Golf? and Executive Meeting

Standing: Keys, Stevens, Gloin, Wilcox, Amos
Seated: Gracey, Bolton

Stevens' Reactions after Receiving Notification that He is in the Running to Receive the "Alumni of"Honour"Award 2018 

Presenting Year Crest to the Dean

Wilcox, Charlie Bolton, Dean Van Acker, Stevens

Stevens, Wilcox, DeanVan Acker, Charlie Bolton, Amos

Gracey & Bolton Displaying the OAC 55 & 58Crests

To Two Coeds.

Van Acker Receiving OAC 58 Crest from Jim Anderson OAC 55

Executive Meeting Sept. 13, 2016

Seated: Wilco, Bolton. Stevens

Standing: Amos, Gloin, Freure, Gracey

Class of OAC 58, 2016 Executive Meeting and Golf Social, Fescue’s Edge GC

Sept. 13, 2016

Present:  Don Amos [grapes & picture], Mac Bolton [auctioneer, gold golf club, driver], Bob Freure [diesel], Charlie Gracey [Pres], Bill Stevens [sect], Jim Wilcox [mustang], Bev Gloin [sat at the other table].

Agenda Items:

        * 60^th Reunion, Guelph, June 2018.  Charlie will reserve a block of rooms in a convenient hotel.

           Class Dinner preferred to a Class Luncheon.  In our undergraduate tradition, an innocent 

            prank would be appropriate.  Any suggestions?

• Class Crest:  We proposed to present the Crest to the Dean on September 13.  Word from Diana Blackmore in Dean’s office, Rene Van Acker was at a class reunion in Orillia on Sept. 13.  She will reconfirm and maybe propose an alternate date.  No action since.
• In April 2017, there will be a Class Luncheon at the Elmhurst Inn
• The UofG School of Engineering has established the Director’s Award of Distinction to honour esteemed graduates.  Jim Wilcox is initiating a nomination of Larry Argue.  He will solicit endorsements from other OAC 58 Engineers. 

Non-Agenda Items:

        * Golf:  No rain, no scores.

• H2O:  Water is neither created nor destroyed.  Zero sums!
• Vitamins:  B complex, D, C
• Windmills & Solar:  When will they arrest Dalton Mc Ginty?
• Pipelines:  You had to be there
• Re Dr. Donald McQueen Shaver, OAC 58 1^st Entrepreneur-in-Residence
• 96^th Birthday, August 28
• Lunches with Stevens & Gracey  occasionally
• Invited to speak at International Conference on Avian Physiology at Niagara-on-the-Lake during October.  Self-assigned theme; World Sustainability
• Stevens will accompany
• Do senior’s opinions matter?

Golf Day 2014 Fescue's Edge

LtoR: Gloin, Wilcox, Amos, Stevens,Gracey, Bolton and Argue

 Bolton

Gloin

Gloin, Bolton, Stevens, & Wilcox

Gracey, Amos & Argue

Executive Minutes and Comments

Classmates, on Feb. 27, your Class Executive met with Rob Gordon, Dean of the OAC. It was a welcome meeting from both sides. We were reassured that the OAC was dedicated to scientific agriculture. It was agreed that a re-dedication of communication with the alumni and general public was needed. Please see Charlie Gracey's report attached. William Stevens, Chas' Comments: Notes Following Year 58 delegation to meet with The Dean of OAC. Monday Feb 27th 2012. 1:00 pm Attendees OAC 58 Bill Stevens, Jim Wilcox, Bev Gloin, Tip Haagsma, Charlie Gracey The Dean’s Office – Robert Gordon, Dean; Rene van Acker, Associate Dean, Morag Stewart, Alumni Advancement manager and, later, Andy Robinson, Chair, of Animal Science. Background- A discussion commenced among attendees at the Sept 2011 Golf Tournament of concern over the apparent direction the OAC was taking with respect to Agricultural leadership in the province. The majority of our group believe that the challenges of feeding the growing human population can only be met with continued focus on highly productive efficient profit driven agriculture that requires the application of science to ensure both sustainable and increased production. There was concern that OAC may have been diverted from this objective by a new interest in and focus upon what has been termed "organic" agriculture or had at least been influenced to believe that some modern farming practices are unsustainable. It was decided that the best way to deal with this concern was to seek a meeting with the Dean of Agriculture to have a frank discussion. The Meeting – The meeting commenced at 1:00 pm. Bill Stevens succinctly presented our concerns. He outlined that the foundations of agricultural progress in Ontario and further afield over the past decades had been driven by the research and teaching of institutions like the OAC. He explained the basis of our concerns that this may no longer be the primary objective of the OAC and asked the Dean and his colleagues to clarify. His main point was that our own and a wider perception was that the OAC no longer presented to the public a convincing image of its leadership role. Dean Gordon responded by describing the College and its programs, pointing out that it offered degrees in 9 disciplines, only one of which was in organic agriculture. He explained as well that the OAC now administers the Diploma province wide and that the focus of instruction at Alfred, Kemptville, and Ridgetown and on the Guelph campus was on production agriculture. He explained further that the courses on organic agriculture had not been designed or imitated by OAC per se but had been championed by an individual professor, since retired, in the Crop Science department. The Dean, perhaps taking us further into his confidence than he needed to, explained that in 2008, which was the earliest time possible, his office had sought leave of the Senate to discontinue offering this degree course but the proposal had been rejected by the Senate. He further explained that increasingly the students in this program are exposed to mainstream courses and that the emphasis placed on organic agriculture has been reduced. It became clear in further discussions that the Dean’s office had the same vision and perception of agriculture as did our group. Our delegation expressed much satisfaction with that stance but the concern then shifted to the matter of communications and outreach because we observed that our perception was widely shared and that if it was inaccurate more focussed effort was necessary to tell the public, and particularly Alumni of OAC’s core principles and commitment to production oriented agriculture. The Dean explained as well that the College always faces funding challenges and that immediately upon becoming Dean in 2008 he had been presented with the "fait accompli" of a 45% budget cut. The response to this was a concentration of teaching responsibilities (larger class sizes) and, regrettably, the inability to fill all posts vacated by departures or retirements. This was an insightful moment because some public perceptions are that these lost positions reflect a declining interest in the discipline, when, in reality the decisions to not replace are driven by fiscal constraints. It was also pointed out by the Dean that sometimes the response to lost positions from the industry or sector most affected is tepid indication either a lack of concern or a recognition that protest is futile. Some sectors respond by endowing or supporting Chairs in the discipline but this is not common, due likely to their own funding concerns. Following the meeting with the dean and his group Morag Stewart took us to the Animal Science Bldg where Andy Robinson led us on a quick but comprehensive tour of the facilities and explained a number of the research projects undertaken. He also explained that the Animal Science Option was swelled considerably by students who believed that an undergraduate degree in Animal science was an ideal basis from which to seek admission to the OVC. Accordingly the majority of such students may be urban based and have limited interest in food animal production. However Dr Robinson explained that such students take all of the production, breeding and nutrition courses and are thus good potential ambassadors for animal agriculture. During the discussion the issue of the corn acreage devoted to Biofuel production was raised. Our group has the concern that such usage crowds out the use and availability of corn for direct human uses and for animal feed. The Dean acknowledged this concern as worthy of informed debate within the agricultural community and with society at large. This matter was raised not solely for its own merits but as an example of issues that are of vital importance to agriculture and where informed input from OAC would be valuable. I don’t know what to add to this summary but perhaps the following thoughts may be helpful. Quite obviously the University, and in particular the OAC, has a challenge of both funding and communications. It seems to me that there is an opportunity here for us to assist in that process by helping to figure out a way to engage the agricultural community in its outreach effort. It does seem that the College needs stronger backing from the farming and professional community to support its messaging. A good example that was raised by our delegation was the banning of weed sprays on urban lawns in 2008 (? Not sure of the year) and that OAC experts had not been prominent in defending the science. We allowed the distinction between "cosmetic" to persuade that such issues were not of concern to agricultural production and forgot that the common issue was safe usage. Conclusion – my own recommendation would be that we of course send a letter of appreciation to the Dean and his team and to Dr Robinson, that we communicate to our year what we did on their behalf and finally that we give some thought to how we might assist in the process of outreach. What I have in mind might be a follow-up meeting with Morag Stewart to understand better what she does in terms of communications with Ag Alumni and whether we might then have any useful suggestions. Chas

Executive Minutes and Comments

Class of OAC 58 Midterm Reunion, September 1, 2011-09-05 Norfolk G&CC, Simcoe, ON Present: Amos, Argue, Bolton, Freure, Gloin, Haagsma, Leuty , Stevens, Wilcox Absent: Gracey [calendar challenged] Regrets: Miller, Christie, Crawford Activity: Golf, took three hours to play 9 holes, oldest course in Ontario, in the middle of Simcoe, excellent course conditions, mountainous, didn’t keep score [mulligans, provisionals, liars], Leuty won golf prize for longest absence from game. Agenda 1. Discussion, impression that the UofG has lost its vision for agriculture, preferring to cater to urban farmers, organics, etc. rather than mission to develop technologies to produce food to feed worldwide populations. This impression is causing classmates to hesitate to donate to Alma Mater. Acknowledged that government funding of universities based on student head-count. Motion: Expression of displeasure with direction of UofG. [Bolton/Freure] Stevens will discuss with Rob Gordon, Dean OAC. Agenda 2. As the UofG seeks nominations for a new Chancellor, should the Class consider nominating an agriculturalist? Potential candidates included Lyle VanClief and Peter Hannom. Subsequently Lyle was consulted, complimented and declined. Stevens will discuss with Rob Gordon, Dean OAC. Agenda 3. Class finances. Balance is $493.02 + $40.75 surplus from lunch assessment. Add Argue and Crawford as signing authority. Agenda 4. 55th Reunion, 2013. No action Adjourned: 3:00 pm.

To Feed the World By C.A. Gracey 12/09/2011Note- This is my contribution to the discussion that OAC 58 has initiated concerning the apparent decline in the Commitment of the U of G to its core objectives in the Agricultural faculty. I regret not having been part of the initial discussion but think that those who did discuss this matter at the recent Golf Tournament have identified a serious, timely and urgent issue. So here is my first contribution to the discussion. To Feed the World The faculty of Agriculture of the U of G and its Dean will likely take umbrage at any suggestion that it has abandoned its core mission. In fact they will claim and proclaim that they are moving with the times and that their new focus demonstrates that. The claim that “the future is organic” is essentially an anti science approach that will undo decades of scientific progress in agriculture. The pictures of hand, back bending labour in fields and a harnessed team of horses evoke memories of an unproductive highly labour intensive agriculture that I experienced 60 years ago and that happily has been supplanted by modern industrialized and highly productive agriculture. Evidence that organic agriculture can displace modern productive agriculture that utilizes the scientific advancements achieved through modern fertilizers, crop sprays, therapeutic treatments of livestock, growth promotants, genomics and the like is totally lacking. Also lacking is any evidence whatsoever that the use of approved production aids that place those products outside the orbit or “organic” poses any threat to human health or the environment. But somehow the faculty of Agriculture has stepped down from the shoulders of giants, discredited by implication all of the amazing progress that has been achieved through the application of science to agriculture and declared that the productive models so familiar to the 1940’s, albeit modestly advanced, is the emerging shape of future modern agriculture. Up until now modern productive agricultural producers have taken the view that in a free country producers who wish to produce food “naturally” or “organically” should certainly be free to do so and should be free as well to profit from their successes and to learn from their mistakes. This is as it should be. But for a once hallowed institution like the OAC to turn its back on intensive high productive agriculture and to implicitly denigrate the scientific advances of the last half century is a complete abdication of its once proud history and, more to the point, an abdication of its responsibilities in a world human population that has just passed 7 billion people and will with luck stabilize at 9 billion by mid century. Let me be clear about my perception and that is that the ONLY route forward for agriculture in the developed world is to embrace intensive, highly productive agriculture using all of the technology that we can bring to bear while at the same time preserving and improving our soil and water resources for uncounted future generations. And before we abandon this approach we require and should demand sound evidence that organic agriculture can match or exceed the productivity of modern productive agriculture. It has been suggested that U of G is catering to the mindset of prospective students who have been misled to believe that “the future is organic” and have not been challenged to understand that this may not be the case. In selling the philosophy of the Organic Program, OAC President Summerlees actually destroys his own argument when he declares that, “… 19% of the US energy budget is consumed by the agri food system, but only 7% actually occurs on the farm.” That’s a pretty persuasive yardstick to measure the efficiency and productivity of modern agriculture. How, for example, will organic farming help us reduce the 7% further? I wonder in all of this where the faculty members who are outside this movement stand. Some, hopefully continue to do research on improving productivity and must feel threatened and compromised by this retrograde movement metastasizing in their midst. Do they not see it as a threat to productivity and as threat to future research funding? Why do we need crop sprays, therapeutics, feed additives etc if the future is organic and if we can produce as much food as efficiently without these aids? OAC runs the certain risk of irrelevance if it remains on this tangent from reality. It may attract students but they will find only limited employment opportunities. This brings me to the following suggestions 1. First we need to understand more about the actual program course outline and what is really meant or encompassed by the term Organic Agriculture. 2. Second we need to challenge the claim that production can be just as abundant and efficient as is the case in modern Agriculture 3. Third we need to understand the potential impact that this new approach may have on regulations governing normal production, on access to research dollars and on the posturing response of retailers like Loblaws. We should make no mistake in understanding that consumers aided abetted and misinformed by the organic movement will begin to proscribe the use of many of our modern safe production aids. 4. Fourth I think we need to open discussions with our many colleagues to see if our concerns are shared and begin the process of a counter attack The ultimate solution may be to simply ignore this folly but I fear that the real risk lies not in their pursuit of organic agriculture but in the impact this movement will almost certainly have on regulation and research funding. These are just some early thoughts on the matter. People our age, Year 58, have near perfect recall of organic subsistence agriculture That’s how our fathers farmed when they had no better options. Been there done that. Chas – who proudly holds a degree once called Bachelor of Science in Agriculture.

ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE OFFICE OF THE DEAN September 30, 2011 Mr. Bill Stevens OAC Class of 1958 Dear Bill: Thank you for your recent email and the letter that you attached from Charlie Gracey. I want to highlight that the Ontario Agricultural College (OAC) continues to be fully-committed to hands-on experiential learning, state-of-the-art education, and fully preparing students to enter the agricultural and food sectors which are so vital to our provincial and national economy. As ever, we prepare students to engage in diverse aspects of the world we share. The great majority of students enrolled in our Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (BSc – Agr) programs focus on animal science, crop science and horticulture. The organic agriculture major represents only a small fraction (less than 5%) of enrolment in the BSc - Agr. It is offered, as are all our programs, for students who seek to have the scientific preparation to respond to market demands. In the context of all of OAC’s programs the organic major represents well below 0.5% of our total student enrolment. All of OAC’s education programs (including the 6 undergraduate programs beyond the BSc - Agr, the 8 diploma programs and the broad range of graduate programs) continue to support the significant and diverse needs of the agriculture and food industries in Ontario and beyond. Scientific rigor is and always has been at the core of what we do. I look forward to hearing from you again and would like to formally extend an invitation to the OAC Class of ’58 to join us on campus to see what OAC is doing – the advances and initiatives that contribute to our ongoing success and the students who are here because they are impassioned by the career possibilities OAC uniquely provides. Yours truly, Rob Gordon, PhD Dean Ontario Agricultural College GUELPH • ALFRED • KEMPTVILLE • RIDGETOWN Guelph • Ontario • Canada • N1G 2W1 • (519) 824-4120, Ext. 52285 • Fax (519) 766-1423 www.oac.uoguelph.ca

Gracey's Comments on Beef Production

HOW MUCH GRAIN AND WATER DOES BEEF PRODUCTION REQUIRE?

To view Comments: Go to Charley's Web Site, charlesgracey.net, and choose  

Articles and Analysis.

First comment from Chas Gracey

Just a note to thank whoever set this up for us. I managed to navigate it on my third try. Great idea. Thanks also for the picture of those attending John Wiley's funeral. Unfortunately I was on my way across the Atlantic but it was nice to see such a large contingent in attendance. John will be sorely missed. Europe was grand but there was a drought of fairly serious dimensions while we were there. 18 days virtually without rain. The Danube is low and they told me the Po river in Italy is about dry. Won't go on but I would be grateful if the person who created this blog for our year would tell me how. I would like to set up my own so that I can rage on about beef industry affairs. Charlie gracey

First message from Chas Gracey

Just a note to thank whoever set this up and to express my amazement that I was able to navigate it on my third try. The only thing i can't seem to do is sign out in Bold Italic as Bill suggests