I flew with Air Canada to and from Germany.  As a major Olympic sponsor, Air Canada planes and staff are covered with Olympic logos, colours, information, etc.  For many international Olympic guests, Air Canada is the official Canadian “welcoming staff” it seems.  Great.  I think it’s great to see the airline embrace some extra patriotic spirit this month.  The warm feelings ended at dinner when I couldn’t help feeling put off that dinner was being served with FRENCH WINE?!?!?

Ummm.  Problem.

Jackson-Triggs is proud to be the Official Wine Sponsor of Vancouver 2010.

I am no wine snob but there seems to be something inherently contradictory about flashing Canadian and Olympic pride only not to choose serving Canadian wine.  Canadians produce great wine and there are thousands of VQA-only drinkers because of it.  I mean, there is even an official Olympic Wine Sponsor!!

It was disappointing to say the least seeing Air Canada choose to serve a French wine rather than fully embrace Olympic pride with Canadian wine on its flights.  I felt like they were being hypocritical.  You’re proud to be Canadian and of the Olympics – but not proud of Canadian wine? Not impressed Air Canada.

Last night it felt great to open a bottle of Ontario white wine and savour the “there’s no place like home” feeling.  If I was an airline, I’d be serving Canadian wine.

Here’s a brief clip from the Oprah episode with Michael Pollan.

Michael Pollan is a well known food and agricultural author who, among many claims to fame, is featured in Food Inc.  In the show’s opening comments, Oprah spoke about Food Inc. and her impressions.

I like to think it’s fate, but Oprah came away from Food Inc. with the same message as me:  Regardless of your food choices (organic, conventional, local, vegetarian, etc.) — CHOOSE CONSCIOUSLY.  As a society, we owe it to ourselves to learn about agriculture, food production and the food we buy.  I (and Orpah!) are not asking for a complete uproar.  I just think that being conscious about the food you purchase and cook is a very simple but great lesson in agricultural communications.

If you have the chance to catch the interview, do it!  It’s interesting to hear Oprah’s comments as someone who is very removed from modern agricultural production (even though huge amounts of agricultural trading are dictated in her hometown at the Chicago Board of Trade).  The show’s also a great way to introduce yourself to Michael Pollan.

A recent Ottawa Citizen book critique painted a harsh picture of livestock agriculture.

In the world of agricultural communications there are topics that really – I mean really – can fire people up.  Those include organic agriculture, GMOs and animal welfare.  When you are fired up by a topic you are more likely to misspeak without thinking and we have all see it happen.  Sometimes a producer gets so enraged by an article or argument regarding animal welfare that they mistakenly justify negative practices out of the urgency of “You are wrong! How can you say that?!”  Knowing that animal welfare articles can cause that kind of reaction I waited to respond.  I wanted to make sure that I really thought about why I didn’t like the article, what made me mad and how I really feel about the critique.

In short, I have a beef.

I have a beef with a critic gallantly praising an animal ‘expose’ using arguments which are inaccurate or inflated.  I have a beef with an editor(s) printing a critique about such a sensitive issue like animal welfare without proper fact checking.  I think that is what really hit a nerve with me after reading this article and I wanted to share some key quotes with you.

In the review, Reynolds says,

Some of our finest journalists (Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser) and animal-rights activists (Peter Singer, Temple Grandin) — not to mention Gandhi, Jesus, Pythagoras, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke and Immanuel Kant (and so many others) — have hurled themselves against the question of eating meat and the moral issues inherent in killing animals for food.  Foer, 32, in this, his first work of nonfiction, intrepidly joins their ranks …

I feel like it’s a bit of a jump (read: huge leap) to put Foer in the same category as Thomas Aquinas, Jesus and Ghandi.   Educating people on the realities of livestock agriculture, although important, doesn’t exactly put you in the ranks with major religious or cultural leaders.  Throughout her review, Reynolds uses embellished phrasing and assumptions to paint an inaccurately gloomy picture of livestock farming.

Ms. Reynolds, the only way to see large farming operations is NOT to break in.  Although the farms Mr. Foer wrote to ignored him, you can visit the Ontario Farm Animal Council‘s website to go on Virtual Farm Tours or attend other farm tours like the one OFAC organized for Ontario culinary school students in 2009.  I myself have toured many large farms including one of North America largest dairy farms, a 15 000 head beef operation, multiple swine farms, fish farms, and poultry farms.

Also Ms. Reynolds, when you say “… how to live and care for your loved ones without supporting animal agriculture and factory farming” it seems to me like you are trying to guilt people out of supporting animal agriculture by referencing how to “care for your loved ones”.

I’d like to add Ms. Reynolds, when you said, “Most of Foer’s numbers are American, so we can try to fool ourselves that things are vastly better in Canada. After all, we don’t send people to be tortured, do we?” I would have liked an argument or statistic that showed you have actually researched the Canadian animal agriculture sector.  I would like to point out there ARE differences and I DO have an issue with you insulting the sector with a zingy one-liner rather than research.

Ms. Reynolds, I will let my pork producing friends comment on “[Foers] also raises the spectre of flu pandemics caused by farming — think of “avian” flu and “swine” flu –”.

And one more thing Ms. Reynolds, I just wanted to correct your statement that “The world of large-scale chicken farming has been reduced to two breeds: layers and broilers. The lives of neither of these are pleasant, but at least the broilers endure theirs for only 39 to 42 days.”  Layers and broilers are not breeds.  A breed of chicken would something like White Rocks, White Leghorns or Rhode Island Reds which are examples of some breeds used in today’s poultry industry.

In conclusion, I was frustrated with how this critique was written and not the book it revovles around.  As a writer, I think fact checking is always important and especially when making bold public statements about very controversial issues.  I was disappointed by this article and that inaccurate statements were allowed to run to press.

My apologies for the long post.  The fact this post became so long made me also realize that as this blog develops I notice my most passionate posts (good and bad) arizse when agriculture is reported in everyday media like FASHION magazine, the movies or regional newspapers.

Thanks for reading and feel free to share your own feedback like fellow blogger Christina.

This morning though I found an article that fired me right up.  The front page of today’s Books section is a review of “Eating Animals” by Jonathan Safran Foer.  In anticipation of watching Food Inc. I shared how my stomach churns when I hear terms like “expose on eating animals” or modern industrial agriculture being named a “villian”.  I am still putting together my thoughts on this article for a full post but I think it’s important to let my agricultural readers access this review for pondering asap.  I was – to say the least – disappointed that Susan Salter Reynolds’ review was given almost the entire Books section front page in today’s Citizen.

Here is the article to read for yourselves and I look forward to your comments!

The December 2009 edition of Greenhouse Canada features a full page article by yours truly!  As part of my internship with the Calgary Stampede this summer, I pitched an article to this national horticultural magazine and it’s now in print.  Feel free to check out the article and photographs online here.

I love this feeling!

Apple? ……….. Red

Rain? ………… Puddle

Soil? …………. Earthworms

Harvest? ………. Combine

Field? ……….. Corn Stalks

Canadian Winter? ……….. Shivers, Blizzards, Cold, Unpleasant, etc.

Canadian winters can pose challenges for drivers and shoppers.

For most of us Canadians winter is associated with many challenges and struggles (like trudging through monstrous snow drifts).   While grocery shopping last week however I was slammed with my first winter frustration – finding Canadian foods.

Many of my past posts have centred around tips and the importance of supporting Canadian foods when possible.  I was very upset that there were so few Canadian options in the grocery store and that the selection would only become thinner as winter progressed.

There I stood in my first “I-hate-Canadian-winters” moment and there I cast my food vote.

I will admit to buying a four-pack of greenhouse peppers for a nearly $5 because it was the only Canadian option.  Although my wallet may not have appreciated it, this is my commitment to try and consciously eat Canadian this winter. Obviously I won’t be eating all Canadian, all the time but I do plan to try my best in the grocery store to pick Canadian when I can.  That’s how I’ll be winterizing my diet this winter.

How can you winterize your diet? Some tips are to check out the Ontario government’s availability guide, buy greenhouse produce or frozen foods which would have been made from in season products.

At lunch, you could find me front row at the Economic Club of Canada’s presentation held in downtown Toronto’s prestigious National Club.  As part of a University of Guelph agricultural communications students, I listened to Syngenta Canada President, Jay Bradshaw, speak to the Club on Canadian agriculture and its future.

Among the themes Bradshaw brought up, he circled around modern agriculture’s challenge to feed a “bulging population”. And I thought to myself: STILL??

As an agricultural student in University, we were hounded in agricultural economics about past theorists including the revolutionary economist Thomas Malthus.  He is famous for his 1798 population essay which stated that global populations would increase at a faster rate than food production leading to a massive food shortage.  In University we were taught how this theory was presented and then made irrelevant by events such as the Green Revolution.

Needless to say, when Bradshaw began stressing our “bulging population” and the crisis it is beginning to impose on modern agriculture I felt like an ancient theory was reliving itself.  As I did some research after his talk it became clear that in fact a number of modern Thomas Malthus’s are arising. It was a personal lesson that one can never forget how dynamic and unpredictable life is.   Old ideas (no matter how ancient or irrelevant they may seem) can and will present themselves again.

Among many things, Friday’s presentation taught me that as a recent grad I can never take my education as absolute law because its relevance will change as this industry continues to progress in an ever-changing society or climate.  You can never truly lie the past to rest.

Welcome back Mr. Malthus!

We judged over 20 speeches last night and I was really impressed with the diversity that we were presented with.  For CYSA 2009 there are five possible topics:

• Behind the scenes: The unsung heroes of Canadian agriculture
• Changes I would make as the Federal Minister of Agriculture for a day
• How Canadian agriculture is being affected by the global economic downturn
• Why I want to make my career in agriculture
• Farming the future: Taking agriculture into the 21st century.

Despite five choices, there was a resounding preference to speak about why students wanted to make their careers in agriculture.  And even more surprising was the huge diversity in speeches despite many of them revolving around the same topic.  What is also interesting to hear is how the same topics are used by both junior and senior competitors.   There is definitely a different expectation for the content in a junior or senior speech which is something I look forward to hearing.  I thought the speeches last night were well done and am certainly looking forward to attending the national competition at the Royal this fall – see you there!

Last night, I had the chance to sit in on a lecture of Agricultural Communications with my former professor Owen Roberts as part of the Student Federations of OAC‘s “Agrologist in Residence” speaker series.  After Dan Vautaur’s presentation about his practical experiences in agricultural media, Prof. Roberts had organized a guest speaker from Toastmasters which inspired me to post.

Kristie, a member of Guelph’s “Town and Gown Toastmasters Club”, delivered an excellent presentation on public speaking in hopes of helping the agricultural communications students prepare for their CYSA speech competition.  As a pretty experience public speaker myself, I was preparing myself to listen to the usual tips: stay calm, speak slowly, use eye contact, etc.

All good points but nothing I hadn’t heard before. Prepared for the usual, I was presented with the exceptional. Kristie impressed me with her approach, unique tips and most importantly her choice for the #1 Key To Successful Speeches.

According to her, the most important thing to remember is – have confidence.  I was shocked.  I was surprised.  I was intrigued.

As she continued, she explained that it is most important to have confidence in your speaking style and just be yourself.  I was taken back that confidence would be so important to good speeches because in public school I was usually one of the top public speakers but I certainly was not the most confident student.  How could that make sense?  How does a kid who isn’t the most popular or confident have been successful at speeches?

Sparked to keep reflecting I realized that public speaking competition in public school were my chance to be the confident version of myself that didn’t get to come out day-to-day.  Leaning on the idea that “this is just an assignment for school so I’m trying to get the best mark” I just went for it.  I was able to be myself without fear of what my peers would think because i was shielded by the requirements of a school assignment.  I grabbed the chance to be confident and energetic for speech competitions even though I wasn’t confident in my day-to-day life. I submersed myself in the opportunity to be the confident version of myself and thus I was a successful speaker.

It’s always funny how the most simple situation – revisiting an agricultural communications class on a Monday night for a presentation – can spark reflection on your own experiences.  I was confused when Kristie suggested confidence is the number one key to a successful speech was confidence.  I thought, “I was a successful speaker as a kid but I definitely didn’t have confidence”.  I agree now.  I agree 100 per cent.

A good friend of mine (who was raised on a farm like me and has an interest in agricultural communications) jumped at the chance to see this movie with me.  Before going we discussed how important we both felt it was for us to watch the film with as little judgement as possible and hoped it would be a balanced representation of modern food production.

Here is a clip of the official trailer to give you an idea of how Food Inc.  presented its perspective on agriculture and food production.

Based largely on American agriculture, Food Inc. mostly explored poultry, swine, corn and beef production in addition to processing.  My friend is a poultry farmer whose family also operates a slaughterhouse so it was very interesting to hear how she felt the film explained and/or misled the audience about the ethics of meat processing in the USA or Canada. The film also features how large food manufacturers, brands and retailers are involved in the selling or marketing of food.

Food Inc. stretches from production to processing and purchasing hightlighting the complexities of the agricultural value chain.   For example, it showed the corporate side to mass produced organic foods.  At one point, representatives of Walmart visit an organic farm which produces milk for the new organic yogurt sold in their stores.   The farmer shakes all of their hands and she says, “It’s so funny that you’re here because we’ve  boycotted shopping at Walmart for years.”

Although I won’t give my full opinions on everything I saw in Food Inc. — this is the Internet after all — I will say that I thought one of the closing thoughts from the film struck a cord with me.

“When we run an item past the superstore scanner we’re voting…”

If nothing else, I took away from Food Inc. that each food purchase matters because it’s a vote for the food production system we support. Whether you chose seasonal, ready made, organic, local, low fat, high quality, convenient or cheap food it is a vote for the food production or agricultural industry you believe in.

Food Inc. brings up so many discussion topics and things to think about (good and bad) whether its food production, processing, safety, history o r consumption trends.  By no means did my friend and I agree with everything that was shown or said in the film but we did enjoy how it kept us discussing modern agriculture for hours afterwards.