UNITED STATES
7.3 Primary faCTors limiTiNG susTaiNaBiliTy iN oNTario
In addition to being unprofitable, Ontario agriculture is also based on practices that have proven to be ecologically unsound and socially unjust. In an assessment of institutional efforts to promote sustainability in the Great Lakes Basin, the federal commissioner of the environment and sustainable development concluded:
Current farming practices are not sustainable. In spite of conservation efforts, close to half of Ontario’s agricultural soil is at risk of washing away faster than new soil can form. Livestock operations in Ontario and Quebec—often “factory farms”—generate manure equal to the sewage of 100 million people…. Ottawa is not working effec-tively with the provinces to manage the problem, nor has it any formal plan in place.
(Gelinas, 2001, p. 7)
Constraints to sustainability or, as we would term it, building life capital, occur in the ecological, social, and economic spheres. Some constraints are universal, because production systems that are not designed to be fully accountable for costs of production necessarily evolve practices that are unmindful of sustainability. In Ontario, as elsewhere, agriculture continues to be vulnerable to consolidation and to the tensions of the export economy, which further threatens both the social and economic sustainability of rural communities.
In the present section, we contrast the factors constraining both institutional and organic approaches to sustainability, and focus the remainder of the section on con-straints to ecological, social, and economic sustainability within the organic farm-ing sector.
7.3.1 institutionalversus organiC approaChesto sustainability
To speak of constraints to sustainability presumes a shared understanding not sim-ply of what sustainability is, but also that the goal of enhancing sustainability is sufficiently important to justify the effort to change. The primary constraint to institutional efforts to promote sustainability is that neither of these preconditions is fulfilled.
A case in point is the voluntary Ontario Environmental Farm Plan (EFP), which is widely cited as a successful, farmer-based, and participatory initiative to enhance on-farm sustainability. It was started in 1993 by the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition, composed of four mainstream agriculture groups,* which intentionally excluded the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (EFAO) (Grudens-Schuck, 2004). The roughly $75 million,† 11-year program was federally funded, but was delivered by the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association together with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF). According to Grudens-Schuck (2004), the unambiguous if unstated agenda was to forestall societal demands for genuine change. Direction and power were retained by the leadership of the coali-tion, which was “composed of the same men and women who took defensive action against environmental initiatives in years prior.”
The criterion of success for the EFP program was the head count at meetings and the number of grants awarded. A recent update for this program announced that 27,000 people had attended workshops, with 11,500 producers receiving $15 million over the past 11 years to implement EFP Action Plan initiatives on their farms.‡
Absent from the assessment was evidence of actual environmental improvement.
Consistent with the lack of shared understanding of sustainability issues, environ-mental monitoring to gauge improvement was intentionally excluded from the EFP program. Yet, the Ontario EFP is nonetheless considered such a success that com-pleting an EFP is a precondition for eligibility for some other Ontario programs, and was the model for a similar Alberta EFP.§
Actually improving sustainability through voluntary institutional initiatives such as the EFP was compromised by both the unstated intent of program developers and its failure to attract participation by more than a minority of farmers—many of whom were already careful stewards of the land. The voluntary nature of such programs also allowed major polluters to continue business as usual, leading to the mandatory Nutrient Management Act of 2002, discussed below.
A report commissioned by one of the four coalition partners sought to understand the motivations for farmers’ declining participation in voluntary agri-environmental programs. McCallum (2003) found that more than half had never heard of agri-envi-ronmental programs such as the EFP, while 28% cited too many attached conditions,
* OFA, Ontario Federation of Agriculture; CFFO, Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario; AGCARE, Agricultural Groups Concerned about Resources and the Environment; OFAC, Ontario Farm Animal Council.
† According to Higgins (1998), the total cost of the program for workshops, training manuals, and grants of up to $1,500 per producer was $8 million per year for 1993–1997, and $5.8 million per year from 1998 onwards, or roughly $75 million to date.
‡ http://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/EFP.htm.
§ http://www.agfoodcouncil.com/serve/aesi02.html.
26% said too much time or paperwork, 13% felt it was not economically worthwhile, and the remainder felt either that they did not want others involved in managing their land or that they were already providing the best possible stewardship. Unless and until there is a shared consensus on both the meaning and importance of sustainable farming practices, institutional initiatives will be ineffectual.
In contrast, organic farmers embody both of the above preconditions—a shared understanding of sustainability and a willingness to bear the associated costs.
Organic farming is, by default, a farmer-based and participatory initiative because until very recently, “both levels of government ignored organic farming by effectively excluding it from their definition and funding of sustainable agriculture” (Hall and Mogyorody, 2001). Farmers choosing to adopt organic practices are not responding to the free dinners or “rhetoric of participation” chronicled for the EFP program (Grudens-Scheck, 2004) but rather to heartfelt concerns about personal and environ-mental health (see Section 7.4). Thus, constraints to sustainability for organic farm-ers are of an entirely different nature than those affecting institutional initiatives.
Canadian organic agriculture
Hill and MacRae (1992) reported that organic agriculture in Canada emerged in the 1950s, gath-ered strength in the 1960s, and began to consolidate in the 1970s. During the 1980s, the first com-prehensive surveys of organic farmers in Canada were carried out, several certification programs were established, some fledgling government support was initiated, and organic farming courses were introduced in some schools. While consumer interest in organics blossomed in the 1990s, institutional support continued to lag. It was not until 2005 that an institution of higher education—
the University of Guelph—offered the first academic major in organic agriculture in Canada.
Consumer expenditures on organic products in Canada were $1.3 billion in 2003. Although 85% of organic goods consumed in Canada are imported, most of the organic grains grown in Canada are exported (OMAF, 2003b), with roughly half to the European Union (EU), 40% to the United States, and 5% to Japan (Macey, 2004).
Macey (2004) reported that Canada had 3,134 certified producers in 2003, accounting for 1.3%
of all farms. Excluding transitional land, crown land used for range cattle, natural areas on organic farms, and wild lands for maple syrup, Canada’s certified organic land base was just over 390,000 ha in 2003. The above excluded land totaled almost 120,000 ha, making a total of just over half a million hectares under organic management (Macey, 2004). In the same year, the certified organic Canadian livestock industry consisted of 15,600 beef cattle on 613 farms, 7,100 dairy cows on 102 dairies, as well as 32 sheep and 23 pig operations. A total of 305,660 meat chickens were produced by 62 farms, with 2.6 million dozen eggs produced on 89 layer operations.
ontario organic agriculture
In 2003, Ontario had 487 certified organic farms or 0.8% of the 60,000 census farms in the prov-ince (Macey, 2004). Certified organic land in Ontario totaled 36,861 ha, with an additional 3,000 ha from 41 farms in transition. Unlike conventional operations, organic farms were typically diverse (Table 7.2). Vegetable and fruit farms tended to be small, servicing local farmers’ markets, commu-nity-supported agriculture (CSA), and natural food stores, with a few large enough to supply the mainstream retail sector. Grain, oilseed, and forage crops accounted for the largest share of both farm number and hectarage sown to organic crops. Both spelt and soy were important cash grains, primarily for the export market. Other grain and forage crops were grown to support the Ontario organic livestock industry, which consisted of at least 47 beef and 46 dairy cattle enterprises, and a few sheep, goat, and pig enterprises (Macey, 2004). A total of 66,340 meat chickens were pro-duced on 23 farms, with 288,000 dozen eggs propro-duced on 25 layer operations. Outlets for sales of organic crops include the 127 farmers’ markets in the province, which register gross sales of $500 million per year (Cummings et al., 1999) and, to a lesser extent, CSA, which are roughly estimated to number between 30 and 60 (Lewis, 2004).
We would conclude, therefore, that the primary constraint to sustainability for con-ventional operations is the lack of shared agreement on intent and necessity among stakeholders. The difficulty of eliciting voluntary participation even in a lengthy pro-gram suggests that most Ontario farmers do not prioritize either the need for or the cost of on-farm improvements to sustainability. For this reason, sustainability is also difficult to legislate or mandate, as will be shown below. In contrast, organic farmers are already in agreement with the need for sustainability and for absorbing its costs.
The constraints they face to building ecological, social, and economic sustainability are discussed below, drawing from a three-year survey of 12 Ontario organic farmers by Clark and Maitland (2004), a one-year survey of 41 Ontario organic farmers by Sumner (2004, 2005), and a synthetic analysis by Martin (2004).
7.3.2 Constraintson eCologiCal sustainability
Organic farmers are attempting to integrate the principles that sustain nature into remunerative agricultural systems, often without a clear body of technical evidence to guide on-farm practice. Following, in no particular order, are a sampling of the issues raised by surveyed farmers:
TaBle 7.2
distribution of enterprises and land Bases among Certified organic farms in ontario, 2003a
Landbase, ha 531 18 428 22,200 sown
1,000 in wild
a These are minimal figures, as not all certifying bodies reported all of the data sought.
Need for better understanding of crop-nutrient interactions
• —Producers often
believe that soil nutrient balance affects crop vulnerability to weed, insect, and disease pests, as well as feed and food quality for livestock and human health. Cation balancing, as per Albrecht, is promoted by some consultants, but evidence in the literature is contradictory. A stronger understanding of soil nutrient impacts on pest dynamics and food and feed quality would give producers the tools they need to forestall pest buildup and promote health.
Difficulty accessing appropriate seeds
• —Respondents identified several
different problems related to seeds and genetics:
In the absence of breeding programs dedicated to organics, farmers are
•
obliged to use varieties bred for conventional conditions, which may or may not be appropriate for organic systems. Farm groups or farm-ers seeking to breed their own organic cultivars need to be mindful of proposed changes to Canadian legislation bearing on ownership of their initial germplasm.
Because most field crop seed is routinely treated at the source with
•
biocides, the need to use untreated seed often reduces choice to older or less popular varieties made available through organic suppliers.
Particularly for horticultural crops, seed identified as organically grown
•
may be of inconsistent quality.
Because seed of non-genetically modified (GM) corn, soy, or canola is
•
no longer guaranteed to be GM-free by the vendors, farmers may be inadvertently contravening the requirements of certified organic prac-tice, which is to use non-GM seed.
Seed that is double certified—by both the Canadian Seed Growers
•
Association and an organic certifying body—is expensive and largely unavailable, yet will soon be required to export grain to the EU.
Inappropriate and expensive machinery
• —Machinery such as tractors and
combines is increasingly costly to purchase new, yet used equipment can be unreliable. Martz (2004) reported that the farm input price index for com-bines and tractors rose by 74 and 61%, respectively, just between 1992 and 2003. These costs compare with a 37% increase for the overall input price index and a barely 10% increase in the product price index between 1981 and 2003 (Martz, 2004). There is need for both local repair shops able to work with older equipment and experiential opportunities to teach novice farmers the skills for both purchase and repair. Conventional machinery may also be ill-adapted to smaller-scale horticultural farms, necessitating either custom retooling or reliance on equipment dating from an earlier era.
Difficulty getting manure/compost from certified herds
• —Organic
horti-cultural and mixed grain–livestock producers rely on composted livestock manure as a soil amendment. Stockless horticultural farms, which are the norm, commonly import manure from neighbors. The requirement of some certifiers for manure from certified organic livestock is a logistic and eco-nomic challenge to farms distant from approved sources.
Limited options for pest control
• —Pest control on organic farms is
primar-ily prophylactic in nature. Options for control should pest outbreak occur
are often limited. Weed management through rotation and tillage is vul-nerable to weather-induced delays. Delay in a planned operation can result in significant and uncontrollable weed pressure. Innovation is needed in implements and other practices, such as mulching or compost teas, to afford producers’ fallback options.
Lack of options for worm control
• —Controlling intestinal worms in sheep
or young dairy cattle without using synthetic antihelminthics is a signif-icant challenge. Shepherds consider this the single greatest limitation to organic production. Dairy producers routinely keep their young stock off of grass until six months of age, specifically to avoid worms. Few Ontario shepherds carry enough cattle to alternate pastures, as is the custom among New Zealand organic producers. Better understanding of how to strengthen animal response to the challenge of intestinal worms is urgently needed.
Inputs difficult to access
• —Some organic farmers have difficulty access-ing the products they need to comply with certification. Local farm supply depots may not carry organic inputs, which then must be sourced from farther away. Examples include potting media for greenhouse production and nutrient sources such as green sand or kelp.
Among the ecological concerns identified by Martin (2004) were the following:
Need for more systems thinking
• —Acquiring the ability to adopt a true
sys-tems approach to farming instead of simply replacing synthetic with organic products is difficult, particularly for transitioning farmers.
Need for better access to approved products
• —Biocontrol products, such
as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), Beauvaria bassiana, Gliocladium catenu-latum, neem oil, kaolin clay, acetic acid, corn gluten, garlic oil, and sulfur, may be beneficial for pest control, but have not yet been registered by the federal Pest Management Review Agency. Registration is an expensive and time-consuming process, and companies marketing these products have declined to pursue it due to small market size.
As may be judged from the foregoing, achieving ecological sustainability is con-strained by everything from the novelty of mastering systems thinking to finding accessible suppliers of permitted products. Many of the issues confounding organic practitioners reflect the relative youth of the industry and may be resolved with experience and growth. However, some questions arising from organic systems may also be outside conventional experience, suggesting the need for targeted research and extension.
7.3.3 Constraintson soCial sustainability
The social hurdles that need to be overcome by organic farmers are shared by any group that challenges the status quo. However, many of these issues have become
problematic only in recent years, as the scale and success of organic farming lifted it from a scattered fringe element to a vital component of rural communities.
Lack of support for organic agriculture
• —In the province of Ontario,
encouragement and even awareness is lacking at the level of institutions, communities, and banks.
Farm policies, whether for crop insurance or for nutrient management,
•
do not yet acknowledge the distinct features of organic practice. Ontario has declined to provide any financial incentives for organic farmers, unlike the EU, the United States, or Quebec.
“Public good” research to address the unique needs of organic
practitio-•
ners—from management practices to targeted crop and livestock breeding to market development—is just beginning to receive research funding. At the national level, funding for the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada*
(OACC) at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College accounts for most of what has been allocated to date. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food has designated an Organic Crop Production Program Lead to facilitate both research and extension efforts, and organics has begun to receive a small fraction of provincial research funding.
Only recently can organic farmers find educational opportunities focusing
•
on their needs in Ontario colleges and universities. Ontario’s University of Guelph was the first Canadian university to offer an academic major in organic agriculture.† Guelph’s sister campuses at Kemptville and Alfred, which grant two-year diplomas, also offer organic courses.
On the level of rural communities, organic farmers may feel isolated and
•
marginalized, and may also have difficulty buffering their crops from spray drift and GM pollen flow from neighboring farmers. Derisive labels, as “quacks,” “hippies,” or “hobby farmers,” can be debilitating.
Some have trouble overcoming their pride in clean, weed-free fields, afraid that others will judge them as poor farmers if weeds appear in their organic fields.
Bankers have not been sympathetic to loans for small or organic
enter-•
prises, which has retarded growth and expansion.
Lack of skills and training
• —Novice farmers, as well as seasoned
conven-tional farmers, may lack some technical skills important in organic farm-ing. The absence of institutional support for organic training, coupled with the ongoing loss of farming skills through the industrialization of agricul-ture, can leave few options for those converting to organic.
High cost of certification
• —Organic farmers are certified annually, neces-sitating not simply payment of a fee but keeping all the auditable information needed by the inspector. A common complaint is the prohibitive cost of main-taining the complicated paper trail needed for certification. Some experienced organic farmers are foregoing certification entirely, because their reputation
* http://www.organicagcentre.ca.
† www.organicag.uoguelph.ca.
is already established and the cost and complexity of certification is not worth the trouble. The efforts of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) in the EU to come up with a single, straightforward approach to certification are instructional for us as well.
In summarizing the state of the organic industry in Ontario, Martin (2004) identi-fied several areas of social concern:
Public confidence
• in the integrity of the term organic may be eroded by the confusing presence of competing labels, such as “pesticide free,” “free range,” “natural,” etc., supporting the need for mandatory certification.
Systematically collected public sector statistics and market intelligence are
•
needed to formulate policy and to track price trends for the organic sector.
Data currently available depend largely on tabulations by a volunteer at the Canadian Organic Growers.
Focus is needed to build on existing value chain attributes of organic, and
•
to capitalize on consumer-driven demand for “locally grown” product—
despite the preference of retail and distributor links for imported product.
In summary, a range of social issues have arisen as organic farming approaches the mainstream. As the number of practitioners and the presence of organic foods
In summary, a range of social issues have arisen as organic farming approaches the mainstream. As the number of practitioners and the presence of organic foods