build housing. Where was the province on this one? Does a community garden not warrant a measley $2000 per annum in government funding?
We need a Winnipeg Healthy Foods Initiative. Fresh produce may not be as cripplingly expensive here in Winnipeg as it is in the North, but we still need to deal with critical challenge of ensuring food security. All Manitobans need to create a local self-sufficient food supply. Such a supply would reduce imported low-nutrition foods and feature healthy locally grown foods. Manitobans would reacquainte themselves with their daily bread, by learning about traditional harvesting and food preservation techniques. In short, Winnepeggers and Northerners alike can all reduce the ecological impact of the food we eat.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
It's actually quite simple: remove the nitrogen at source
The Manitoba government has decided to rethink nitrogen removal, but perhaps they should be rethinking water-based sanitation?
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of nitrogen and ammonia found in sewage water originates from human urine. Instead of diluting our urine with water and then attempting to remove the urine at the treatment plant, perhaps we should be looking at the examples from Finland, Sweden, Germany, China, among others, where urine is being used as a fertilizer.
Human excreta is packed of full nutrients, most notably phosphorous and nitrogen, by adopting a policy of waterless sanitation (i.e. dry composting toilets) we can ensure that these nutrients are returned to the soil from where they originated, rather than ending up in our waterways where they do not belong.
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of nitrogen and ammonia found in sewage water originates from human urine. Instead of diluting our urine with water and then attempting to remove the urine at the treatment plant, perhaps we should be looking at the examples from Finland, Sweden, Germany, China, among others, where urine is being used as a fertilizer.
Human excreta is packed of full nutrients, most notably phosphorous and nitrogen, by adopting a policy of waterless sanitation (i.e. dry composting toilets) we can ensure that these nutrients are returned to the soil from where they originated, rather than ending up in our waterways where they do not belong.
ORGANIC WINDOW DRESSING
There are signs that the Manitoba Government is beginning to see the light cast off by the need for a more sustainable food supply; but, as always, the Manitoba Government continues to stare at the ground two inches ahead rather than looking off into the distance whence the light is coming.
The government's announcements to help fund organic certification, and research into reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as movements in the right direction, but they need to be understood in context.
Both of these announcements (released on October 1, 2008 and September 23, 2008 respectively) were rather paltry, when compared to other releases seen this year. Consider that the cumulative projected costs of these two
announcements amounts to $1,338,000 million. In contrast, a single hog factory can receive up to $5 million in loan support under the $60 million Manitoba Hog Assistance Loan Program announced on June 5, 2008.
Or, how about the fact that the Government committed $19.6 million ($13.7 million directly) in funding to Neepawa and Brandon to clean up the mess created by the hog-processing plants (Springhill Farms and Maple Leaf).
If half of the money spent on propping up the hog industry had been used to support farmers for maintaining unadulterated wilderness, for switching to organic methods or for developing small-scale localized food production systems, we would already have a sustainable agriculture in place.
The government's announcements to help fund organic certification, and research into reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as movements in the right direction, but they need to be understood in context.
Both of these announcements (released on October 1, 2008 and September 23, 2008 respectively) were rather paltry, when compared to other releases seen this year. Consider that the cumulative projected costs of these two
announcements amounts to $1,338,000 million. In contrast, a single hog factory can receive up to $5 million in loan support under the $60 million Manitoba Hog Assistance Loan Program announced on June 5, 2008.
Or, how about the fact that the Government committed $19.6 million ($13.7 million directly) in funding to Neepawa and Brandon to clean up the mess created by the hog-processing plants (Springhill Farms and Maple Leaf).
If half of the money spent on propping up the hog industry had been used to support farmers for maintaining unadulterated wilderness, for switching to organic methods or for developing small-scale localized food production systems, we would already have a sustainable agriculture in place.
Open the Farmers' Market 365
Kudos to Keystone Agricultural Producers for their August 26th, 2008 article Press Release “The Farmers` Share” in recognizing that farmers receive a tiny portion of the average consumer's grocery bill. One remedy for this problem is to encourage consumers to purchase directly from agricultural producers (or at minimal to purchase products that originate from local agricultural producers), as this helps to minimize transportation and intermediary costs, thereby allowing farmers to capture a greater share of consumer's grocery bill.
In Manitoba, however, a series of archaic legislative regulations make it difficult for small agricultural producers to market their products directly to consumers. One of the most glaring examples of this is the “Food and Food Handling Establishments Regulations” under the Public Health Act which limit Farmers Markets to being open a mere 14 days per annum.
Most of the food handling regulations are sensible, but how does limiting the operating days of temporary food markets protect public health?
As evidenced by the recent cases of pork tainted with Lysteria and Salmonella-laden tomatoes, there is always the potential for our food to be contaminated. This is true of virtually everything we eat, regardless of whether it has been purchased from a farmers market or a Superstore.
When food contamination originates from large centralized production facilities (as was the case in the two previous examples) the contamination has the potential to be more widespread; whereas when food is sold directly from a local producer to a consumer, the shorter supply chain makes it easier to track any contamination that may occur, and the risk of the contamination spreading is mitigated.
If the provincial and federal governments were committed to truly helping our agricultural producers market directly to consumers, farmers would not be buffeted as they are now with tired, arbitrary, and inconsistently enforced legislation. Granting farmers unfettered access to market themselves via farmers markets, is only one small legislative change that needs to be made, but it is a start! And if we begin to create the legislative structure that promotes small-scale agricultural producers, might we not discover that our small-scale local producers are more trustworthy than their multi-national counterparts at delivering quality food?
In Manitoba, however, a series of archaic legislative regulations make it difficult for small agricultural producers to market their products directly to consumers. One of the most glaring examples of this is the “Food and Food Handling Establishments Regulations” under the Public Health Act which limit Farmers Markets to being open a mere 14 days per annum.
Most of the food handling regulations are sensible, but how does limiting the operating days of temporary food markets protect public health?
As evidenced by the recent cases of pork tainted with Lysteria and Salmonella-laden tomatoes, there is always the potential for our food to be contaminated. This is true of virtually everything we eat, regardless of whether it has been purchased from a farmers market or a Superstore.
When food contamination originates from large centralized production facilities (as was the case in the two previous examples) the contamination has the potential to be more widespread; whereas when food is sold directly from a local producer to a consumer, the shorter supply chain makes it easier to track any contamination that may occur, and the risk of the contamination spreading is mitigated.
If the provincial and federal governments were committed to truly helping our agricultural producers market directly to consumers, farmers would not be buffeted as they are now with tired, arbitrary, and inconsistently enforced legislation. Granting farmers unfettered access to market themselves via farmers markets, is only one small legislative change that needs to be made, but it is a start! And if we begin to create the legislative structure that promotes small-scale agricultural producers, might we not discover that our small-scale local producers are more trustworthy than their multi-national counterparts at delivering quality food?
Saddling Farmers With Debt
Minister Wowchuk's recent press announcement that the province will increase the agricultural Operating Credit Guarantee from $15 million to $25 million is a tacit recognition of the Government's current agricultural strategy to propagate the current process of farm amalgamation by enabling agricultural producers to string an even heavier yoke of debt around their necks.
[http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=&item=3819]
The Manitoba Government boasts that it has increased the the Operating Credit Guarantee administered by the Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation [MASC] by 10 million dollars to a total maximum of 25 million. MASC's own website states that the purpose of this program is to “...provide a 25 per cent guarantee on operating lines of credit with participating private lending institutions.” Essentially this funding increase allows “participating private lending institutions” to annually saddle an additional 40 million dollars in debt on the backs of Manitoba's agricultural producers. However will an increase in debt-load really benefit agricultural producers? Or will it be more beneficial to the institutions that earn interest on the money loaned? In the past twenty years the total debt outstanding by Manitoba farms has more than tripled from $1.85 billion in 1988 to $6.07 billion in 2007. Yet over the same period the realized net farm incomes of Canadian farmers have declined from $3.9 billion in 1988 to $1.5 billion in 2007.
[http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/21-014-XIE/21-014-XIE2008001.pdf]
[http://www.nfu.ca/briefs/2007/1988%20vs%202007%20FINAL%20bri.pdf]
In theory this increase in funding guarantees should allow Manitoba's agricultural producer to access $5,248.24 (up from $3148.94) in operating loans on an annual basis, but these loans will not be allocated equally among all producers. The vast majority of Canadian agricultural producers, 65.6%, to be exact, earn gross annual receipts of less than $100,000; however these farms are the least likely to be profitable. As a case in point farms earning annual gross receipts of less than $25,000 turn a profit 29% of the time; whereas 86% of farms with annual gross receipts over $1 million earn a profit. [http://www.statcan.ca/english/agcensus2006/articles/finpic.htm]
Lending institutions are in the business of risk management, and the statistical reality is that the vast majority of Canadian farms, the small family-run operations, are less likely to be profitable than their multimillion dollar counterparts. Lending institutions therefore are more likely to loan money to the more profitable larger farms.
At the end of the day it seems likely that the increase in the Operating Credit Guarantee will aid in: helping to prop up large-scale hog/poultry operations, and helping large and medium sized farmers to buy-out their smaller neighbors.
[http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=&item=3819]
The Manitoba Government boasts that it has increased the the Operating Credit Guarantee administered by the Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation [MASC] by 10 million dollars to a total maximum of 25 million. MASC's own website states that the purpose of this program is to “...provide a 25 per cent guarantee on operating lines of credit with participating private lending institutions.” Essentially this funding increase allows “participating private lending institutions” to annually saddle an additional 40 million dollars in debt on the backs of Manitoba's agricultural producers. However will an increase in debt-load really benefit agricultural producers? Or will it be more beneficial to the institutions that earn interest on the money loaned? In the past twenty years the total debt outstanding by Manitoba farms has more than tripled from $1.85 billion in 1988 to $6.07 billion in 2007. Yet over the same period the realized net farm incomes of Canadian farmers have declined from $3.9 billion in 1988 to $1.5 billion in 2007.
[http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/21-014-XIE/21-014-XIE2008001.pdf]
[http://www.nfu.ca/briefs/2007/1988%20vs%202007%20FINAL%20bri.pdf]
In theory this increase in funding guarantees should allow Manitoba's agricultural producer to access $5,248.24 (up from $3148.94) in operating loans on an annual basis, but these loans will not be allocated equally among all producers. The vast majority of Canadian agricultural producers, 65.6%, to be exact, earn gross annual receipts of less than $100,000; however these farms are the least likely to be profitable. As a case in point farms earning annual gross receipts of less than $25,000 turn a profit 29% of the time; whereas 86% of farms with annual gross receipts over $1 million earn a profit. [http://www.statcan.ca/english/agcensus2006/articles/finpic.htm]
Lending institutions are in the business of risk management, and the statistical reality is that the vast majority of Canadian farms, the small family-run operations, are less likely to be profitable than their multimillion dollar counterparts. Lending institutions therefore are more likely to loan money to the more profitable larger farms.
At the end of the day it seems likely that the increase in the Operating Credit Guarantee will aid in: helping to prop up large-scale hog/poultry operations, and helping large and medium sized farmers to buy-out their smaller neighbors.
Remove the nutrients at source
The Green Party of Manitoba [GPM] has been watching with great interest the debate occurring on editorial pages of the Winnipeg Free Press, regarding nitrogen removal at Winnipeg's waste water treatment plants. The findings and comments of Dr. Schindler are interesting, but it is disheartening that most of the debate has centered on the best way to treat our sewage, when we ought to be discussing how to stop creating sewage in the first place.
On July 24th, Councillor Steeves expressed his concern that the roughly $2 billion being spent on upgrading our sewage system "...is not at all a prudent use of taxpayers' money." To this end the GPM would also like to point out that it is also an imprudent use of our precious water resources.
The fact of the matter is, that the vast majority of pathogens and nutrients coming from household sewage originate from human feces and urine. According to a German study, urine accounts for 87% of the total nitrogen content and 50% of the phosphorous content in household sewage water; furthermore feces accounts for 10% of the total nitrogen and 40% of the total phosphorous content. However rather than dealing with this problem at its point of origin, we dilute it with water: firstly when we flush our toilet, and increasingly so as we mix our toilet water, with our wash and drainage water; at which point we then attempt to remove the diluted nutrients and pathogens from the so called "waste-water" or "sewage" that is created.
In essence every year we take several thousand litres of litres of clean fresh water, mix it with a couple hundred litres of our bodily excrements, and then we try to remove the bodily excrements from the water. A rather pointless and inefficient process, when we consider that the technology exists- dry composting toilets (which are already in place in some Winnipeg homes and businesses, mind you)- with which we could treat our bodily excrements without the use of water, and rather than creating algae blooms in lakes, we could produce a useful agricultural product--a nutrient rich soil conditioner.
In her July 28th letter to the Winnipeg Free Press, Minister Melnick asserts that "...the cost for cleaning up Lake Winnipeg is a responsibility of all Manitobans." Undoubtedly, the cost of increasingly eutrophicating and contaminated waterways is borne by all living species in Manitoba. Why then, do both the civic and provincial governments cling to upholding an unsustainable sewage infrastructure?
On July 24th, Councillor Steeves expressed his concern that the roughly $2 billion being spent on upgrading our sewage system "...is not at all a prudent use of taxpayers' money." To this end the GPM would also like to point out that it is also an imprudent use of our precious water resources.
The fact of the matter is, that the vast majority of pathogens and nutrients coming from household sewage originate from human feces and urine. According to a German study, urine accounts for 87% of the total nitrogen content and 50% of the phosphorous content in household sewage water; furthermore feces accounts for 10% of the total nitrogen and 40% of the total phosphorous content. However rather than dealing with this problem at its point of origin, we dilute it with water: firstly when we flush our toilet, and increasingly so as we mix our toilet water, with our wash and drainage water; at which point we then attempt to remove the diluted nutrients and pathogens from the so called "waste-water" or "sewage" that is created.
In essence every year we take several thousand litres of litres of clean fresh water, mix it with a couple hundred litres of our bodily excrements, and then we try to remove the bodily excrements from the water. A rather pointless and inefficient process, when we consider that the technology exists- dry composting toilets (which are already in place in some Winnipeg homes and businesses, mind you)- with which we could treat our bodily excrements without the use of water, and rather than creating algae blooms in lakes, we could produce a useful agricultural product--a nutrient rich soil conditioner.
In her July 28th letter to the Winnipeg Free Press, Minister Melnick asserts that "...the cost for cleaning up Lake Winnipeg is a responsibility of all Manitobans." Undoubtedly, the cost of increasingly eutrophicating and contaminated waterways is borne by all living species in Manitoba. Why then, do both the civic and provincial governments cling to upholding an unsustainable sewage infrastructure?
The Constituency boundaries may change, but the agrarian roots to my hometown do not.
As the former Green Party candidate in the soon to be defunct Minnedosa Constituency, I largely concur with Dan Lett's conclusions: that the recent Tory complaints about electoral gerrymandering are unfounded, and that this is a tacit recognition by the Tories that they can't seem to win seats in Winnipeg.
I do admit to being a little sentimental—us political candidates get attached to the areas where we campaign—; but underneath the new electoral redistribution and the political muckraking lies the structural cause of the shift of political power from the rural areas to our major urban center: the problem of rural decline.
There are few that would doubt the legitimacy of the Census data that is used to determine redistributions, and the by and large the Census data shows that many of Manitoba's rural areas are hollowing out as many young people forgo taking over the family farm in favour of working in the city. The question these rural PC MLA's should be asking is: “Why are these trends occurring?”; and “What can be done to reverse these trends?”
In an attempt to get the political discourse going I though that I might offer a few suggestions courtesy of the Green Party of Manitoba.
The underlying value of a Green approach to agriculture is move away from export oriented agriculture, towards localized food production. All to often foods travel thousands of kilometres before consumption. This not only causes needless emissions, but when food is sold locally directly from the agricultural producer to the consumer the absence of middle-men often allows farmers to garner a larger portion of the profits.
Let me elaborate with three specific examples:
1. With the summer heat comes the time-honoured tradition of farmers' markets, but how many Manitobans are aware that farmers markets are legally restricted to being open for a mere 14 days per annum. A very simple legislative change could rectify this inequality, creating the the opportunity for more Manitoban agricultural producers to diversify their income by selling local food to local consumers.
2. Another example would be Saskatchewan's decision to pay farmers up to $700 per year to help pay for the costs of organic certification. According to the 2006 Census data there were 19.054 enumerated farms in Manitoba, if every farmer in Manitoba converted to Organic Agriculture a similar program in Manitoba would cost less than 14 million.
3. Where is the equality in providing 37.5 times more funding in loan support to the hog industry than to young farmers? In a press release last week Minister Wowchuk bragged , that the “Young Farmer Rebate Program Provides $1.6 Million to Producers”; yet this year 60 million was doled out to the hog producers—they even upped the ante from 2.5 million to 5 million in support because they couldn't get rid of the money fast enough. With the age of agricultural producers constantly increasing wouldn't it seem logical to invest in young farmers?
Of course my analysis like, much Mr. Schweitzer's, is partisan. The difference is that I am trying to look for solutions to ameliorate the problem of rural depopulation, rather than squabbling over election boundaries in 2011. If it is “a good political fight” that Dan Lett wants he should start looking at the Manitoba Greens.
James Beddome is the former 2007 GPM Candidate for Minnedosa and the current GPM President
I do admit to being a little sentimental—us political candidates get attached to the areas where we campaign—; but underneath the new electoral redistribution and the political muckraking lies the structural cause of the shift of political power from the rural areas to our major urban center: the problem of rural decline.
There are few that would doubt the legitimacy of the Census data that is used to determine redistributions, and the by and large the Census data shows that many of Manitoba's rural areas are hollowing out as many young people forgo taking over the family farm in favour of working in the city. The question these rural PC MLA's should be asking is: “Why are these trends occurring?”; and “What can be done to reverse these trends?”
In an attempt to get the political discourse going I though that I might offer a few suggestions courtesy of the Green Party of Manitoba.
The underlying value of a Green approach to agriculture is move away from export oriented agriculture, towards localized food production. All to often foods travel thousands of kilometres before consumption. This not only causes needless emissions, but when food is sold locally directly from the agricultural producer to the consumer the absence of middle-men often allows farmers to garner a larger portion of the profits.
Let me elaborate with three specific examples:
1. With the summer heat comes the time-honoured tradition of farmers' markets, but how many Manitobans are aware that farmers markets are legally restricted to being open for a mere 14 days per annum. A very simple legislative change could rectify this inequality, creating the the opportunity for more Manitoban agricultural producers to diversify their income by selling local food to local consumers.
2. Another example would be Saskatchewan's decision to pay farmers up to $700 per year to help pay for the costs of organic certification. According to the 2006 Census data there were 19.054 enumerated farms in Manitoba, if every farmer in Manitoba converted to Organic Agriculture a similar program in Manitoba would cost less than 14 million.
3. Where is the equality in providing 37.5 times more funding in loan support to the hog industry than to young farmers? In a press release last week Minister Wowchuk bragged , that the “Young Farmer Rebate Program Provides $1.6 Million to Producers”; yet this year 60 million was doled out to the hog producers—they even upped the ante from 2.5 million to 5 million in support because they couldn't get rid of the money fast enough. With the age of agricultural producers constantly increasing wouldn't it seem logical to invest in young farmers?
Of course my analysis like, much Mr. Schweitzer's, is partisan. The difference is that I am trying to look for solutions to ameliorate the problem of rural depopulation, rather than squabbling over election boundaries in 2011. If it is “a good political fight” that Dan Lett wants he should start looking at the Manitoba Greens.
James Beddome is the former 2007 GPM Candidate for Minnedosa and the current GPM President
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)