My Interview With CropLife Canada

This summer, I was given an opportunity to do a video interview with CropLife Canada on the use of biotechnology and pesticides on our farm. As another way to interact with consumers and tell our story, it was something I simply couldn’t pass up. They did a fantastic job and I couldn’t be happier with the way it turned out! I want to extend a huge thank you to CropLife for taking the time to try and educate consumers on why farmers use and need these products to help create a sustainable future. Check out the video here:

If you want to read more of my thoughts on biotechnology and pesticides, check out these posts:

Why I Grow GMOs

Why I’m Not An Organic Farmer

Glyphosate: A Carcinogen?

There are many more posts like these few, all to be found here.

Who is CropLife Canada?

From their website: “CropLife Canada is the trade association representing the manufacturers, developers and distributors of plant science technologies, including pest control products and plant biotechnology, for use in agriculture, urban and public health settings.”

If you want to find out more, visit their website!


Glyphosate: A Carcinogen?

John Deere 4940Every once in a while, a news story is released that has no basis in any real science whatsoever. A few days ago, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and many other brands, to be a class 2A probable human carcinogen.

What does this mean? Does glyphosate, long heralded as one of the safest agricultural pesticides on the market, really cause cancer? Should it be ripped from store and retail shelves, buried, burned and otherwise disposed of? Even banned?

Let’s slow down for a minute here. Glyphosate has been tested inside and out for the past 30 years and has not been shown to be a cancer risk for humans. A mind-numbing number of studies have consistently shown, time and again, that glyphosate is safe. So why the controversy? First, let’s look at the basics.

What is glyphosate and how is it used?

Glyphosate was originally patented by Monsanto in the early 1970’s as the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide. It was introduced to the market in 1974 and has since become one of the DSC_0614best-selling herbicides in the world. Its non-selective mode of action means that it does not discriminate in which weeds it kills. The introduction of this product revolutionized the herbicide market and changed the way farmers kill weeds.

For those interested in the details, glyphosate, a derivative of the amino acid glycine, targets and blocks a pathway called the shikimic acid pathway; which, suffice to say, is required for amino acid synthesis in plants. With amino acid synthesis shut down, plants wilt and die from starvation. Since the shikimite pathway is not found in humans (or any other animal), glyphosate is of very low toxicity. Find even more details here.

Before herbicides were broadly and economically available, farmers were forced to use tillage to control weeds. While other methods helped, such as crop rotation, cover crops and late seeding, tillage was the primary method with which weeds were killed. The problem with tillage is that it is extremely damaging to soil structure and leaves soil exposed to erosion. With the introduction of herbicides, and eventually Roundup, minimum-till agriculture became a realistic possibility, which has decreased erosion substantially on farms that utilize it.

The introduction of Roundup-Ready crops, including corn, soybean, canola, cotton and so on, has allowed for safe, simple, very cost-effective weed control.

Where did this cancer label come from?

Sorting through the rhetoric of glyphosate is a challenge all on its own. Type “glyphosate” into a Google search and you’ll find all kinds of wild claims about cancer, autism, poison, and the like. The fact is that most of what you see is sensationalist news articles with little fact-based information. Let’s cut through some of that rhetoric.

First of all, what does IARC, a semi-autonomous extension of the World Health Organization, mean when it classes glyphosate as a 2A human carcinogen? There are five categories of carcinogens that the IARC lists on their website:

  • Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans
  • Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans
  • Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans
  • Group 3: Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans
  • Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans

They listed glyphosate in Group 2A, in which there are 73 agents, which includes the occupational exposure as a hairdresser, shiftwork and high temperature frying. Group 1 includes alcoholic beverages, estrogen and wood dust (source). Yes, that means beer is a greater carcinogenic risk than glyphosate.

What’s everyone else saying?

I think one very important detail that is not being reported on is that the IARC is not the only group that has studied glyphosate. For example, the European Crop Protection Director, General Jean-Charles Bocquet, had this to say:

“The IARC conclusions published in Lancet Oncology contradict the world’s most robust and stringent regulatory systems – namely the European Union and the United States – in which crop protection products have undergone extensive reviews based on multi-year testing and in which active ingredients such as glyphosate and malathion been found not to present a carcinogenic risk to humans.”

 “From the summary conclusions it appears that IARC has made its conclusions as a result of an incomplete data review that has omitted key evidence.” (source)

He’s not the only one. The Environmental Protection Group of the US has done extensive testing of glyphosate, and does not consider glyphosate to be a carcinogen. Other groups, such as Health Canada and the German Risk Agency, are firmly against the notion that glyphosate causes cancer. Put simply, the IARC is the first and only group to label glyphosate as a carcinogen.

Oddly, one of the very few studies they allegedly took into consideration was the fatally flawed Seralini rat study. If you’re unfamiliar with it, it was a shocking study that apparently proved that GMOs caused tumours in rats- but the methodology of the study was so poorly exercised that the journal that published it later retracted it. It is now a laughingstock of the scientific community, and any credible organization that references “information” such as this should thoroughly re-evaluate their credibility.

Is glyphosate actually safe?

I could go into the thousands of studies on the safety of glyphosate, and go into a detailed literature review of why it is such a safe product. But this is a blog; not a scientific journal, and as such I’ll leave the science to the scientists with some links for further reading below. Let me summarize instead; glyphosate lacks the structural characteristics of known carcinogens, and the IARC has failed miserably to link cancer to glyphosate. Interestingly, the IARC actually does not conduct their own research; instead, they look at the data that’s out there and form their own conclusion. Isn’t it telling that they are the first and only group to label glyphosate this way?

The reality is that glyphosate has been applied on billions of acres over the past 40 years, and if it really were that dangerous, wouldn’t there have been some real consequences by now? Wouldn’t livestock and people be getting cancer in droves? This has simply not been the case, and glyphosate has been a wonderful alternative to hundreds of other far more dangerous chemistries out there.

My experience

I have been spraying glyphosate, whether it be Roundup, Touchdown Total, Vantage Plus or whichever of its dozens of formulations, for the past ten years of my life. My father has been spraying it most of his life. My experience with this product is that it is safe, effective, cheap, and is a fantastic tool to combat weeds on our farm. Nobody, in all the years we have applied it, on this farm has ever gotten sick from glyphosate. Not a single friend, neighbor or colleague of mine has ever had a negative health effect from this chemical. Too small of a sample size? How about 60 independent genotoxicity studies with none that imply danger to humans (source)?

The message here is that you can’t believe everything you see and hear. IARC reviewed the data on glyphosate- among other chemicals- for less than a week before making a decision. In contrast, a German study conducted on behalf of the European Union has only just seen its first draft released; a study they have been working on since 2012. Their result? Not a carcinogen!

Don’t trust my claims? Check out my sources. Take the time to understand this issue, and understand the science behind glyphosate and modern agriculture. Glyphosate has been a modern miracle; it’s time we treated it that way.

Further reading:

Along with the links embedded in the post itself, check out these pages for some interesting reading on glyphosate:

Genetic Literacy Project. Is glyphosate–herbicide linked to GMOs–carcinogenic? Not if science matters.

Glyphosate Technical Fact Sheet. National Pesticide Information Center.

Greim, H. et. al. 2015. Evaluation of carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate, drawing on tumor incidence data from fourteen chronic/carcinogenicity rodent studies.

Kier, LD. 2015. Review of genotoxicity biomonitoring studies of glyphosate-based formulations.

Mink, PJ et. al. 2012. Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and cancer: A review.

Niemann, L. et. al. 2015. A critical review of glyphosate findings in human urine samples and comparison with the exposure of operators and consumers.

Sorahan, T. 2015. Multiple myeloma and glyphosate use: a re-analysis of US Agricultural Health Study (AHS) data.

The Farmer’s Daughter USA. Glyphosate as a carcinogen, explained. (excellent blog)

Why I’m Not An Organic Farmer

Pesticides, GMOs, Roundup, super-weeds, evil wheat, big Ag and a hundred other buzz-words are touted as the failure of modern agriculture’s quest to feed the world.  Organic farming is proclaimed as the solution to these problems, as the future of sustainable agriculture. The reality is, as I will tell you in this post, that the opposite is true; conventional farming, not organic, is better for the environment and can sustainably and safely feed a growing world.

As an aside, I have no problem with most organic farmers. The ones that I know do it not for idealogical reasons, but for economical ones. For their farms, they believe they will make more money growing organic crops than conventional ones. There is nothing wrong with that, and I don’t want to go on an attack against farmers doing the best they can to do what they love. Furthermore, I’m not going to go on record saying that conventional agriculture is perfect. We have many improvements to make, and there are some real issues that need to be addressed – but that is a concern for another day. Also, for the purposes of this post, I want to focus in on crop production, so I’ll leave livestock out of this discussion.

Organic vs Conventional Agriculture: What’s The Difference?

First of all, I don’t want to assume everybody is as obsessed with agriculture as I am, so let’s just go through some basic differences between these two production methods.

Organic agriculture is a $2.6 billion dollar industry in Canada, with regulations stipulating what products farmers can use on their farms. Genetically modified crops are not allowed, and neither are synthetic fertilizers. Pesticides are a more complicated matter, with only “organic” chemicals allowed for use.

For a farm to be certified organic, each of its fields must be free of any prohibited substances for three years before certification by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is allowed. Are organic crops tested before they are certified? No; at least, according to this source. The CFIA disagrees, but concedes it is still more or less an honour system.

Without synthetic fertilizers and chemicals, organic farmers must use alternatives to grow their crops and kill weeds and insects. Essentially, it is a reversion to agriculture practices of 100 years ago. While some of these practices are quite effective and perhaps even have a fit in conventional agriculture, most of them were abandoned years ago with the introduction of fertilizers and pesticides. The reasons were numerous, but they really all began in the infamous “Dirty 30’s”.

Tillage and Soil Erosion

Today, we talk about four elements of weed control: cultural (crop selection), chemical (herbicides), biological (using natural enemies- still a very new and undeveloped field) and mechanical. In modern agriculture, cultural and chemical controls are our primary weapons in the war against weeds, with the real emphasis on chemicals- crops like corn and soybeans are just not that competitive. Wheat, barley, canola and other such crops are actually very competitive, but they still depend on herbicides to get established and get ahead of the weeds.

A century ago, there were no real herbicides available. With that option stripped out, and biological controls in their infancy even today, that really only left mechanical and cultural controls- exactly like organic farming today. Mechanical control essentially involves steel; DSC_0367 (640x354)using shovels, discs, rods, harrows, etc. to uproot, rip and drag weeds apart to kill them. Every second year, each field must remain idle (not seeded, or “summerfallow”) and constantly tilled up to stay ahead of difficult weeds. This kind of intensive tillage leaves the ground bare, exposed to direct sunlight and the ravages of heavy winds. Remember hearing about dust storms? That is the unfortunate end result of old-school farming. Without chemical controls, there is simply no way to consistently grow crops (especially up here in the northern climates) all year round to stay ahead of weeds. Yes, natural grassland will do that, but how will that feed 7 billion people?

In my area of the world, I have seen- and continue to see- the effects of long-term tillage on our soils. Heavy rains and winds wash precious topsoil into ditches and sloughs. Wet spots in the field stay that way for months and months, allowing salts to collect on the soil surface; eventually turning the ground a ghostly white, a sober metaphor of the inability of that soil to grow anything again for generations. The reality is that, at least in Western Canada, herbicides are our only method of controlling soil erosion; they allow us to minimize tillage.

Is tillage the only way for organic farmers to control weeds? No; there are other methods, including cover crops and precise planting timing to keep weeds in check. However, as good as some of these methods can be, they are still not the solution, with most farmers opting for the reliability of tillage instead. And, ultimately, they still do not solve the other stark reality of organic agriculture: it cannot possibly feed the world.

A Growing Population Needs All The Tools It Can Get

In 1898, a scientist by the name of Sir William Crookes, new president for the British Academy of Sciences, stated unequivocally that the world would run out of food by the 1930’s. A lack of fertilizer would cause world crop yields to plummet, and massive starvation would ensue. Current production methods of manure and saltpeter harvesting to use as fertilizer would eventually be outstripped by an exploding human population. He said the only way to prevent this famine would be to synthetically produce fertilizer. Less than 20 years later that became a reality, thanks to Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch.

Our atmosphere is nearly 80% nitrogen. It is one of the most important building blocks of life; but it is unavailable to us – and plants – in its atmospheric form. Crops require nitrogen for growth and reproduction. Before synthetic fertilizer, animal manure and bird guano were the only sources of fertilizer. Crops were carefully rotated with nitrogen producing pulse crops and forages to generate as much N as possible. Yet, inexorably, yields would eventually decrease as the soil became exhausted of nutrients. The Haber-Bosch process solved that problem by converting atmospheric nitrogen to a usable form for plants. So, essentially, so-called “synthetic” fertilizer really isn’t synthetic at all; rather, it is a natural component of the air we breathe every day. Without it, the crop yields would long ago have failed, and the world would not be what it is today.

Without synthetic fertilizer, and their natural counterpart, pesticides, crops would not be able to sustain enough growth to feed the world as it is today. Haber and Bosch are responsible for one of the greatest inventions of our history. Why go back to the problems of 100 years ago when we have already found the answer?

Organic Food: Is It Really Healthier?

The final component of this blog post concerns the misconception that organic food is somehow more nutritious than conventionally grown food. There is a belief that pesticides somehow contaminate the seed of the plant itself, finding its way directly into our food. To some degree this is true. But the reality is that the residues that find their way into our food are so abysmally tiny that in 98% of our food, there is no difference between food that is grown conventionally and food that is grown organically. What about that other 2%? It still comes in below the stringent limits set by the government (source).

But wait; isn’t organic food healthier than conventional? According to a recent Stanford Medicine study, that is simply not true. No nutritional differences of significance were found when comparing the two production methods.

Organic Farming Is Not The Future

The answer to the question of whether organic agriculture is more sustainable, better for the environment or healthier than conventional agriculture is clear. Organic farming causes greater soil erosion, is not healthier or safer for consumption and would sentence billions of people to die, most of them in developing nations. Isn’t it easy to criticize a method of producing food when you have never been hungry?

I choose to farm with pesticides, GMOs and fertilizers because I know that it is the right choice. I know that standing behind the use of these products will help feed a growing and hungry world. Yes, there are still problems with our agriculture system, but I know that farmers and researchers are savvy and brilliant individuals that will solve these problems over time. Yes, organic farming is a choice some farmers make, and I am not going to attack their choices. What I am attacking is the marketing and smearing of conventional agriculture; the misinformation that permeates this discussion and diminishes the importance of it.

During my time as a farmer, I have spent a lot of time studying this issue. As an agronomist, I have seen first-hand the consequences of organic farming, and the successes of modern conventional agriculture. As a third-generation farmer, I know how amazing our progress has been in agriculture, and I am excited about the possibilities of the future.

canola field

Any thoughts on this post? Disagree? Write a comment below.

Sources and Further Reading

California Department of Agriculture. (2007). 2007 Pesticide Residues in Fresh Produce.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 2014. Canada Organic Regime: A Certified Choice.

Hager, T. 2008. The Alchemy of Air. New York, NY, USA: Broadway Books.

Humpreys, A. 2012. Canada’s organic food certification system ‘little more than an extortion racket,’ report says. National Post.

Smith, E.G., Knutson, R.D., Taylor, C.R., Penson, J.B. 1990. Impact of chemical use reduction on crop yields and costs. Texas A&M Univ., Dep. of Agric. Economics, Agric. and Food Policy Center, College Station.

Smith-Spangler, C. et. al. 2012. Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review. Annals of Internal Medicine.

Why I Grow GMOs

What do you think about GMOs?

Nikon J1 July (2) 160

Is there a more emotionally charged question out there in this part of today’s world? Certainly, it is understandable that the food we eat be an engaging issue for consumer and producer alike. There has been a drive from the consumer to learn about the food they eat. They want to know how it is produced, and whether it is in a sustainable fashion. Ultimately, and most importantly, they want to know if it is safe.  An unknown factor like genetic modification is a cause for concern for these people, because the long-term effects are not readily available to us.

I support and applaud those in the public that ask these critical questions. Too many people don’t think about the things that are done by the government, business and other organizations. The problem isn’t in people asking questions; it is in people asking the wrong questions to the wrong sources – and believing the answers without question.

I am a farmer that grows genetically modified (GM) crops. Not all of my crops are GMOs. In fact, in a usual rotation of 5-7 different crops, only two are GMOs. Canola and soybeans, two of my farm’s most economically important crops, are GMOs. Other crops, like wheat, peas and flax, are not GMOs, for there are simply none available. Contrary to popular belief, I do have a choice to buy GM crops or alternatives. So why do I grow GM crops when there are so many other cropping options?

That is a good question, and the answer will be different for every farm. In my life on the farm, canola and soybeans are our two newest crop options. In Western Canada, we have been growing wheat for as long as we’ve been farming. Flax and peas are old crops for us as well. Canola is one that we have really only been growing in earnest on our farm for the past 15 or so years. We only just started growing soybeans 3 years ago.

I suppose we could grow old open-pollinated canola and conventional soybeans (these are not GMOs). But would we do that? The claim I hear from some consumers is that GMOs are hazardous. By association then, I must be either cruel or naïve to grow these dangerous crops, putting other people at risk.

But here is the question I pose to the GMO haters: do you really believe I would grow these crops if I believed they were unsafe? My family eats the food we grow. I would not put them at risk if I truly believed GMOs were hazardous.

Honestly, I don’t believe they are. GM crops are not dangerous1. In the almost 20 years since Monsanto started genetically modifying corn, soybeans and canola, the evidence has become clear that the benefits of genetic modification far outweigh the risks1. This isn’t an opinion by a biased industry representative. The information I use comes directly from peer reviewed journal articles, the best source of information on anything scientific. GM crops also have dramatically reduced use of the most dangerous and volatile chemicals to control weeds2. Most of the GM plants we deal with are “Roundup Ready”, which means they are resistant to the active ingredient of Roundup, which is glyphosate. The way we measure the toxicity of chemicals like glyphosate is its LD50 number. This refers to the amount of the chemical, given all at once, which results in the death of 50% of the test animals3. The acute Low Acute Toxicity for oral consumption of glyphosate in rats is an LD50 value greater than 5,000 mg/kg of body weight4. This means that if you were a rat, and you weighed in at 3 kg, you would have to consume 15 grams of glyphosate for it to become toxic to you. That is quite a lot. Comparatively, the LD50 of caffeine is 192 mg/kg body weight. How much coffee do you have in a day? The point is, the dosage makes the poison, and any chemical can be toxic in a large enough dose.

Today’s farm operation is a complicated business. Every year, we run through the numbers on each crop to decide which ones to grow and on how many acres. Canola and soybeans, and especially canola, are profitable crop options for us. So yes, we do grow these GM crops because they allow our farm to make money. Are they making us rich? I wish! But they do allow our farm business to make enough money to survive, and hopefully, over time, prosper. Is this not the dream for us all?

Ultimately, the question of why I grow GMOs comes down to the fundamental freedom that we all have in our democratic society: the freedom of choice. It is my choice to grow GM crops. Conversely, if you don’t approve of them, it is your choice to buy something else. However, keep in mind the unintended consequences of doing so. GM crops allow us to use less toxic pesticides at lower rates. Furthermore, we can achieve unprecedented yields with the incredible biological advances made with these GM varieties. We need to grow 70% more food by 2050 to feed this growing world5; we are going to need all the tools we can get to accomplish this.

My farm grows GM crops, and I am proud to say that we do.  They are safe and sustainable crop options that we have the right to grow if we choose to. I hope that you will think about what I have said the next time someone asks you, “what do you think about GMOs?”


  1. Stella G. Uzogara, 2000. The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century: A review. Biotechnology Advances 18 (2000): 179-206.
  2. RH. Phipps and J.R. Park, 2002. Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops: Global and European perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, Vol. 11, pp. 1-18.
  3. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. Lethal Dosage (LD50) Values.
  4. Cornell University, 1994. Extension Toxicology Network.
  5. Agricultural Development Economics Division, 2009. High Level Expert Forum – How to Feed the World in 2050.

Why I Write

Why does anybody write? Is it some compulsion to make oneself heard? To leave something behind? We all want the world to remember us when we leave it. A page, a book, even a blog, is something that stays around forever (well, as long as humans are around and we don’t forget how to read, that is). But is that really the entire reason? Are we really so melodramatic that all we care about is for some random person to read our written words years after we are dead and forgotten?

I don’t think that’s true. Or, at least, not the entire truth. My reason for starting this blog probably includes those things, sure. I think anyone who has written anything would be lying not to believe that at some level, there is a conceitedness to putting words to a page that describe your life, or parts of it. But the point here is the main reason I write at all. I don’t have any illusions about how many people may read what I have written in my fledgling blog, A Year in the Life of a Farmer. I don’t have any delusions of grandeur here.

I started this blog because nobody really knows what the life of a farmer is really like. Unless you’ve lived it, and I mean really lived it, you don’t know who the people are that produce your food. Everybody wants to know where their food comes from. Everybody wants to know if it’s GMO, or laden with pesticides, or what its carbon footprint might be. But these are all just numbers and words. If you really want to know how your food is produced, you need to know the person producing it.

I am a farmer. I live out on a farm with my wife and our dog, and our yard sprawls over many acres of trees and grass and, well, slough bottom. Our trees are kind of ugly, with deadfall and cursed caraganas sprawling through the uneven rows that complement the newly-seeded grass that has yet to even cover the ground enough to keep weeds down. Hard to believe I can grow crops but I can’t make our stubborn grass grow. Anyway, whatever our yard is, it is our own, as is the land around it. This is the life we have chosen to live. This is the life we will raise children in. This is the life I am so happy to live everyday.

We farm with my older sister and my mom and dad. We are a family farm. Sure, there is the complex and sometimes frustrating structure of partnerships and corporations, and yes, you could call us a corporate farm. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is our family who run it.

This is a blog about a farmer. This is a blog about a family farm. But beyond that, this blog is really about the day to day life of farming; the joys and the frustrations, the despair and the hope, and the trials and tribulations that encompass what we do. I am not afraid to tell you we grow GMO crops. In fact, I am proud to say that we do. We use pesticides, where they are needed and at the rate required for the job. We take care of our land, whether owned or rented, and try to grow the crops that will sustain our farm for the long run, environmentally and economically. If you have a problem with this, buy organic. I make no apologies for what we do to feed a growing world.

If you want to get to know the person behind the food you eat, if you want to understand what it takes to produce the wheat in your bread, or the barley in your beer, or the canola in your cooking oil, read this blog. You may find what you were looking for all along; someone growing your food that genuinely cares about the future of this planet, and its people. My name is Jake Leguee, and I am a farmer and an agvocate. Thanks for reading.

Why Do We Spray?

There was a time, not too long ago, that June and July were relatively quiet months on the farm. Once in-crop weed spraying was finished, work in the fields was essentially completed. Farmers were able to spend their summers getting ready for harvest, taking care of unseeded low-lying areas in their fields, and attend weddings and other social events.

Summer this year has been a whirlwind so far. In-crop spraying was completed about two weeks ago (mostly), but fungicide season has only just gotten started. Every sprayer is rolling full out on whatever fields are ready to spray, and farmers are busy checking the rest of the fields to see if they are ready. It is not unheard of to spray 40,000 acres per season, per sprayer.

Perhaps I should explain what I mean by “in-crop spraying”. After seeding is complete in late May to mid-June, crops must all be sprayed to kill weeds. Make no mistake, this is a critical application, as a crop left to fight weeds on its own can be quickly overwhelmed by competition. Thanks to genetic modification, many of our crops are easy to deal with, such as corn, soybeans and canola. Some are also very competitive, like wheat and barley. However, crops like peas and lentils, even with proper herbicide application, can easily be outcompeted by difficult weeds like kochia, wild buckwheat, wild oats, etc. Spraying these crops is a big project and it takes many hours on the sprayer; but it is not the final application of the year.

As soon as the weeds are taken care of, crops are carefully monitored for disease and insects. Most diseases need wet, humid air and warm temperatures for optimum growth and infection. These diseases are mostly fungi, with a wide variety of species infecting each crop. In wheat, tan spot can be very damaging to the leaves, removing photosynthetic area and replacing it with tan-coloured spots. In canola, white mould can devastate yield potential, choking off the stem and starving the plant. In other crops such as lentils, some diseases can virtually kill an entire field in a matter of days (e.g. Anthracnose).

From the outside looking in on agriculture, you may wonder why we spray so many chemicals on our crops. We would not spray fungicides if we didn’t need to. These are expensive products that require many hours on the sprayer to apply, and many of them have extremely tight application windows. Also, during the summer months, I can guarantee you every farmer would rather be at the lake than spraying non-stop.

Take Fusarium Head Blight (FHB) for example, caused by Fusarium graminearum. This disease, if left unchecked, infects the seeds of durum, wheat and barley, elevating levels of a vomitoxin called deoxynivalenol (DON). As the name suggests, this toxin induces vomiting and can be dangerous if consumed in high enough levels. Therefore, if our grain is infected with FHB, it will be worth a lot less to try and sell. Would you want to eat bread or pastries or drink beer infected with this? It is a difficult disease to control, and we check our durum daily to try and catch the optimal window for fungicide application, which is about a two-day opportunity while the head is flowering. A wheat head that has completed flowering, and therefore moved past its application window, is shown below:

Nikon J1 July 351

We sprayed this crop to protect it from FHB, as climatic conditions are perfect for its development. Unfortunately, we also had to apply a product that everyone hates: chlorpyrifos, also known by its brand name, Lorsban. This product is an insecticide, and yes it is somewhat hazardous. We applied it to protect our crop from the dreaded grasshopper. These verocious insects can eat a lot of material very quickly. To compound the problem, we also found some of these bugs:



This little bug on the wheat head is called the orange blossom wheat midge, a nasty little insect that lays its eggs in the florets of wheat and durum, which hatch later on and chew on the developing kernel. Like FHB-damaged kernels, this also causes grade loss.

Spraying insecticides is not a fun job, but sometimes it is necessary to protect the massive investment we put into our crops every year. We avoid spraying them as much as we can, but you do not have to worry about their safety. There is no kernel, or any form of it, in that wheat head yet. Lorsban has a residual of about 7 days. This plant is at least 40 days from harvest. All of our insecticides, indeed all of our chemicals, have a regulated pre-harvest interval to ensure no residue remains at harvest. Furthermore, scientists have developed economic thresholds to determine when it is worth spraying insecticides to prevent unnecessary spraying. Believe me, if I didn’t believe this our food was safe after spraying with insecticides, would I really be out there spraying it? Would I eat it with my family?

The reason I have covered this in such detail isn’t to tell you how tough farming is. I love farming, and I couldn’t think of a career I could enjoy more. I tell you this so that you may know why we do the things we do. Contrary to popular belief, we don’t smother our crops with pesticides; we target herbicides (kills weeds), fungicides (kills fungi) and insecticides (kills bugs) to specific fields that require them. Someday, maybe we will have better tools that allow us to reduce pesticide use (genetic engineering is by far the best path forward for this), but for now, these are the best options we have. And the reality is, for the most part, they have been proven safe by journal article after peer-reviewed journal article.

That’s my rant for today. Hopefully I can get back on this blog more often in the future, as fungicide season will only last another week or so. I am looking forward to its conclusion. It has been a busy spray season!

Oh, one more point, in case you were wondering how the “summer of storms” has progressed since my last post about it. Immediately after that post, some fields got 3 inches of rain. Yeah. Not good. But things have improved since, and because of near ideal weather in the past two weeks, we are now looking at the potential for a very nice crop. Our fingers are crossed!

If you disagree with me about pesticides and their safety, please comment, and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you. This is a subject I take very seriously, and I have done a great deal of research on it.