Behind the Lines - March 2015
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Next to neonicotinoid pesticide controls on soybean and corn seed, phosphorus running into the Great Lakes is the second largest environmental problem facing the province's farmers. And given the province's approach to neonics – ban them now and let the science on what they do to bees catch up later – it's no surprise that farmers are concerned about the route that the province will take with phosphorus and agriculture.
Phosphorus in the Great Lakes, which we share with our American neighbours, is a key water quality concern that has international repercussions. There are worries about reports that standard farm practices which governments have encouraged, such as no-till and tile drainage, may exacerbate phosphorus escape into streams, rivers and the lakes. This month's cover story, by Mary Baxter, looks at what research has shown so far. That story starts on page 12.
There are lots of unanswered questions. And some are unanswered because it is so hard to get a reply.
Several weeks after a number of written questions were submitted to an Ontario agriculture ministry environmental specialist, and just before we are going to press, a lengthy reply was sent back from a team of provincial agriculture ministry specialists.
In part, that reply says that the Canada - Ontario Agreement (COA) commits the federal and provincial governments "to a reduction in excess phosphorus from agricultural and rural non-point sources over the next five years in support of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the United States." By how much that excess phosphorus is to be reduced was not revealed.
The reply also says: "Ontario has initiated a multi-watershed study over the next seven years to increase understanding of phosphorus sources, forms of phosphorus discharged, seasonality and management impacts. This study will provide information on the sources of agricultural nutrients to streams and near shore waters and will support setting and achieving targets. This study will help us build on the (International Joint Commission) report and meet COA commitments as well as (the) Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement."
The reply acknowledged the benefit of nutrient management plans and noted that chemical fertilizer applications are already regulated under the Nutrient Management Act of 2002 "for large livestock farm operations," and that the province allocated $1.5 million to be spent on demonstration projects and research between 2012 and 2013.
Last month, in this space we touched on the problem of government scientists being muzzled. In The Hill, his regular column on page 60, Barry Wilson outlines changes he's seen since the days when agriculture ministers like John Wise and Eugene Whelan supported open-ended, long-term research.
We think those interested in the latest scientific research will want to join us in welcoming a new writer. Dr. Mike R. Duncan, from Niagara College Research and Innovation. Beginning on page 38, Mike explores variable rate fertilizing and the use of yield probability indexes. This is a highly technical subject and not one you will likely digest in a few minutes, but we think this article is solid gold for those working on the cutting edges of agriculture.
With this issue our ever-popular Crop Scene Investigation series will be winding down for another season. If you think you know what caused the five-alarm call from Steve's alfalfa field, detailed on page 48, send in your answer and watch for the solution in our April issue. BF
ROBERT IRWIN & DON STONEMAN