Agriculture Committee on Feb. 7th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

Mr. Wartman, you made a comment in reference to the BSE, and being a cattle farmer, I know all about that. You talk about research and making sure that we're on the top on that game, and I agree 100%. There were some other factors that came in maybe a little after BSE, and one was the dollar. That's one thing that we can never control, whether we're doing the right thing in research or whatever. The bottom line was that BSE came at a time when we'd been increasing our herd size, the same as the pork industry did for years.

It really isn't a question. I just want to point out that other factors contributed to that. That was really all that I wanted there, but there's no doubt in my mind, whether it's in breeding genetics in livestock or what we feed them, that we certainly need that research and development in there, and I support that.

One of my questions comes from a lot of people, especially organic farmers in my riding. As a farmer I totally understand why we need, say, Roundup Ready corn, soybeans, wheat, or whatever it is. I have to be honest that one thing that I've never really been able to get my head around, and one that the nay-sayers to the biotechnology industry and GMOs in general use, is Roundup Ready alfalfa. Can somebody tell me why Roundup Ready alfalfa is needed or required or an advantage?

Can anybody speak to that? I think we all need to be able to address that question; I know I do.

[Brad Hanmer]

I'm going to talk. I know just enough about it to be dangerous, so this needs to be clarified. Maybe Mr. Vandenberg could help me out.

I'm led to believe that one of the key genetic markers of getting other traits into alfalfa is this. The way that it's been designed in the past is that the Roundup Ready event has a marker to bring forward certain other traits that come with it. I could be talking out of school, but that's one option.

The second option, as I understand it, is just a new invasive species that is now starting to take hold on a lot of alfalfa production in North America. It wasn't there previously, so there is a need for some sort of weed control in, specifically, alfalfa. As with agriculture in the last thousands of years, when you till the soil, species find ways to adapt.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Then is it more about weed control than it is the actual genetics or requirement of the alfalfa itself?

[Brad Hanmer]

I believe so. This committee should clarify that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Are there any comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Vandenberg.

[Prof. Bert Vandenberg]

I'd say it's all about weeds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Weeds?

[Prof. Bert Vandenberg]

Yes. It may be dandelions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

Maybe it was you, Mr. Potter, who talked about research decreasing in the United States. Has our research here stayed even or on pace, good or bad, with the U.S.?

[Dr. Andrew Potter]

I don't think I said that either. Sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

My apologies. It came from somewhere in the middle here. Was it Mr. Vandenberg?

[Prof. Bert Vandenberg]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

No.

Is there any comment to that?

[Dr. Jill Hobbs]

I think it declined. The public sector portion of agriculture research has declined in a number of countries. I couldn't tell you, relative to the U.S., if we've fallen more or not, but that might be something to look into. Some of the sources I referenced in my speaking notes might have that information in there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

My last question is this. When we were on our agriculture committee tour last April and May for our study on the future of farming and young farmers, we were in a research facility, which I'll just leave unnamed. A question I had for one of the researchers was on byproducts of agriculture, whether corn stover or whatever, basically for the creation of plastics and what have you in cars. I asked him what kind of research, if any, they had done to look at that area. When you have that kind of trash on the farm, you plow a certain amount of it back down, and it's good for your land, obviously, but when you take it away, you have to replace it. I asked him if they'd done that research and what the positive or negative results were. His answer was that they had done some research into it, and their initial findings were that it's not good.

Can anybody comment on that? Should we still be going down that road? Obviously we all like to see more products that we can make out of just about anything, but over the long term, is it really good for our land to be doing that overall?

[Brad Hanmer]

The petroleum-based fertilizer prices would dictate that. That's totally true. I've looked at a lot of these business opportunities that are putting the value of that stover or waste product at zero, and that is far from the truth. That is a very valuable product.

For sure, Larry, there is.... They are not doing it justice. They feel, on the biofuel debate, that you can just take the waste straw from Saskatchewan and make cellulose ethanol. You couldn't take it from me without a major cost.

[Dr. Mary Buhr]

Very briefly, the critical piece about this is that we have to ask the question and we have to ask the full question. What we have to do is evaluate exactly what you're talking about. What are the costs and benefits of both pieces?

Again, research for the public good is more likely to do that than commercial research, which is simply going to take the product and make something else to sell. We have to be able to support that fully fledged, completely rounded research and undertake the economic assessment, the biological assessment, and the long-term assessment of the value to the land.

That is part of the critical piece that has to be gotten across: that we're not just stealing one little bit and just doing something quick and dirty and simple. We are actually taking the time and spending the incredible amount of effort that it is going to take to be able to answer your question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Now we'll move on to Mr. Valeriote for five minutes.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you again.

I have two questions, and the first is for Bert. Can you, for the record and for those who read reports of this meeting, clearly distinguish in definition the difference between transgenics and genomics? You mentioned genomics earlier as a new opportunity.

[Prof. Bert Vandenberg]

Transgenics is basically taking a gene, a piece of DNA, from another organism and then splicing it into the organism that's your target and making sure that the gene is functional.

For instance, the herbicide tolerance gene may have originated in a bacterium. That bacterial gene is then spliced into a plant, and it's functioning because it's coming with a series of genes that allow it to function.

The genomic approach would be to understand the genes we have in the organisms we're already growing. I'll use lentils as an example. We may have six or seven species of lentil. We know from our own research that the wild species and maybe even the lentil itself are full of genes that we don't know anything about.

What we can do with genomics is go to an organism that's well characterized—one of the relatives of alfalfa is one of those--and if we know what genes are there, we can now start looking for those genes based on the DNA sequence in the crops that we work with.

Basically it's computerized biology. The cost is much cheaper, and it's going down every six months. That allows us to analyze what we have, rather than searching outside the organism. All you really need to do is have a little DNA test kit that could then identify the genes, and maybe you can find that it's already existing in the plants we are working with.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

If it's not, you would then have to introduce it from one to the other.

[Prof. Bert Vandenberg]

No, because there's a huge amount of biodiversity within the species--

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

You're saying there's a huge amount of biodiversity within the plant itself.

[Prof. Bert Vandenberg]

My view is that if we take that approach and promote genomics and say we have an alternative for people who don't want to do it that way, it will lend value to the whole concept of preserving biodiversity. Canada has signed on to that treaty.

We don't live in a perfect world, and the oil industry is maybe a good example. Nobody is saying that we shouldn't have oil tomorrow morning. People are asking if we can just rearrange it a little bit so that it's a little bit better and has less effect. I think the same approach can be taken here. In some cases, we may need transgenics because there is no alternative, but we also have other alternatives, and these are compromise positions.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Earlier, William, you mentioned maintaining appropriate buffer zones between crops. I want to know how realistic and practical that conversation might be.

Brad, Bert, or William, you may have an opinion. Is that something on which maybe the two different solitudes, as I call them, might sit down, talk realistically, and make some recommendations either to provincial or federal governments about learning to coexist? Can you talk more about that?