Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 15 - Evidence - April 3, 2003
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 3, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:36 a.m. to examine the impact of climate change on Canada's agriculture, forests and rural communities and the potential adaptation options focusing on primary production, practices, technologies, ecosystems and other related areas.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the Chair
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I call to order the 25th meeting of this committee on the impact of climate change on Canada's agriculture, forests and rural communities and the potential adaptation options.
[Translation]
We are pursuing our study on the effects of climate change today. Iwould like to begin by welcoming our colleagues, as well as the people who are here to watch our proceedings. Iwould also like to welcome our Canadian viewers who are following our deliberations on CPAC and on the Internet.
[English]
Over the past few weeks, we have listened to various witnesses who explained to us the science of climate change while focusing on adaptation issues. This morning, we have invited witnesses from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to appear before us to discuss their research projects on the effects of climate change on agriculture.
Honourable senators, let me introduce to you the members of our panel: Mr.Gilles Bélanger, who has studied the potential effects of climate change on perennial crops in Quebec and eastern Canada. We also have with us today Mr.Andy Bootsma and Mr.Samuel Gameda, who have looked at the potential change in agriculture production in Atlantic Canada resulting from climate change.
Before calling on Mr.Gameda to begin his presentation, I have a motion from Senator Day.
Senator Day: Mr. Chairman, I understand that you may not be here next week, and also our current deputy chair is not here. In the interests of continuing the work of our committee, I move:
That our former chair and ``chair in reserve,'' Senator Gustafson, be authorized to act as chair in your absence and that of the deputy chair during the week of April 7 to 11.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator LaPierre: Why are we meeting next week?
The Chairman: To hear witnesses on climate change.
Senator LaPierre: The Senate is not sitting.
The Chairman: It will be a committee week. The Rules Committee and other committees are meeting next week.
Senator LaPierre: I may not be here.
The Chairman: Mr.Gameda, please proceed.
Mr. Samuel Gameda, Research Scientist, Soil, Water, Air and Production Systems, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Mr. Chairman, it is an honour to appear before this committee to give a presentation on our research on climate change and its impact on agriculture. In particular, I should like to focus my presentation on the work we have done on the impacts of climate change on the growing season conditions in Eastern Canada.
Climate models indicate that, for the summer periods of the 2050s, temperatures in Canada are expected to be warmer. With the exception of a couple of spots on the eastern tip of Newfoundland and Labrador, on the whole for Eastern Canada, precipitation is also likely to be average to somewhat higher than average for that period.
Our question was how will these affect the agro-climatic indices that tell us how crops will change and how crops will respond to likely changes? I will start with Atlantic Canada, and then present Quebec and Ontario.
Looking at what we call agro-climatic indices and starting with crop heat units, which are an indication of conditions for heat-loving crops such as corn and soybeans, we see that for most of Atlantic Canada, we have cooler climates currently, with crop heat units not exceeding 2500 units. By the 2050s, we expect this to change substantially. Areas of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia will have substantially higher crop heat units.
Looking at effective growing-degree days, which are an indicator of the conditions for spring-seeded small grain cereals such as barley and wheat, there will be an increase in the value of this unit, due to climate change as predicted by climate models.
The increase in temperature is expected to be higher than that of precipitation. We therefore expect some increase in water deficits, particularly for some areas of New Brunswick. This is on the order of about 25 to 50 millimetres over the growing season, which is equivalent to about one or two inches. It is not expected to have a significant effect on crops.
In terms of identifying what this really means for Atlantic Canada, we can expect an increase of anywhere from 500 to 700 crop heat units. In terms of effective growing-degree days, this increase will be on the order of 400 units and water deficits will be on the order of 25 to 50 millimetres.
What does this mean?
There is likely to be a significant expansion in high-value crop areas, such as corn and soybean. There will also be a corresponding decrease — not because conditions are not suitable, but because of tradeoffs. There will be a decrease in areas such as barley, wheat and so forth.
If we look at a production scenario, for example, the current expanse or area under corn and soybeans — on the order of about 6,000 hectares — could increase to as much as 50,000 hectares under a climate change scenario. A rollback of areas under crops such as barley would be about 30,000 hectares.
We have about 11 different climate model experiments for Quebec and Ontario. The median outcome of these experiments indicates that precipitation will actually increase for a good portion of these provinces. Substantial increases are expected in terms of growing season precipitation in the southwestern part of Ontario and the southeastern part of Quebec.
In terms of corn or crop heat units, the highest number of units is in the Windsor, Ontario area and is on the order of over 3,000 crop heat units. By the latter part of this century, this is expected to expand northwards and eastwards under a climate change scenario.
If we look at the growing season itself and at mean temperatures greater than five degrees centigrade, the values we find predominantly in the southern region of Quebec and Ontario will expand northwards and eastwards. The results are also similar for effective growing degree-days for small grain cereals. Again, we have an expansion of the conditions that are conducive for their growth.
When we look at the picture of water deficit, the combined increase in both temperature and precipitation indicates that we do not expect substantial changes in water deficit. In other words, conditions that exist now are likely to persist, according to these climate model outputs.
To summarize what the impacts of these findings are on a range of agro-climatic indices, we expect that crop heat units — the highest portions of these in the Windsor area — will exceed 5200 units, a fairly substantial increase.
Growing degree-days are expected to reach as high as 3500 units. We expect that the growing season start could shift to as early as early March and end as late as late November. With the range of growing season length, we could have as many as 270 days, which is for a period of mean temperatures greater than 5 degrees centigrade.
The Chairman: For what years are you making that prediction?
Mr. Gameda: This would be in the latter part of this century, 2070 to 2099. According to the climate models, these are the values that we get.
As I mentioned, the water deficits showed little change. These are substantial changes that can be expected over the next 80 to 100 years.
What are the implications? Areas that are currently marginal or unsuitable areas for grain, corn and soybean production due to climate can become suitable, depending on the soil conditions. The climatic conditions will be more favourable for these crops.
The other implication is that areas that are currently well-suited for grain corn and soybean production will be suited for longer season hybrids. Associated with this is a potential higher yield much the same as the yields that the Midwest of the U.S. sees currently.
I would offer a cautious consideration. We have looked at climate norms or averages over a 30-year period because we want to see what situations are like under a stable climate. We compare that against another 30-year period in the future. By and large, the climate models show that we can expect significant increases in variability of climate — particularly of extreme events under a climate change scenario.
That could have a significant impact on seasonal crop production. For example, the return period of severe rainfall events is expected to decrease over a climate change scenario. A 70-millimetre rainfall event, for example, is currently expected ot occur once every 80 years. By the 2050s, we can expect that level of rainfall to occur once every 40 years; by 2090, it would be once every 20 years. These types of events could increase significantly over the time period that we are looking at. That is a consideration to keep in mind.
In summary, our research indicates that, fore Atlantic Canada, the production of high-value crops, such as corn and soybean, is likely to increase in the aerial extent. For Quebec and Ontario, it is likely that yields will be increasing.
Again, I caution that the variability in extreme events that we can expect will have a significant impact on seasonal production, year-to-year production and, related to that, the risks to production.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bélanger, Research Scientist, Crop Physiology and Agronomy, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada: It is a pleasure for me to be here today to present our work on climate change and the risks of winter damage to agricultural perennial crops in Eastern Canada.
Mr.Gameda talked about the growth season, but Iwill focus on winter and on the risks winter may pose on the growing season in terms of climate change and its effects on perennial crops.
In Eastern Canada, there are approximately 2.1million hectares of agricultural perennial crops. These agricultural perennial crops are basically forage crops, namely plants which serve as animal feed. There are also winter cereal, such as wheat, small fruits, such as strawberries and blueberries, and fruit trees, such as apple trees and grapevines, to name but a few.
Winter represents a risk for these agricultural perennial crops, which must survive unrelatively difficult conditions. For instance, in 1980-1981, 400,000apple trees were killed due to the winter climate in Eastern Canada. There was also the ice storm in 1998. Quebec's Crop Insurance Program paid out annual compensation of $1.2million, between 1985 and 1999, with regard to forage crops in Quebec only. This shows you what kinds of threats face agricultural perennial crops in Eastern Canada during winter.
To survive winter, these agricultural perennial crops need very specific climate conditions. As you know, our climate is changing. Iwill present you with some data on forecast winter climate change. If you look at the minimum daytime temperature between November and April, it should increase by 4oC in Eastern Canada by the year2050. Maximum daytime winter temperature is forecast to increase by 2.6oC.We also expect that snowfall in Eastern Canada will decrease by 32 per cent by the year2050.
This significant winter climate change should have an impact. We have tried to predict the effect of winter climate change on the survival of agricultural perennial crops during winter in Eastern Canada.
Iwill briefly speak to the scientific approach we followed and climate data. Iwill also give you some results with regard to forage plants and fruit trees, and propose a couple of approaches to be considered in order to better adapt to the increased threats posed by climate change.
This approach is based on climate indices based on temperature and precipitation data. These climate indices enable us to quantify the intensity of damage caused by winter and are compared to current and future conditions.
We used climatic data from 69climatic stations throughout Eastern Canada. Future climatic data were based on the Canadian general circulation model. Our research covered three periods, namely the current period beginning in 1961 and ending in 1990, and to future periods, from 2010 to 2039 and from 2040 to2069.
On the overhead you can see the climatic stations we used for our research; they cover the area between the extreme tip of Newfoundland to the Manitoba border.
Iwill now present some of the results which you can see on the slides and which in the graphs. We will begin with forage plants and then move on to fruit trees.
Agricultural perennial crops must become hardened to the cold in the fall in order to survive the critical winter period. To harden themselves against the cold and survive winter, these crops need fairly cool temperatures in the fall, namely –5oC. It is important for forage crops to be covered with snow because they are small plants. Snow isolates and provides efficient protection against very cold temperatures. The crops must also be able to maintain their hardiness. Warm winter temperature lead to a loss of hardiness and an increased risk of mortality. In winter, rain can also cause problems by creating layers of ice which inhibit the winter survival of agricultural perennial crops.
Ihave presented four climatic indices used to describe the threats to forage plants in winter.
Iwill now present these four indices for five regions in Eastern Canada, namely Southern Ontario, Northern Quebec and Northern Ontario, Southern Quebec, Eastern Quebec, which corresponds to the lower St.Lawrence and Gaspé regions, and the Maritimes for the three periods we studied, that is, current and future conditions between 2010 and 2039, and 2040 and 2069.
The first index describes potential winter hardiness, which is based on whether temperatures are fairly cool in fall. The accumulation of cold degrees will decrease throughout Eastern Canada, which, because of warming temperatures, will result in inadequate winter plant hardiness in most regions of Eastern Canada. Therefore, the level of hardiness will be lower.
There will also be increased threat to hardiness throughout the winter, because we have forecast more winter thaws because of warming temperatures, which will cause a loss of hardiness and increase the threat of plant mortality. This increasing threat is very significant for all of Eastern Canada's agricultural regions.
The third index is rain in winter. A little earlier, we saw that snowfall will decrease and more rain will fall in winter. Winter rain will increase in four of the five regions. The exception being Southern Ontario. In all other regions, winter rain will increase, which means more ice on our fields, which in turn may negatively affect the winter survival of perennial plants.
The last index we used to project the survival of forage crops is the days at risk index. It is based on the difference between the number of days temperatures may fall below 15oC, deadly temperatures, and the number of days snow cover totals at least 10centimetres, which protects plants against the cold. The number of days at risk will increase in every region except for Southern Ontario. If you take Southern Quebec, more specifically the region around Saint- Hyacinthe, under current conditions, there are 10days at risk, in other words, 10days where temperatures may fall below 15C without snow cover. We have forecast 40days at risk within the next 50years. The situation is similar for four of the fiveregions in Eastern Canada.
This concludes the list of indices for forage plants or low plants. As you see, the threats of winter mortality will increase with the trend to warmer temperatures.
The same situation applies to fruit trees. The trees must increase their level of hardiness in the fall, which basically depends on the length of day. The first day length index reflects the winter hardiness potential of fruit trees. In winter, there are two indices. The first one reflects minimum annual temperatures, that is the coldest winter temperatures. This is a very important index. It determines in good part the distribution of fruit production in Eastern Canada. The coldest winter temperature has a major impact.
An index similar to the one which applies to forage crops is the risk of loss of hardiness during winter due to thaw. The fourth indices with regard to fruit trees describes the risk of frost to floral buds in the spring due to late frost. So we have four indices to describe the situation of fruit trees.
The first reflects the potential loss of fall hardiness and is based on the length of day. It is best to have the shortest possible photoperiod at the time of the first frost in the fall. In every region of Eastern Canada, this photoperiod at the time of the first fall frost will shorten. This means that we will have longer hardiness periods conducive to a higher level of hardiness.
The second index for fruit trees is similar to the one for forage plants. It reflects the risk of loss of hardiness due to winter thaws. The situation will in all likelihood deteriorate because of global warming. There are more degree-days, that is, temperatures above 0oC in winter, which means that the level of hardiness may decrease because of the trend towards warmer temperatures.
The third index, which is important for the distribution of fruit trees in Eastern Canada, reflects the coldest temperature of the year. It will increase by 3oC in the Maritimes and up to 6oC in Southern Ontario. This index will have a major impact on the production of fruit trees. It means that this production will migrate towards the north in Eastern Canada.
The last index for fruit trees reflects the threat of frost to floral buds in the spring. This is an important one for fruit trees and for blueberry production, for instance. In three of the four regions the threats to the production will increase because of the higher number of degree-days or of warm days before the last spring frost. The only regions which will see an improvement are Northern Quebec and Northern Ontario, where the threat to floral buds due to frost in the spring will decrease.
Ihave presented you with the forecast situation for two major agricultural perennial crops, namely forage plants and fruit trees. In summary, there will be increased risk of winter damage to forage crops because snow cover will decrease and the crops will become less hardy; there will also be more winter thaws and threats to crops due to ice on our fields.
For fruit trees, the situation presents relatively more contrasts. We expect a higher level of hardiness, stress due to milder temperatures, which should help fruit production in Eastern Canada and lead to a change in its geographic distribution. However, since we may also have more frequent winter freezing temperatures, there may be a higher threat with regard to a loss of hardiness. With regard to floral buds and spring frost, the situation will worsen due to global warning in three regions, but will improve the situation in the northern regions.
The last slide presents a few suggestions to help plants adapt to the increased risk of winter mortality. Of course, we will have to rethink, change and improve our management practices. For instance, we can plant shelter belt plantations to increase the snow cover on our alfalfa crops, which would be one way of helping them survive the winter. We will also, of course, have to rethink, review and continue to develop cultivars and assess new species in order to deal with these new winter climatic conditions. These could include cultivars better suited to survive harsh winters in terms of perennial species. We will have to develop better risk forecasts. This is possible on a spatial scale with the help of winter risk maps for agricultural perennial crops.
We will also have to make real time forecasts. Indeed, throughout winter, we will have to be in a position to predict the survival rate of perennial plants in order to help farmers prepare for spring.
The fourth approach for a better adaptation deals with the issue of agricultural risk management. Perennial crops will face higher risks in winter and farmers will have to manage this risk, which they have already begun to do. However, the risks will increase due to warming temperatures. But agricultural risk management will no doubt remain an important element.
[English]
The Chairman: We will open the floor to questions, and I will begin with Mr. Gameda.
You gave us a lot of indications of things that will happen over the next few years and talked about the various climate models you have been using. You said those models show there will be increases in variability of climate, and this could have a very significant impact on our seasonal crop production in Atlantic Canada.
I would like to know what model you used to reach those conclusions and whether you compared it with other models in the United States, England, or even other parts of Canada? Is there just the one model? If so, what are its components?
Mr. Gameda: We actually used three different models for our climate model studies. We used the Canadian model, the Hadley model from the Hadley Centre in the U.K., and the ECHAM model from Germany.
We also used different scenarios with these models and several runs were involved. We used a total of about 11 different experiments of these combinations of three models.
In doing study in Atlantic Canada, with our constraints, we had looked at primarily the Canadian model. However, in looking at the variability and the outcomes in general for Eastern Canada — and we are also looking at it for all of Canada currently — we are looking at a much larger or much wider range of models.
The Chairman: I would be curious if you ran any scenarios only on the Canadian model and, if so, if your results were very different before you brought in the Hadley and so on.
Mr. Andy Bootsma, Honorary Research Associate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: In respect of your previous question, our experiments were based on the average conditions for future 30-year periods. The actual experimentation on the variability of the climate was not included in those results. You should be aware of that.
In terms of the Canadian model, there is a tendency of the Canadian global climate models, in the outputs that we look at, to show considerably more warming than, for example, the United Kingdom model. There is actually a lot of variability between the models.
The Chairman: That is why you have fused them in order to come up with your better general average.
Mr. Bootsma: That is right. We look at 11 different ones and at the median value, but we also look at the variability within the models themselves to indicate how much they differ and to get some idea of the variability that the models are introducing into the results.
The Chairman: That is excellent. I appreciate that. That explains it much better.
Senator LaPierre: This is not an exact science. You have all these variables. If you use Canadian, English and German and Japanese models, you can arrive at completely different conditions. How can Canadians be assured that what you are telling us has any validity?
Mr. Bootsma: We should remember that we are looking at scenarios of plausible future events. They are not forecast conditions. They are scenarios of events that might occur. We are looking at a range of models and possible outcomes and the range that they predict.
It is true that the models predict a great variation in future climates, but it is also true that all of them predict a warming trend, so that is consistent. The warming trend may vary from 1.5 or 2 degrees to 6 or 7 degrees, depending on which future time period you are looking at. There is also a lot of variability in precipitation. Some models for certain parts of Canada show decreases in precipitation in certain areas, and others will show a 10percent to 20percent increase in precipitation. The water part is certainly perhaps a bit more uncertain. The temperature part seems to be fairly consistent in that they all show warming.
Senator LaPierre: What might the differences be a result of — region, geography, topography, the history of the land?
Mr. Bootsma: You are asking questions that are really beyond our expertise. We are only using the output of these models and seeing what the potential impact would be if those conditions would actually prevail. Perhaps the climate modellers could answer your question. I presume that some of your hearings have actually involved people who are developing these global climate models, and that is where your question should be addressed. It is the models themselves and how they interact.
Senator Fairbairn: I should like to several questions, one of which might be beyond your research, although you may have some views. With the changes that you have outlined in your two presentations, have you any information at all about what changes in forage crops and this kind of thing would do to, say, the dairy industry?
Mr. Bélanger: As you saw in the presentation, we are expecting an increase in risk to perennial crops. Obviously, perennial forage crops are the main source of feed for cattle, both on dairy and beef farms, so it represents an increased risk. That probably means additional costs in terms of reseeding more often. There is greater uncertainty on dairy farms with regard to the supply of feed on a yearly basis. Certainly in terms of the winter conditions, for dairy producers, that increases the challenge because it means greater risk and probably, at the end of the day, greater cost.
Having said that, the changes will be progressive. Climate change is not something that will hit us in one day. It is very progressive. We are hoping through the research being done by ourselves and by others, we will be able to come up with cultivars and perhaps species that are more adapted to these new conditions so that we can reduce or maintain the risk at a reasonable level. In respect of management practices and how you manage your crops, we are hoping that, with sustained research efforts, we can develop ways of producing crops that will reduce or minimize the risks producers will have to face with this warming of the climate.
I have mentioned primarily what will happen in terms of the winter conditions, but, as was mentioned, for annual crops such as grain, corn and soybeans, we could probably expect greater yields as well because the growing season will be longer. In the limited work that we have done primarily for Quebec, we expect that producers will be able to take an additional harvest of forages. In areas where they are now able to take three cuts, they may be able to take four. That could mean two or three tonnes of extra dry matter — hay — per year, so there will be some benefits there with climate change for forage crops during the growing season.
Another aspect that should be mentioned is that the increase in CO2 concentration will also have an impact on yields itself. CO2 is the main fuel, if you want, of plants through photosynthesis. If we increase CO2 concentrations, that should increase the yield. It will have a fertilizing effect and that should also be beneficial to forage crops.
I think there are opportunities in terms of the growing season for dairy farmers, for example, increased yield of forages, but increased risks in the winter, which means a challenge.
Senator Fairbairn: Thank you. How will this affect the potato industry? I ask the question because, unbeknownst to many in the room, although you may not associate a very vibrant potato industry from southwestern Alberta, we do have McCains and Lamb Weston. We had an ideal situation as seen by producers for a vibrant and expanding industry and export market. We have been hit by extraordinary climatic events in recent years, which have taken a heavy toll on crops. You have mentioned some, like corn, but it also affected potatoes and on sugar beets.
When talking about the change in terms of rain, snow and the heat element, where do the potatoes fit in? I am very fond of P.E.I., so I worry about their potatoes.
Mr. Bélanger: I will provide a first part of the answer and the others may add to it. I have not done any work specifically on climate change in potatoes, so I have to be cautious. However, we could probably expect, as we see for corn and soybeans, increased yield potential for potatoes because of a longer growing season. This is also because of the increased CO2 concentration, which might have a positive impact on yield of potatoes. Increased temperatures could also have an impact, because of the length of the growing season.
One concern with potatoes is pests. Potatoes are quite sensitive to a large number of pests. One that I have in mind is the Colorado beetle, which is a major pest for potatoes in Eastern Canada. Most experts agree that the pressure from pests will increase with climate change. For a crop such as potatoes, which are already quite sensitive to pests, they might face increased pressure from pests. That will come from two directions: other new pests that might move north, or an increased number of cycles of those pests, because of increased temperatures.
The question of pests is a significant consideration for potatoes. I am not an expert in that; however, based on what I have heard from others, that should play a significant role with climate change.
Another point is that the survival of some of those pests in the winter depends on soil temperature. Because of reduced snow cover in the winter, the soil temperatures will change, which could also have an impact on the pests. They may manage to survive the winter and have an impact in the following growing season.
Again, with my limited expertise on potatoes, we may expect some opportunities in terms of increased yield, but also some challenges in terms of the pests that can affect potatoes.
Mr. Gameda: We are also trying to look at what the crop requirements would be in relation to the agro-climatic indices. It is not something that we have done as of yet, but, to add to what Mr. Bélanger was saying, considering the longer growing season and the potentially somewhat higher moisture conditions, there is a potential for increase. The variability, particularly with precipitation, would probably mean a greater risk and might require better water management. Irrigation might be required, depending on how variable the water availability will be under a change in climate.
The Chairman: Before turning to Senator Hubley, I should like to follow up on two matters raised by Senator Fairbairn. You said that, with the warming of temperatures, one of the things that might happen is that not only will we have an increase in the potato beetle, but there may also be new pests coming from the south.
Are you saying that places in the United States where they grow potatoes have different pests than we have in Canada? If so, is your department studying what some of those different pests are, so that when they do start coming up, we will have a way of adapting to them? That is my first question.
Second, in response to Senator Fairbairn's first question, you gave a number of scenarios about the effects that climate change will have on farming and agricultural practices. Could you take it a step further and tell us what steps should be taken now to start adapting for these inevitable changes? Is the department working on these results now? Will you give some indication of how we should redirect our plant breeding programs, for instance, as a result of the changes you see in these models?
Mr. Bélanger: In terms of the first question, as I said earlier, I am not an expert in potatoes or pests that might affect potatoes, so I cannot really answer your question. I gave you a general answer, but I think you would have to talk to people who are more familiar with potato crops and pests that can affect potatoes. I know there is research being conducted on potatoes at the research centres in Fredericton and Charlottetown. There is very good research being conducted on potato crop production pest control, so people there would be in a better position to answer questions.
There are plant-breeding efforts in Canada for winter survival of perennial crops. These efforts take a long time; to develop a new variety takes 10 to 12 years. We have ongoing work in this area and we hope we can maintain that effort in the coming years. It takes a long time to develop material that will be adapted to conditions, so it is a long-term effort.
The other point I should make is that perennial crops are long-cycle crops, probably more so with fruit trees. It takes a long time for them to produce after they are planted. You want to ensure that you have made the right choice when you plant those trees. It is critical that we have ongoing research to give us the right tools to face climate change, because we are talking about long-cycle production. They are different from annual crops, where you can change your hybrids or varieties from year to year. When we are looking at apple trees, you have to make the right choice today for 10 or 15 years in the future. Ongoing research efforts in that area are critical. We do not want to wait too long before we work in that area, but there is good research taking place within the department now.
The Chairman: Of course, there are some apple trees you can get now that will give a full yield in three or four years. You do not have to wait the 12 years, as you used to. Thank you for that.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for your presentations. I will not hold you to potatoes, although I do come from Prince Edward Island so I may relate to that a little more strongly than to the forage crops.
Why did you choose your 30-year intervals? You do not have to answer that. I will just continue on here.
Frost is sort of a ``friend'' of the farmers. Certainly, in potato crops, you always want to have a good frost that goes down into the soil. It looks after many of the pests and discourages the ``volunteers'' — that is the plant that will over winter and you do not want that plant in your field. Do you have any information on soil health, with regard to that frost situation?
Mr. Bélanger: We have not looked at the relationship between frost and soil temperature during the winter or what you would refer to as soil health, so I cannot provide you with information on that.
Senator Hubley: Why the 30-year intervals?
Mr. Gameda: In looking at agricultural production, we like to look at the general conditions. We have worked primarily at a long-enough climate record to be able to say, ``yes, a particular region is suitable for a given type of crop.'' It helps to eliminate the variability that you would get from year to year.
For example, if you are choosing a corn variety and if your region lies within a 2,700-to-3,000 crop heat unit range, you pick that variety on the basis of average temperatures. Basically, it is to be able to get that, rather than the spikes or the lows you would get out of annual changes.
Senator Hubley: One thing that came to mind was the use of pesticides and how it may have to increase or decrease — one would hope it would decrease. Pesticides are something we are very sensitive to these days with our water and our safe food sources and things of that nature.
Will we have to look at different growing practices, and perhaps changing our planting and harvesting dates?
Mr. Bélanger: I think you are right, Senator Hubley. I mentioned that at the end of my presentation. The crop practices will have to evolve as a result of new conditions. Overall, producers are capable of adapting to new conditions, but we must provide them with the right tools.
Our assessment is based on current practices and the use of the cultivars that are available now. With time, we hope that cultivars will be better or new cropping practices will be developed. While pest pressure might be greater in the future, we hope to have the right tools to face those new difficulties. There is a challenge, but there also are opportunities to improve.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Iam familiar with NewBrunswick's Madawaska valley, which is a potato growing area. Ihave a hard time understanding why you conduct research on potatoes in Fredericton, which has a very distinct climate and non local vegetation. However, Iwould understand if you carried out research on orchards. NewBrunswick's orchards are located in the Fredericton area.
We heard excellent presentations from several research institutions. Is there a plan amongst yourselves, that is, between farmers and scientists, to exchange data, to provide conclusions and to discuss this phenomenon and its potential impact on farmers?
Mr. Bélanger: The research centre is located in Fredericton, but a good part of the research and experiments are carried out in the potato producing area which lies between Grand-Sault and Woodstock. Ihave also been involved in research with experimental sites in Drummond and Saint-André.
However, Icould not say whether there is a specific communication plan, but, of course, we are in constant communication with farmers. We are regularly invited to speak at farmers' conferences. The results of our research are published and available. Iwas recently on a show called La semaine verte, which is a French radio program of the CBC and is broadcast across the country. The subject was climate change. Iwas also on a show called D'un soleil à l'autre, which is also on the French radio network of the CBC and broadcast across the country. Many of its listeners are farmers. The information we presented here today is available and effectively provided to farmers.
Senator Ringuette: The Department of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada must be made more aware of the fact that Canada's rural production is in the countryside. Government departments, especially the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, should try to ensure that research be carried out in rural areas and not in our capital cities and major urban centres.
Iwould like to congratulate you for appearing on television shows.
Since the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada funds the research, should it not be your responsibility to create a centre which would receive the results of all the research in order to put together an overview of the situation and to pass along all this data, all this information to the outside? As far as Iunderstand, you do not have this kind of philosophy.
There may be subsidized research in some very specific areas, but the results of this research are not available or made public. If the information is not made available, it would be difficult to have a general overview of the situation, which may, once again, lead to piecemeal solutions. Ihope you understand how important this communication is, that is, the fact of bringing together all the research carried out by both the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food and the Department of the Environment.
Mr. Bélanger: As a scientist working for the Department of Agriculture, Iam very sensitive to what you are saying. We want our work, our research and the results of that research to get to the users and those who need it. I personally do not work in the area of communications. The department has excellent communications people. The department is also undergoing a re-organization to, Ibelieve, better focus on the issue you mentioned in terms of better coordinating our efforts in order to achieve better overall results.
Icannot say anymore. Iagree with you that this is necessary. We are making a significant scientific effort to ensure that those who use our research and findings are aware of them so that we can discuss these matters with them because they often have information that is very helpful to us when we set priorities. Ibelieve that the department is making a significant effort in this area. Obviously, not everything is perfect, but Iam convinced that people will note what you have said in order to improve the situation if indeed there is a perception that we do not do adequate work.
Senator Ringuette: You said it right; we must not work in a vacuum.
[English]
Senator LaPierre: To follow up on Senator Ringuette's question, would it not be possible for you and the steering committee to consider that officials from the communication branch of the department come and explain their communication plan to us?
The Chairman: We will ask our clerk to address that.
Senator LaPierre: That may be a good thing for us to have.
However, I have been a communicator for many years. I have listened to all of these brilliant and pertinent statements of the experts who have come before us. The information we have received varies considerably — for example, we heard from some Americans last week — and I cannot help but wonder if we are scaring people and in the process of doing so, turning them off. There seems to be nothing that they can grab on to.
We dealt with this in Alberta. An anti-scientific bias is developing. I do not think that people can grasp what is going on. Sometimes I have the feeling that we might be scaring them for no reason.
Mr.Bootsma, perhaps can you help me out. We have not heard from you very much.
Mr. Bootsma: Honourable senators, the question is whether we can depend on some of the climate models in terms of future projections. That is really outside of our domain.
Are we scaring the public, or are we putting out realistic scenarios of what might take place? I am well aware that there are many skeptics out there who feel that climate change is not relevant and will not happen and that everyone is being scared for nothing.
It is fair to say that the facts show that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have gone up since pre- industrial times by at least 25percent to 30percent, and they are likely to continue to increase even if Kyoto is fully adopted. The models also suggest that this will have some impact, particularly on temperatures.
To what extent these impacts will take place is still open to some question. As honourable senators know and as we have said, the models differ quite considerably in the amount of global warming that is anticipated as a result of the build-up of these greenhouse gases. However, to do nothing at this stage would be equivalent to continue conducting a giant global experiment without really knowing what the outcome will be. For future generations, it could be very important.
You do not want to scare the public. There are also benefits to global warming to certain aspects of agriculture in Canada. As we well know, it also presents possible dangers such as the permafrost in the north and sea level rises and things like that. There are pros and cons in terms of the potential impacts. To some extent, we must weigh these and come out with some final measure of how we take action. That is, of course, in large part, a policy decision by governments.
I do not think we want to scare the public into saying that there is a greater danger than really exists, but there is definitely potential for quite dramatic change — much greater than what we have experienced in the last hundred years. It is definitely a valid concern.
[Translation]
Senator LaPierre: But on the other hand, if these things are going to happen, at one point we are going to have to develop a philosophy of adaptation. In developing this philosophy, we are going to have to weigh the pros and the cons. In conducting a research, do you weigh the pros and the cons? When you develop models and adaptation proposals, do you think about that?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes. When we assess adaptation strategies, ways to better adapt our methods, we definitely consider both the positive and negative impacts. Going back to what you said earlier about the need to develop an adaptation philosophy, Iwould say that, generally speaking, farmers already have this philosophy because they have to adapt to climatic conditions that vary from one year to the next, and even from one day to the next. They are already dealing with a lot of weather variability in their everyday work.
As a result, their capacity to adjust is relatively high because there is no way you can be involved in agriculture without being able to adjust. Ibelieve that this philosophy already exists. Obviously, the predicted changes in climate and an increase of 4oC mean a great deal of change. Perhaps we are going to have to adjust further and that is an important factor. Nevertheless, when we do research on alternate production methods, we obviously always consider the advantages and disadvantages of these techniques.
[English]
Senator LaPierre: Approximately 85 per cent of us live in cities. The point I am trying to make is that the people in the cities do not seem to be affected by climate change to the degree that the farmers are. We have heard terrible stories about the forests in the west and the rural communities, in which I have a great interest and which are very important to me. I find that the people in the cities shrug their shoulders.
I am hoping to find a way whereby it would be possible to communicate to the 85percent of us who live in cities that what happens on the land has a tremendous impact on them and that they had better get their act together. Since they are more numerous — politics being what it is — at the end of the day there is a majority. The people in the cities say that it affects the farmers, not them. The end result will be very dangerous for us.
I do not know if you can answer that, but I would like you to sympathize with my dilemma.
Mr. Gameda: I would not know how to answer that question. We have to find a way to address this challenge. Regarding some of the issues that were raised earlier, the process of research requires so much specialization that you do focus on that. The issue of synthesis and communication of a synthesized set of research findings is an important one, and it must be addressed. It is beyond the scope of what we can do, but it is an issue and we do recognize that.
Senator Hubley: I have a question in regard to research money available. Given Canada's current research efforts on climate change and adaptation — in universities, research centres and among different levels of government — in your opinion, where are the research gaps? Do you feel there are any?
Mr. Bootsma: Perhaps I can address that as a former employee of the Department of Agriculture, having recently retired.
Senator LaPierre: You are safe.
Mr. Bootsma: Initially, much of the research on climate change had to do with global climate models and understanding climate systems. Most of the research dollars were, and continue to be, poured into this area. What was lacking — and this has recognized in the last number of years — is that the science of adaptation and impacts was falling behind. Recently we have seen more monies made available through the government's Climate Change Action Fund to boost some of the impact and adaptation studies. However, it still is very much below where it should be.
The impact models that we use are very basic models. There could be much more work done in the modelling aspects and determining the likely impacts. If these changes occur, what are the impacts on various crops? We do not know all of them. We have only touched on a few crops here this morning. There are many others. Models are not available to accurately describe what the potential impacts might be. That is an area of research where there could be much more effort made.
Senator Gustafson: I could not agree more with Senator LaPierre. I am glad I yielded to him. He is a city slicker and I am a country bumpkin.
I believe that the scientific community has a responsibility to communicate with people. Perhaps we need to find new ways to do that, to realize the importance of the subject that we are dealing with.
I farmed for 53 years. I may look like 40, but I am beyond it. When I was born in the Dirty Thirties, we had a drought. On the Prairies, we had a very dry period in the 1950s. In the mid-1980s, I chaired the Task Force on Drought in Western Canada, and now we are into another one.
It seems that this thing is cyclical. The pests that come along with the different droughts — the grasshopper plagues and so on — seem to run together. We are looking only at a 100-year period, and I have been farming for 50 of them. That is about all we really have to draw our conclusions.
It takes a certain number of heat units to grow a crop; but when they come, and what the conditions are at the time, is very important. For instance, we grow canola. Our biggest threat is the July heat when the canola is blossoming. If it gets hit with that heat, you can forget your crop. However, if there happens to be a lot of cloud cover when you get the heat, it is not so bad. It does not seem to penetrate. Similarly, if you have a wet period, there is lots of moisture to carry it through that heat period.
It seems that every year is different. What do we do about it? It is a big problem. If you are fortunate enough to get by those two weeks of heat in July, you will come out with a crop. If you do not, you are in trouble.
What are your studies proving on cyclical years and how these things seem to happen? They vary in different parts of the country.
Mr. Gameda: One of our difficulties is that we are unable to differentiate between natural variability and variability that we would expect under climate change. The climate is cyclical and the variability within these cycles can fluctuate substantially. Consequently, it is very difficult to differentiate the effects of climate change. We do recognize these cycles recur sporadically, so it is difficult to plan for them. It is a condition of agricultural production.
Mr. Bootsma: As a climatologist, I have not done a lot of studying on the cyclical nature of weather patterns over the last 100 years. Of course, honourable senators must realize that the instrumented record is a relatively short one — it is a little over 100 years in Canada.
Beyond that, we go to the paleoclimatology evidence. There are cycles; and there are various theories about their causes. Some people believe in a roughly 18- or 21-year lunar cycle that has an influence. There are cycles in the sunspot activities that influence the climate; there is the El Niño/La Niña phases that influence climate; there are volcanic emissions. All these things are acting on the climate in some way or another.
Whether the repetitive nature of droughts in the Prairies and elsewhere will consistently fall in 25-year periods remains to be seen.
In the core samples they have taken out West, some paleoclimatologists have seen records of droughts that were much more severe than those we have experienced in the last 100 years. There are natural cycles that likely will continue. However, we are anticipating some climate change as a result of human interference with the greenhouse gas emissions.
Senator Gustafson: I have one comment about the importance of research when it comes to various crop varieties. There is no question that farmers have been able to compete because of research and new varieties. That raises many of the questions we have concerning genetically modified foods and all these things. I would emphasize the importance of research in these areas.
I will use my grandfather as an example. In 1905, when he came to Yorkton, Saskatchewan, he could not grow wheat there. He moved to the southernmost part of Saskatchewan, where he could grow wheat. Now they can grow wheat very well at Yorkton because of new varieties. I emphasize that any input that you have on research is very important.
Mr. Bélanger: I agree with what has been said. However, one of the questions related to what is needed in research and so on. Mr. Bootsma answered very well, saying that in terms of impact, what we have done is really using very simple models of climatic indices and those simple models do not take into account interactions between different factors.
We are dealing here with increased CO2 concentrations and increased temperatures, and we are not too sure about water deficits. These are three significant factors impacting on crops, and they interact with each other. All this interacts with fertilization of crops and with pests. They are very complex systems. From the answers that we gave this morning on potatoes, it was very obvious that we know all these factors will affect potato production, but we do not know how they will all interact together.
We are giving you the best science-based, objective information that we have today with the understanding that we have of how crops grow and function. However, as these are very complex systems we have not yet gone far enough in trying to understand the interactions that are essential in trying to predict what will happen. We have used the best tools that we have at this time, but they are far from what they should be.
The Chairman: I would like to know a little about the extent of your mandate and how far you go in planning and adaptation. Recently, we heard from two very senior professors and scientists from Yale University in the United States. They participated in comprehensive studies on the effect of climate change in all regions of the United States.
We understand that you are involved in regional studies here in Canada. Is Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada coordinating a national assessment that looks at the effects in all regions for all of Canada's major agricultural products, both crops and livestock? Are you doing a comprehensive, national study, as they are in the United States?
Mr. Bélanger: We have not done a national perspective at this time. Following the reorganization of our department, we will have a national program on climate change, and that will integrate all the research expertise within the department and look from a national perspective at the impact and adaptation related to climate change.
The Chairman: You have talked about soybeans and corn being grown as major crops in Eastern Canada. You have said that, in some regions, farmers might be able to grow new crops because of this change in climate. For example, it has been mentioned that corn and soybeans might become more common in Atlantic Canada, although it is not likely to happen in the short term, maybe 20 or 30 years, and then the yields will increase, as you said.
When would you say that you, the department or the Government of Canada, should start giving farmers a sense of adaptation? When should they start adapting? When should new government policies start coming into place to get them ready for these changes that are coming as a result of climate change?
Mr. Bélanger: That is a good question. However, I do not know if I have a good answer. We certainly must be cautious. Climate change offers some very good opportunities for producers in Eastern Canada in terms of new crops in some areas, but we need to be cautious that they do not go into these crops too quickly because they might end up being in a risk situation.
As I said, these changes will be progressive. Producers are very good at determining the time to go into a new crop. We need to do the right assessments, the right research, and the right development to ensure that when an area is ready for a crop, that we have the right information at that point. In the next 15 or 20 years, we will see significant increases in temperatures and climate change. My guess is that within the next 10 to 15 years we will start seeing shifts in production.
The Chairman: In terms of the production of new public policies to help farmers and those in forestry adapt to the effects of climate changes, when should the new policies be coming out? When should we start acquainting farmers and foresters to get ready to adapt?
Mr. Gameda: The types of studies that are required for this are already under way. We are putting together joint research and policy initiatives to identify possible adaptation strategies and, if need be, what policy instruments are required. We are gearing up to do this kind of work.
If I may comment, farmers actually adapt much earlier as a result of their own observations, rather than receiving signals for them to adapt from a policy perspective. Some of the early or innovative farmers are probably likely to try these new crops. Under certain conditions, they will take the risks and shift.
The role of our work, as I understand it, is to determine a possible suite of adaptation strategies. Then our policy colleagues will have to identify for which of these the farmers require help.
Senator Fairbairn: Thank you all. This has been a very significant discussion this morning.
Mr.Bootsma, you guided us through the changing reality of this whole phrase ``climate change.'' We have been travelling across Canada, and Senator LaPierre suggested that in my province, Alberta, he detected a sense of anti- science. I would argue that.
I think that in any of our provinces, regardless of what we produce or how we adapt, there is no group in the community that is more alert and responsive to the science of production and the science of the climate. Why do we have great beef in Alberta? Much of that has to do with the climate, but it also has to do with the science of breeding and production and how the animals are fed and cared for. When we were in Alberta, we visited a pig farm at Viking. They were down-on-the-ground farmers, but they were right into it with an amazing technological program that took the manure and put it through a system that these two gentlemen in Viking had come up with. They ended up with clear water that could be recycled back to the plant. These are the kinds of things that scientists look at and they are very much the kinds of things that farmers look at.
In respect of the notion that not everybody buys into climate change, perhaps Mr. Bootsma will want to re-read what he said. It is very important. There has been a history of cyclical ebbing and flowing on the land — there are floods, droughts — and there has been a pattern that can be followed. As Senator Gustafson has said, some of those patterns of cycles seem to have become closer together and more devastating in their intensity.
There is another element here with which all of us have to come to grips. That element is what we, as an industrial society that has gone on for quite long time, have added to natural cycles in such a way that the spin-off elements of that industry and all the wonderful things that we have achieved have also provided a risk to our atmosphere that is changing our climate and the way we live.
The gap between the cycle and that change is part of the communications challenge that we, as scientists and politicians, face. Those are difficult things to be able to talk about and explain; however, they are out there. I would guess that there are probably no more sensitive people to this issue than those who are involved in agriculture in our country. That is why they sometimes react more quickly than any policy could ever be put together in Ottawa or in any provincial capital. They are already shifting and changing. They sometimes may not even realize how much they are doing so.
Nonetheless, I think we have a body of skill and instinct in this country to be able to adapt, change and understand. The only way to communicate — and it is a long and hard way that politicians sometimes do well and sometimes not — is to get on the ground and go to the source. Go to the folks who will have to adjust to the things that are here in your very good documents.
I do not know about my colleagues, but our discussion today brought things together for me more than, perhaps, has been the case in recent weeks. I thank you for that. I believe that the heart of how well we will do is the degree to which we can understand that it is not either cycles or climate change, but it is both cycles and climate change.
Mr. Bootsma: I certainly agree with the comments that have been made here. I have a couple of things to add.
Farmers have to deal with year-to-year variability in the weather, which is very significant for farmers to cope with. This includes abnormal years when you get back-to-back droughts or whatever. They have to cope with this on a regular bases.
I think that any research that will help them cope with these extremes will also benefit, in terms of having them able to adapt to climate change in the future.
At the same time, we must recognize that climate change has, up to now, been a very gradual process. The models seem to indicate that this process will be aggravated by continued increase of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this is something with which we should be concerned. However, for the time being, farmers can adapt to the changes that are taking place.
I feel it is very important for producers and policy people to understand the risks and whether these risks are changing. For example, we have producers who want to grow longer season corn hybrids in certain parts of Ontario and Quebec, because the last several years have been warmer than normal. Is this a valid decision on the part of producers?
To know that, we would have to know whether the risk of cooler seasons has decreased and that actual climate change has taken place in the last 10 years and is likely to continue. We need research to understand whether there has been a significant shift, so that farmers can either adapt to longer-season hybrids at this stage or hold off and continue to grow the hybrids they have been growing, so they do not run into problems when we get another season of really cool weather.
We need to know whether the risks are changing within the next five to 10 years. It will be a challenge for the research community to produce that information.
Senator Gustafson: As the committee travelled out west, we had one consistent question from the farm community in regard to Kyoto and how carbon credits would work. It is doubtless that the powers that be will look to the scientific and farming communities for guidance, as well as other aspects of our society.
Have you any comment on that? Farmers felt it is very important that, if there are any credits, they accrue to the landowners, because that is where the great change has to come. For example, there are a lot of positive notes in terms of continuous cropping; however, if you continuous crop and continuous crop, the grasshoppers seem to eat you right up.
I was talking to a congressman in the United States from an area where they had a certain disease in their wheat. He said the only way we can really solve this problem is to till about 10 inches deep. In our area, you could not do that because you would destroy the soil if you went that deep. At least, that is my thinking.
Much thought must be given to what will happen and how it will happen, if we are to do the right things in regard to Kyoto and credits. I would like your comments on that.
Mr. Bélanger: I am not an expert in carbon sequestration. You have met some of our colleagues in Lethbridge who have more expertise and knowledge than I on this.
In general, things that we can do to decrease greenhouse gases also tend to make sense economically for producers. That is pretty good news in general. In terms of carbon sinks, I am not able to answer that question, as I am not an expert in that.
Senator Gustafson: It seems that our Minister of Agriculture has, at least in Saskatoon, given a very positive answer. While he was not specific, he said there was a general belief that it was probably best that the credits go to the producer or the landowner. That will be one of the important decisions of the future.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: First of all, Iwould like to know whether your department shares information with the Department of Human Resources Development?
Secondly, following this exchange of information, will you be developing a model or recommendations that will add to or mitigate the impact of one factor compared to the other, depending on the case? You seem to be very familiar with our region, Grand-Sault, Saint-André, Drummond, Florenceville. Most of the potato growers also own woodlots. There is always a very close tie between the two sectors. Have you paired these two activity sectors in your analyses, research and consultations?
Mr. Bélanger: Our work pertained to the agricultural sector. We therefore tried to assess the potential impact of climate change on agricultural production, because that is our area of expertise. You have asked a very interesting question, but it is not one that Ihave studied personally.
We are trying to determine the impact of climate change on the agricultural community and society in general. We are trying to assess all of the different interactions between the various types of activities, whether they be related to forestry or agriculture. We did not study that. That is undoubtedly an interesting aspect, which deserves to be studied. Perhaps there are some studies currently under way in Canada on that aspect.
Senator Ringuette: My question focused primarily or the efforts that you are making within the department and the efforts that the Department of Human Resources Development must certainly be making in the area of forestry and agriculture. There may be ways of mitigating the impact of climate change, ways that may be useful in the forestry sector but which could also be applied to agriculture and vice-versa.
Mr. Bélanger: It is difficult to answer that question. The department is currently being restructured, which will make it easier to answer this type of questions more effectively, as there will be greater interaction between the departments nationally and closer ties. This interactivity is very positive and that it will enable us to answer this type of questions, which have an impact on rural communities. Our expertise is much more scientific and focuses on one particular sector, but the type of interaction that you have described is important and should be studied.
[English]
Mr. Gameda: In respect of land use, some of our colleagues do work with the forestry groups to look at particularly adjoining areas in terms of potential changes, either under climate change or even from the point of view of what are considered marginal lands and the possibility of putting these into either forestry or trees. We also work in terms of accounting techniques for looking at land use and how we can make use of technologies together — this would include things like remote sensing, whereby we do collaborate with our forestry counterparts from that perspective.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Further to these comments, Iwould like to make a suggestion. It would be interesting to have testimony from this group, which studies the ties between the two sectors.
[English]
The Chairman: In closing, Mr. Gameda, I had a final question for you. In response to my earlier question about crops such as corn and soybeans being grown in Atlantic Canada as a result of climate change, you said that you are now working on some models and doing studies on the effects that climate change will have on that.
When will the first results of these studies and new models you are doing on that be made available? When do you expect the results to come out of what you are studying now on when farmers should be ready to adapt to these new changes to be able to grow high yield soybeans in Atlantic Canada, for instance?
Mr. Gameda: We are working on a series of steps to be able to address these issues. Currently, we are developing scenarios of climate change on a year-to-year basis. In that way, we can simulate the variability that that we are likely to attain under the climate change scenarios that a couple of the climate models are providing.
Out of those, we need to develop daily climate information. On the basis of that, we then run these against our crop growth and production models. Our scenario models from a climate perspective are results that we would expect in the matter of our next cycle of studies — two to three years. Following that, some of the preliminary work could even start with some of the preliminary results that we have.
We are looking at a two-study cycle of two to three-year periods each to be able to do that. That is the process that we have followed and that we will continue to follow.
The Chairman: Senator Fairbairn perhaps best put what today has meant to out study and to us. You have answered many difficult questions and given us much new information that will help to culminate much of what we have heard not only here, but also out West.
The committee adjourned.