I have often said that sometimes I believe as farmers we live on a sprayer all spring.  When I say that inherently I believe that there’s something wrong with that process as there’s got to be a better way. However, I recognize that the new chemical technologies that have been developed over the last several decades have been instrumental in honing our agricultural economics of crop production.  In other words, I’ll just keep spraying my crops as that’s key to profitability. Needless to say, I come from a time where hoeing soybeans was a rite of passage.

Of course, I don’t want to go back to that. The use of pesticides and fungicides in Canadian agriculture has had a huge positive economic effect on our crop production and it will likely continue.  Through the years we have seen equipment improved to the point where things can be done very quickly. When I started spraying pesticides, I was using a sprayer which did 7 acres at a time. The sprayer I currently use does about 90 acres at a time and then of course we have all of these modern self-propelled sprayers that have redefined how many acres can be done in an hour. In many ways, these new high-capacity self-propelled sprayers have changed the face of modern agriculture. Of course, I’m still waiting for my swarm of drones to get the job done.

I believe I will see that someday where a swarm of autonomous drones will be able to spray my crops. However, I’d hate it they veered over into the tomato field beside me!  That is a constant challenge every spring in my area and certainly with the advent of new drone spraying technology it will continue to be a problem. The road ahead with regard to applying pesticides and fungicides on our crops continues to evolve.

With that evolution we also have controversy as we know there is always pressure by consumers and by government to lessen the pesticide exposure that we have on the nation’s food supply. My inherent bias says a farmer who sprays pesticide is that it is a bit overdone, but as I’ve grown older, I’ve have begun to see the other side. In many ways, pesticide use should be limited to what we need, and oversight of this industry is also needed. Remember, it isn’t about selling more agricultural pesticide?  Or is it about cheap food or is that one in the same?

This week the federal government announced they were introducing a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides on federal land, and they were ending a nearly two year pause on the review of maximum residue limits or MRL’s.  Maximum residue limits refer to the amount of pesticide residue that might be within crops that are harvested and or food that is produced from them. For instance, it has become very common in western Canada with the introduction of glyphosate several decades ago to apply a pre harvest application of the herbicide to help dry down the crop evenly.  It’s not as common in southwestern Ontario where I farm, but I also apply a pesticide to dry down weedy areas of non-GMO soybean fields in the fall. All of this has to be done within a time limit before harvest to ensure we are within residue limits.  Of course, all of this ties into our agricultural trading world where some countries have different regulations and we do

I don’t see anything sinister going on by government here, but there are surely others that do. For instance, Crop Life Canada (the big pesticide sellers) said that the federal government is sending out conflicting messages to Canadians, while our Canadian minister of agriculture Marie-Claude Bibeau begged to disagree.   The minister pointed out an international global biodiversity framework which called for reducing overall pesticide use.  I suppose at the end of the day farmers that are nervous about it will still just be nervous. Or maybe they do not share the minister’s politics.

As it is, the use of pesticides has been good for agricultural economics, and it continues to be. However, you could make the argument that the farmers who thought horses were good for agricultural economics before tractors thought the same thing. We should not be afraid of change outside the box. Is there a better way outside of the pesticide arena?

I certainly don’t have all the answers but there are real possibilities in some of the robotics that are being developed to take weeds out of the field mechanically, burning them through lasers or any other means. There are also new technologies on our sprayers (with hi tech cameras) which can see weeds and take them out at much reduced pesticide levels. In short, there are other ways to get the crop health paradigm satisfied.  The technology is slowly developing, but at least now it is hitting the fields in tangible ways.

It is all worth considering. I say that, as a living example of somebody who has sprayed pesticides for 55 years. I respect the fact that is not a badge of honour, just the reality of being a farmer through all those years. I respect the fact that some farmers are very concerned about their exposure to pesticides over time and how it might be affecting their health. I simply don’t know.

I must admit that will not stop me from spraying another 500 acres within the next 10 days. Soybeans might be the great liars, but even liars don’t like weeds among them. The road ahead on our farmer pesticide journey continues. There will be lots of gnashing of teeth between government and industry along the way.  I’m just hoping for a good crop. How I get there is open to conjecture.