THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 3, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada.
Senator Paula Simons (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning, everyone. I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses as well as those watching this meeting on the web.
[Translation]
I wish to welcome all of the viewers across the country who may be watching on sencanada.ca. I’m Paula Simons, senator from Alberta, and deputy chair of the committee. The committee is meeting this morning to continue its study to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada.
[English]
Before we hear from the witnesses, I would like to start by asking the senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler, New Brunswick.
Senator Klyne: Good morning and welcome. Marty Klyne, Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc, senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Good morning. Pat Duncan, Yukon.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Our witnesses for the first panel are joining us via video conference. Today, we welcome from the Beef Cattle Research Council, Andrea Brocklebank, Executive Director; and Reynold Bergen, Science Director.
I invite you to make your presentation on behalf of your organization. You have five minutes for your opening remarks. In the interest of using our time efficiently, I will signal by raising one hand when you have one minute left, and I will raise both hands when your time is up. And I will not rob a bank. I guess I’m just acting chair today, not supposed to be this funny. I’m going to ask you, Ms. Brocklebank, are you speaking first?
Andrea Brocklebank, Executive Director, Beef Cattle Research Council: We had understood it was just one of us doing the speech.
The Deputy Chair: I’m sorry. All right. Whichever one of you would like to begin.
Reynold Bergen, Science Director, Beef Cattle Research Council: I’m used to the hand signals. Ms. Brocklebank typically throws up both of her hands when she’s heard enough as well. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. I’m Reynold Bergen and with the Beef Cattle Research Council, as is Ms. Brocklebank.
Canada’s beef industry is a significant contributor to Canada’s environmental goals. Canadian grasslands sequester the carbon emissions from more than 3 million cars annually, benefit biodiversity and cattle produce high-quality protein from low‑quality land and feed. Producing one kilogram of Canadian beef generated 15% less greenhouse gas and used 17% less water in 2011 than it did in 1981.
Building on this, the beef industry has set ambitious sustainability goals for 2030, including a 33% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions intensity, preserving the 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon sequestered in Canadian grasslands, sequestering an additional 3.4 million tonnes of carbon annually and preserving Canada’s remaining 35 million acres of native grasslands. Achieving these goals will build healthy soils. The Northern Great Plains is one of the world’s most threatened ecosystems. The Nature Conservancy of Canada estimates that more than 70% of Canada’s Prairie grasslands have been lost to cultivation, urbanization and industrial development.
Beef industry-funded research is studying the soil carbon losses that occur when grasslands are cultivated for crop production. Research proposed for the next science cluster will study how pasture and grazing management impacts soil health and carbon sequestration across Canada. Understanding these impacts is important to inform policies that assign appropriate values to these ecosystem benefits and incentivize producers.
We know that perennial grasslands sequester more carbon than annual crops. We know native grasslands sequester carbon deeper in the soil than tame grasses do. We know soil is healthier on well-managed grasslands than on overgrazed or ungrazed grasslands. We know the extremes, but we don’t know specifics, like how different grazing practices will impact soil health or carbon sequestration.
Healthy soils are created slowly, but they can be destroyed rapidly. Canada’s soils evolved over tens of thousands of years. Helping those soils recover from previous poor farming practices takes a long time. There are also no affordable, rapid or portable techniques to measure soil health on farm. Those two challenges make it really difficult to identify the best management practices that will improve soil health. Best practices will also vary between soil type and ecoregions. Long-term maintenance or recovery of soil health is further challenged by the short-term economic pressures that are currently encouraging the cultivation of grasslands for annual crop production.
Accelerating improvements in soil health requires investment in research and extension. Innovation takes time and requires consistent long-term funding. Our industry understands this, and we have more than quadrupled our research investments in recent years, but government partnership is key. The federal government has launched several programs related to their climate goals, and this is positive, but adding short-term programs with diverse priorities does not compensate for declining investment in long-term applied research. Despite the success of the AgriScience Clusters, funding has not increased to meet the growing demand across sectors. Funding ratios have also declined, and that has reduced the number of projects that industry can support. Current research funding programs last five years or less, but it takes decades to achieve measurable improvements in soil health. Short-term funding significantly impairs long-term soil health and carbon sequestration research.
Research expertise and infrastructure are also critical. Fiscal pressures mean that universities are not replacing researchers as they retire, and this creates critical gaps. It also means that the teaching load is pushed onto the researchers who remain, which means that they have less time to spend on research. Core institutional funding for agriculture needs to be rejuvenated so that we can hire researchers and bolster infrastructure. Science-based production and management practices need to be adopted by producers as well. Over the past decade, our industry has made significant investments to develop an effective, producer-focused extension programming. We also look forward to working with the new Living Laboratories program that is focused on best practices for soil carbon sequestration and health.
In closing, I would like to summarize. Canada’s beef industry is a significant contributor to the health of Canada’s soils, but we need to focus on maintaining grasslands, appropriately valuing the ecosystem services they provide and continuing to enhance the overall sustainability of the industry. Research and innovation are critical to achieving these goals. This will require more government and industry investment focused on research capacity, infrastructure and long-term, consistent program funding to encourage and incentivize producer adoption of beneficial practices. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We will now begin with questions from senators. Each question period exchange will be seven minutes long. That includes the question and the answer.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators to not lean in too closely to the microphones, and especially not if you are wearing a translation earpiece. Please do not let that earpiece get close to the microphone because that causes feedback, and that is very hard on our translation services.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Many thanks to our witnesses for their presentation. It was very interesting.
[English]
I want to ask a question about grazing and the changes around going to a more conventional way of doing things when it comes to grazing, to moving to a model that is more — and I’m not an expert in that, but I have been reading on regenerative grazing and rotation grazing.
I’m interested in knowing a few things: How does it work, exactly? How good are we in Canada at transitioning to that? What are the impacts to the organizations and the owners? How much does it cost, and do we help them? Many questions.
Ms. Brocklebank: I can start with that. I wear two hats. I’m also a producer, and we do rotational grazing. We used to not.
Basically, rotational or regenerative grazing is focused on moving animals into a smaller area, so usually more fencing, and then intensely grazing and moving them off to allow significant rest periods before you move them back on.
The benefit of this is that you are challenging the pasture, and then you are allowing it to rest and recover instead of consistently challenging it. This is very natural. This is the way the buffalo used to do it on the Prairies, where they would go to an area, and then they would move off and leave it. This is how grass responds well, really thrives and contributes to biodiversity and those other things.
In terms of getting producers to do it, a lot of it is extension, which we are very focused on making sure that we are teaching those things. But it is also really important to know that a lot of producers have to factor in the labour required when you are moving animals more frequently and the infrastructure required, such as fencing and watering systems with watering probably being the biggest one.
That is where it’s really important that if we want to encourage those practices, we need to work with producers. In times of drought, obviously, plans change, especially when it came to water. That was one of the biggest factors. Really trying to work to build up that infrastructure for producers, I think, is very important.
From a research standpoint, too, we are recognizing you can improve pastures. You can add legumes to tame pastures, which enhance productivity, so encouraging producers to consider that. I know that when we have done that on our operation, we have been able to increase the number of animals that can graze, which is a win-win for producing more beef from the same amount of land but also for producers.
That’s where we are really focused on breeding new forages that enhance that productivity.
Mr. Bergen: The only thing I would add to that is that the grazing practices that work in one region may not work exactly the same in different regions. That means that research needs to be tested in a wide variety of different environments across the country because cattle are raised all across the country.
The other thing I would add to that is, on the research side, that’s where the long-term research really comes in. If you happen to do a research project in this region, and it coincides with three years of drought or three years of heavy precipitation, that won’t reflect necessarily what may happen over a 10, 15 or 30-year time span, and so long-term research is critical.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
Just to dive in a little bit more, let’s say a producer wants to transition. Do they get enough information, incentive and support? I would assume it is expensive, and you need to know how to do it. Is there a need for more support, or is everybody okay?
Ms. Brocklebank: It is definitely a shift on a few levels. In terms of access to information, extension services have really diminished across the country in terms of the previous government models. I think there are industry associations, including ourselves, and regional forage associations trying to build that up. I think there is further support, and we look to the Living Laboratories as a potential opportunity, but really trying to enable producers.
One of the things we have seen that I think is worthwhile considering from a program perspective long-term is the grazing mentorship programs, where producers are working with other producers, because producers who have been innovative and adopt it in a certain region understand the dynamics of that ecoregion and can work with other producers.
In terms of moving forward with the investments, whether it is fencing infrastructure, seed, all of that, there is definitely opportunity to incentivize that. Forage improvement takes many years. It doesn’t happen overnight, and it is hard to see those quick returns. That’s what is sometimes encouraged, conversion of land to crop land. Yet, we know those ecosystem services provided, the carbon sequestration and all of that, so I think that is where we are really focused as an industry in trying to do research to help assign values to those so they can be valued and incentivized for producers because currently they aren’t.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our witnesses.
Industrialized meat production has grown significantly in the last 50 years, and that is not all just beef. There are other sources of meat. I have to admit, I’m one of the consumers of beef. There is nothing better than a nice steak with a well-paired bottle of wine.
I have a few questions that I think require short answers, and I appreciate the chair giving us the extra time.
How much of all agricultural land in Canada is used for industrial livestock production, and how much of that is beef or cattle?
Mr. Bergen: I can take a shot at that. I would have to get back to you on the specific percentage of Canada’s agricultural land that is devoted to beef production. It is significant. The breakdown between intensive and extensive or, I guess, as you are referring to it, industrialized versus more pasture-based, that I’m not sure I can get.
What I can tell you in high-level terms is that intensive production has a much land footprint because we graze more cattle with fewer resources.
The other aspect of this, and I’m sure Andrea Brocklebank can chime in — sorry, you want short answers; I don’t give those — but the two systems are not mutually exclusive. They work very much hand in hand. The ranch-based production where the cow‑calf family grows leads into the intensive livestock production where the cattle are raised from 400 or 500 pounds up to the point where they are ready to eat.
We have the extensive production system that can make use of low-quality land that isn’t productive and doesn’t lend itself toward crop production, which then meshes with the more intensive side that is very heavily reliant on crop production because that’s where by-products or grains that are not fit for human consumption can then be used for food production through livestock.
Does that help answer the question?
Senator Klyne: Yes, and then some. I’m really focused on the impact of land and soil, but I appreciate the rest of the comment.
Ms. Brocklebank: I think the one really important thing on that is that about 70% of an animal’s life is spent consuming forage. We often have this perception that they are in the feedlots for a long time, when, in fact, 70% is on grasslands or feeding forage from those. That’s the part in terms of soil health and carbon sequestration that is important.
Senator Klyne: I don’t know if you capture this data, or if you have started to measure it — I don’t know how long this has been an important issue with the cattle sector — but what is the loss of arable land due to overgrazing?
Mr. Bergen: That’s one of those things we don’t know the answer to. What we do try to track is adoption of production practices, and what we do know is that rotational grazing is practised by about 50% of producers. But rotational grazing has a lot of different definitions, and there is only so much we can actually read into that.
Senator Klyne: Just on that, how many cattle farmers or ranchers use monoculture to meet demand?
Mr. Bergen: I would say zero.
Senator Klyne: Is that something that is more prevalent in the U.S.?
Mr. Bergen: Pastures are not monoculture by definition. There are multiple different plants in a pasture. Even when cattle are in the feed lot, they are being fed mixed diets.
Senator Klyne: Good. This is probably an issue I have never really thought of as an issue, especially when I drive through the Kahkewistahaw area, but has meat consumption incentivized any companies to start looking at clear-cut forestry to make more pasture land?
Mr. Bergen: I would say no. One of the interesting things we are seeing is that forestry and cattle production are things that go hand in hand. That when forests are harvested, before that land is re-seeded, grass grows and cattle are an effective way of managing the plant growth there while the trees recover. We can get into that in more detail if you like.
Ms. Brocklebank: We have been doing work with the forestry sector on strip grazing in forestry, and exploring how that improves tree production because there is greater access to sunlight for trees. Also, the forage between the strips has improved. There are also fire prevention benefits. We have seen the opportunity there.
Senator Klyne: We have been hearing from a lot of the grains and cereals side of the farming equation that they are looking at a number of best practices, but there seem to be some laggards or late adopters of some of these practices. Looking at the cattle farmers, it is pretty easy for somebody to say avoid overgrazing, find alternative water delivery systems or go to pasture management. However, I think the costs of running a cattle operation are probably pretty tight as it is and then to start to introduce this adds to that cost.
Are most of the cattle people conscious of some of these practices of avoiding overgrazing, alternative water systems or pasture management, or are there a lot that are outliers and just not following those practices?
Ms. Brocklebank: I think a lot are aware. I think it is helping them to implement it on their farms because each area and each farm is unique. Sometimes, figuring out with works within them is challenging whether it is drought or labour ability, and so on. However, it is also giving them the economic analysis to support why they should do that to help them profitability-wise.
The Deputy Chair: The next question will be from me. We heard from witnesses a week or two ago about the desirability to have mixed grazing. I pictured this image that there would be cattle, but also sheep, goats and maybe bison. I thought that sounded lovely and bucolic, but I don’t know of any ranches that operate that way.
What can each of you tell me about whether having a variety of different kinds of grazing animals as a strategy for a kind of rotational management is actually a plausible scenario?
Mr. Bergen: It can be, but it is pretty uncommon.
Ms. Brocklebank: Speaking from a producer perspective, handling each of those animals is quite different and requires different infrastructure, as well as quite a bit more logistics. When you talk to producers who often have off-farm jobs, as well as navigating the infrastructure required, that is where the cost equation lies. It would have to clearly be understood what the benefits are versus the cost. I think it might be tough to demonstrate that, at least in the near-term.
Where we see opportunity in terms of upgrading approaches is more on rotational grazing and improving pastures, for example, adding legumes fix nitrogen and that adds in terms of productivity. It is on the pasture side that we want to add diversity, not the livestock side.
Mr. Bergen: It is not uncommon to see mixed species grazing together on livestock operations. It is just often not other domestic species. There is often a lot of deer out there that are sharing the pasture.
The Deputy Chair: Deer and elk and that sort of thing.
Dr. Bergen, I was struck by something you said about the lack of reinvestment in the academy in agricultural research. We have heard from a lot of different academics over the last month or so talking about the need for some kind of coordinated sharing of data. However, you are the first witness who flagged for us a very different and important concern about a lack of funding for universities to fund pure, long-term research in the sciences and in agricultural science.
Could you explore that theme in more depth? I don’t know if you have any numbers or if this is an anecdotal observation about lack of funding for this kind of research in the academy.
Ms. Brocklebank: We absolutely have the experience. We fund research of priority to industry. In cases especially around, say, forage productivity and soil health, we ask for proposals but don’t get the proposals we want. In part, the researchers working in this area are already fully allocated and you can only hire so many post-docs and students underneath each research. What we have heard directly from them is that when people retire — and universities are facing fiscal pressure; that is one of the ways to deal with it — it increases the teaching loads elsewhere.
I also think the challenge is that researchers spend a lot of time trying to knit together program funding, and these are long-term programs. If they have to get provincial funding, federal funding, industry funding — and you’re doing that on a three-year cycle — you spend a lot more on administration of research funding than you are actually doing research.
In certain areas, we are very much realists in the sense that you don’t get meaningful results in less than five years. That results in a lot of uncertainty for our researchers, and their focus has been more on the program funding side. A lot of the new programs coming out are three years or less in length. This is a difficult way to knit together programs.
Mr. Bergen: The other thing I would emphasize is that is particularly important when it comes to soil research because it can take decades to see changes.
The Deputy Chair: You made an excellent point earlier about the fact if your study happens over three years in which the weather is not average, you are not going to get a consistent result that you can extrapolate for a different climate season.
Senator Mockler: According to our research — and I will ask both of the witnesses this question — in an October 25, 2022, appearance before this committee, University of Toronto Professor Sean Thomas said:
. . . there are large areas of peat soils in northern Canada that characteristically have very high organic matter and carbon content . . . Canada has a responsibility to protect its peat soils.
I know the challenges we have in Atlantic Canada and even in parts of Quebec. To what extent is the degradation of Canada’s peat lands by drainage under agriculture and forestry a threat to these soils and their rich biodiversity. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Bergen: I don’t. Typically, those are not the areas where beef production happens. However, when it comes to wetlands, wetland drainage is a significant environmental concern, partly because of the impacts on watersheds. This huge overland flooding that we’ve seen on occasion in recent years is largely because a significant amount of wetland has been drained for agricultural production on cultivated land.
Those wetlands act as a sponge, and so when there is a big flood, they can absorb them. When there is a drought, they can release that moisture to the surrounding area, which works really well on rangelands, but it gets in the way of tractors and cultivators.
The other thing those wetlands do is they provide a lot of wildlife habitat, especially for migratory birds. I can’t speak to the peat soils, but I can speak to the wetlands, the importance of them, both environmentally as well as for the beef industry and the role the beef industry has in preserving and maintaining them.
Senator Mockler: I’ll go to another presenter and comments he made on October 6, 2022, before our Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. University of Guelph Associate Professor Asim Biswas remarked that Canada needs a national advocate for soil health.
My question would be: What would be the role of a national advocate for soil health, with your experiences across Canada?
Mr. Bergen: That’s a little bit tough to answer. We don’t have an advocate for soil health, so it’s hard to say what the role or benefit would be.
What I would say is that in the agricultural community, we have thousands of advocates for soil health. Every farmer understands soil health.
Senator Mockler: That’s right.
Ms. Brocklebank: I think the one approach I would take on it is understanding the complementarity of sectors across Canada. We rely on the crop sector for their by-products to feed in the feedlots. Likewise, beef plays an important role in terms of utilizing lands and feed that can’t be utilized elsewhere.
With that, there is public perception that grazing lands would be better off without cattle on them, and, in fact, we know — and we work with Ducks Unlimited and others such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada because they recognize beef actually encourages biodiversity. When we talk about a national soil health advocate, it’s really looking at how we communicate around agriculture to the public and advocate the role we play around things like carbon sequestration and soil health.
While we definitely know we need to continue to reduce our environmental footprint, we also know the complementarity of what we contribute in terms of carbon and biodiversity. That definitely needs more communication with our public who don’t understand agriculture and the technologies we’re using.
Mr. Bergen: The other thing I would add to that quickly is that in terms of the complementarity between beef and crop production, they often occur on the same operation. It’s oftentimes that a crop farmer will also have cattle, so they’re not facing off.
Senator Mockler: Our chair just raised it, and I want to raise it again, and I would like to have your comments on it, if we can be more specific.
First, I want to tell you where I come from. In Atlantic Canada or New Brunswick, the best inventors in the world or in Canada are farmers.
That said, we have a problem about sharing data with our stakeholders. What would you do if you have to put in place a structure to share data and to identify best practices? What would you do with all the farmers, and how would you do that?
Ms. Brocklebank: I think that goes back to the extension networks we need to build up. They were heavily diminished in terms of the traditional model, and I don’t think we need to go back to that model. But producers are inventive, and one of the things our organization has done is actually look at what producers are doing on farm and try to amplify it to other farmers.
We can have a researcher talk to a producer about a technology, and they’ll nod and understand, but if another producer shares their experience, that’s where the questions will go because they trust the science, but they want to know how it was adopted and implemented.
I think we really have an opportunity through the Living Laboratories, but through other programs as well, to support that extension and adoption process, which very much involves working directly with producers, encouraging producer mentorship and encouraging producers to engage with researchers because researchers need to understand what producers are dealing with. There is a very important role to that lab level or technical level of research, but if it’s not relevant to on farm, then it’s just very expensive.
That’s one of the things we see because what we’re doing is on a very small scale due to limited funding, so I think there is the opportunity to amplify that.
Senator Cotter: My apologies for missing your presentations. I was doing the nation’s business in a small way somewhere else.
I was particularly interested in the discussion and observations that you may have made about research, research funding and availability of research capacity in universities, in particular. I am thinking of this almost with a bifocal dimension to it.
Let me just say in prelude, I spent some time with the Deputy Minister of Agriculture for Saskatchewan a few years ago discussing the relationship of the Government of Saskatchewan’s agriculture department with the university and university research. I’m sure this is true across the country, but they invest a significant amount in agricultural research from the university. Their frustration was that they wanted timely responses to projects that agriculture academics believed would take longer periods of time.
My guess is that, as diplomatically as possible, you might say the same thing, and maybe did. I’m wondering, therefore, whether for industry-invested research, so that it has a commercial value in not too long a period of time, we might see that funded and supported by industry — and in some cases, perhaps, government — but for long-term projects, the return on value really is a public question, and, therefore, those investments — the big ones and the long-term ones — ought to come from public sources?
I would invite both Ms. Brocklebank and Mr. Bergen to comment on that, if you would.
Ms. Brocklebank: I can start.
I think you’re right. We provide funding to a lot of research, and often we focus on what I would call the near-term applied work that producers can see a direct benefit from because producers are funding it. We have recognized at points where we do need to invest in the longer-term research as well, but it is harder to see that benefit.
Some of that work, there is a broader public good benefit. When we’re looking at soil health, the contribution to carbon sequestration, biodiversity and all these things, that is a public good, as well, so I think there is a role to be played in terms of that public investment. Previously through Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada, ag-based research funding was very much in this area, and that has diminished significantly in terms of access to funding. In most cases, industry leverage is required to trigger a lot of government funding at this point — so that is industry investment — and that just pushes your pipeline toward that more applied research. You have to feed that pipeline. You have to have the longer-term research to actually get that near-term applied, so we have this funding challenge, absolutely.
Senator Cotter: Thank you.
Mr. Bergen, do you have any thoughts on this?
Mr. Bergen: Yes, really, to reiterate what Ms. Brocklebank just said, it is a spectrum or a continuum. The short-term applied stuff comes out from the long-term basic research. You can’t have one without the other.
The other thing that I would point out is, yes, I agree — we generally take the same approach, that the stuff that is really long-term, basic and for the public good, there is definitely more of a role for the public funders in that sphere. However, we need to remember that public funders are also under pressure to demonstrate the value of what they’re doing.
They can be really tempted to focus on the short-term stuff with immediate gains, and can be tempted to neglect that long‑term stuff, too. That is an ongoing concern.
Senator Cotter: I don’t have another question, just an observation on your last comment, Mr. Bergen. Deputy ministers of agriculture are also accountable to someone for the results of the investment of public money. The answer that you give to your minister — that we will have some really interesting information in 20 years’ time — is a difficult answer to give. Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much for being here today. I arrived late, so I didn’t hear your presentation. Forgive me for that. Given the work with representatives from all over the provinces, what would you say is the number one challenge that producers face? What can the government do to help producers address this challenge?
Ms. Brocklebank: Well, our industry is a complex one. I think our number one challenge is cow-calf profitability. Without calves being born on farm, our feedlot sector is challenged and then our processing sector is challenged. Cow-calf profitability comes down to a few key dynamics. One is adequate feed, and things like drought and flood have really challenged that. We have seen more volatility in our climate. This is challenging producers to make sure they can be sustainable and economically viable.
Another challenge we have as an industry is access to labour. Whether that be family labour or hired labour, a lot of our operations rely heavily on that. It informs when they adopt new technologies because often adoption of new innovations or practices require labour, and in many cases that is a challenge.
Our third challenge is ensuring that there is access to adequate land. Obviously, demand for agricultural resources continues to go up, and cattle have kind of been forced to move into more marginal land, which we utilize quite well, but making sure that they have access to new forage varieties to increase the productivity of that land is really important as well as access to tools to assist them in terms of that.
Senator Jaffer: I want to follow up with that. Labour is an issue for farmers all across Canada. There is a real shortage of labour. I would imagine with dairy cattle, with the technology and the machinery you have, it would be very difficult to get help, and government is bringing the temporary workers. What is the solution?
Ms. Brocklebank: I think for the beef industry, which we represent, one of the biggest things is new technologies. Even on our own operation, we have been looking at the use of drones to check water and fences. My son can fly them better than everyone else on the place. It helps. Encouraging and looking at new technologies that can assist producers is definitely something we need to continue to do. Some of that is about the learning curve of new technologies, but some of it is refining them to operate.
One of the unique dynamics we just experienced yesterday is huge snowstorms. Technology needs to operate at plus 40 and minus 30, at least. That’s one of the challenges. Technology sounds great in certain cases, but if it doesn’t work for the farmer year-round that is an issue. It is making sure they also understand how quickly they can pay off that capital investment as well.
Senator Jaffer: You touched on extreme weather, like floods, drought and heat waves. I come from B.C. and we face this a lot. In recent years, what has been the impact of extreme climate events on the meat and dairy sector in Canada?
Ms. Brocklebank: I live southwest of Calgary, and we grass yearlings throughout the summer months. Usually we grass them basically from June to September. Two years ago, we had to pull them off July 16. That was a very difficult choice we had to make. It was to maintain the health of our grasslands because if you overgraze it takes years to recover. But from an economic standpoint, it was a very significant hit to our operation.
That is the challenge producers face. If they want to maintain the health of their grasses, grasslands and forages, they often have to make tough economic choices and that isn’t always feasible if they don’t have enough capital or equity in their operations. That is where we see farmers deciding to move along, in terms of either moving away from farming or move into crop production or something else. Even crop production has faced that challenge as well.
Mr. Bergen: The other thing I would add is that while Ms. Brocklebank was making decisions about whether she could keep cattle on her pasture in early July, in Manitoba, producers were hoping they could get their cattle onto pasture because they had been underwater for months. It is the extremes — floods and droughts. Often at the same time in different places.
Senator Jaffer: We have had those extremes in B.C., and it has been very challenging. I was wondering what it was like in the cattle industry. Thank you very much.
Senator Petitclerc: I have a two-part question. Thank you, once again, for your answers. Depending on where and what you read, it takes from seven kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of beef down to, in some places, 2.5-kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of beef. That obviously comes with an environmental price. Where does Canada stand in that grain to beef ratio?
The other question I have is in the same category. I’m reading that New Zealand has almost entirely grass-fed cattle. Now, I understand the climate differences, but is it something that we are aiming for — to go more and more grass fed — or is it just not possible in Canada?
Ms. Brocklebank: I would say that when we look at Canada, we have one of the lowest environmental footprints globally for beef production. That is, in part, because of the fact that we feed grain for part of the time. Basically, we can finish animals quicker and that requires less water, produces less manure and allows more beef production per unit in terms of land.
That is not to say that grass-fed production is bad. It is about what access you have. In Canada, we have a lot of access to by‑products and feed grains that cannot be used otherwise for human consumption. Barley that cannot go into the malting industry often goes to the feed industry. I think there is a significant benefit there. That is one of the things we have often tried to communicate — the feeding sector gives us an advantage.
One of the things we have been able to do and we continue to focus on is reducing that environmental footprint. We have been able to see significant reductions over the last 30 years, and we are continuing to focus on that so we can produce more beef for less input.
Mr. Bergen: We don’t specifically look at the amount of grain used for the amount of beef, but the amount of feed used for the amount of beef. One thing we have been able to document is that, over time in Canada, it has gone from about 15 pounds of feed to produce a pound of animal to around five now. As Ms. Brocklebank indicated, that means two things. It means fewer resources to grow a pound of beef, it means they are getting to market sooner and there is less methane produced. As she indicated, it is allowing us to upcycle.
Humans can’t consume grass at all. We can’t grow on that. Also, grain that isn’t fit for human consumption can be upcycled through cattle. Therefore, we are taking feed and by-products that would otherwise be useless and turning it into high-quality protein through cattle.
You had a question around New Zealand too. You sort of answered your own question. We can’t grow grass all year round, so we can’t finish cattle on grass all year round. In Canada, we have been able to develop ways to keep more of the cow herd out on pasture all year round. They can graze in winter more, which means a lot less fossil fuel being used to harvest hay, bale hay, haul hay and feed it to cows. We let the cattle go out and harvest it for themselves.
The Deputy Chair: I’m going to take a chance to ask a couple of questions. Thinking about my own province of Alberta, in particular, southern Alberta. The Palliser Expedition came through long ago and said there should be no agriculture in the Pallister Triangle. We have defied that prediction and used irrigation to make that some of the most productive land in the country. However, as the climate continues to change, do we think some of that grazing land in the Palliser Triangle will not continue to be used for grazing? Furthermore, if there are lands that are currently under cultivation, will they cease to be practical for farming and be converted into grazing land?
Mr. Bergen: I can take a shot at that. I think what the Palliser Expedition said was this land is not suitable for cultivation. It’s rangeland and that’s what it should be. It was grazed by buffalo at the time. Cattle have filled the niche that buffalo had. There will always be room for grazing. With climate change, some of the management practices will undoubtedly continue to evolve to reflect the environmental challenges and limitations.
Ms. Brocklebank: I think you are right, we may have to graze fewer animals at certain points. When we started getting involved in the operation, I’m an economist by training and I want things black and white. My father very clearly told me there is no black and white in this. What works one year may not necessarily work the next year, and you may have to do a third thing the following year.
We are working with producers, looking at their land and making decisions based on that and on the climate around them. With greater volatility, that makes it tougher because we have to continue to evolve with that volatility. We know grazing stimulates growth at the end of the day, and that is important. Removing cattle entirely is actually not positive for grasslands and carbon sequestration. But absolutely, changes will have to happen to recognize changes in climate.
The Deputy Chair: You talked, Ms. Brocklebank, at the beginning about forest grazing. As the climate changes, could that be part of balancing the portfolio of options? To what extent in the Prairie west are people grazing on Crown land, whether that is grassland or forest?
Ms. Brocklebank: I think there is opportunity. Inherently, when the discussion first started, taking strips out of forestry production for foraging felt like a loss in terms of forestry. However, the research we are doing is helping us understand how it improves the opportunity for grass not only for cattle, but also for the forestry production right beside it. Looking at long‑term forest health in terms of fire mitigation and valuing the benefits of that, cattle have become known to be helpful in terms of fire mitigation, cleaning up undergrowth and those types of things near urban areas.
Cattle are a pretty robust species and can be used in a lot of different areas. How we graze in Eastern Canada is very different from how they graze in B.C. It is partly why you see different breeds of cattle being used. When you are walking the hills of B.C., it is very different than Eastern Canada.
The industry will continue to evolve. It’s opportunistic. If there is feed available, you see that evolve. It is encouraging recognition of those additional benefits that we can provide in those landscapes like forestry that are important.
The Deputy Chair: To what extent are people grazing on Crown land versus privately held land?
Ms. Brocklebank: I don’t know the breakdown of that. I would have to look. Crown lands are very important in many areas, particularly in Alberta, and access to them. Again, cattle play an important role in terms of helping in maintaining and sustaining those grasslands, but I don’t know the percentages.
Mr. Bergen: I don’t know those either.
The Deputy Chair: Are there any final questions from the senators? Seeing none, I want to thank Ms. Brocklebank and Dr. Bergen for your participation today. Your assistance with our study is very much appreciated.
If you want to listen to the second half of the meeting, you are welcome to stay on the call, but we would ask you to turn off your microphones and cameras as we continue. Thank you very much again.
Mr. Bergen: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: On our second panel, from CropLife Canada, are Pierre Petelle, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Ian Affleck, Vice President, Biotechnology. From Fertilizer Canada, Cassandra Cotton, Vice President, Policy and Programs.
I invite you to make your presentations. You will each have five minutes for your opening remarks. I will signal by raising one hand when you have one minute left and two hands when your time is up. Mr. Petelle, your presentation, please.
Pierre Petelle, President and Chief Executive Officer, CropLife Canada: Thank you to all of the senators for having us here today. It is a pleasure to be here in person after many years of being on Zoom. We are very appreciative of being here today.
CropLife Canada is the trade association that represents the developers, manufacturers and distributors of both crop protection solutions as well as modern plant-breeding innovations that farmers use to produce the crops that we rely on.
As the committee chair knows, it has been over 35 years since the Senate last embarked on a study like this. Needless to say, much has changed in Canadian agriculture. Productivity and exports have grown exponentially, and modernization has made the sector radically different. Canadian farmers are facing both stiffer global competition and the growing pressures of climate change. Through all of this, the importance of soil health to the long-term future of Canadian agriculture remains. What we would like to outline are the ways in which modern agriculture have been a net benefit to soil health in Canada, and will continue to be if we are allowed to build on that success.
It is important to put Canadian agriculture in a global context. Agriculture accounts for 8% of Canadian emissions, but 23% globally. Today’s Canadian farm can produce twice as much output as 50 years ago, with the same total input. While production has increased significantly, total emissions from Canada’s agriculture sector have been relatively stable for 20 years, resulting in a decrease of greenhouse gas emission intensity of 50% from 1997 to 2017.
Due to the adoption of soil conservation practices, agricultural soils in Canada have been sequestering carbon for 20 years. Advancements in biotechnology and crop protection products have helped make pesticide use in Canada more efficient and address key climate change concerns. The advent of precision agriculture has now allowed farmers to be more targeted than ever in their pesticide applications, which directly supports their soil conservation efforts.
As much as 33 million acres are maintained in a natural state due to plant science innovations, which preserves wildlife habitats and biodiversity. Without plant science innovations, farmers would need 44% more land to produce what they are producing today. Far from being a threat to biodiversity, modern agriculture is one of the solutions protecting it.
Modern agricultural practices are also helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change concerns. No-till and conservation tillage practices help prevent carbon from escaping the soil, preventing some 16.5 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide from being released into the air since 1996.
Canadian farmers continue to increase their no-till acres. We’ll explain further what “no-till” and “conservation tillage” is later. Those practices have significantly increased, especially in Western Canada where over 70% of the land is now under no-till or conservation tillage practices.
Reduced fuel use due to no-till and conservation tillage practices have prevented 3.3 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere between 1996 and 2018. We talk about tillage because weeds are the enemy of no-till farming. Without herbicide-tolerant traits and effective herbicides like glyphosate, this progress would not have been possible. No-till systems can reduce soil runoff by close to 80% while also increasing plant nutrients in the soil. More than 80% of farmland in Canada is now at a very low risk of soil erosion. This is a large improvement from 40 years ago when soil erosion was a significant issue. No-till and conservation tillage practices increase organic matter in the soil and increase in soil microbes as well.
A recent study was undertaken on genetically edited crops and carbon sequestration in the Prairies, comparing today’s data to that of 30 years ago to measure the impact of modern agriculture. We will be submitting this study to the committee as evidence, and would be pleased to speak to it over the next hour.
While we are proud of the progress that Canadian modern agriculture has made, we are not stopping here in our effort to sustainability and better soil health. There are ongoing investments and continuous research into new biopesticides, precision agriculture and gene editing. Gene editing is a particularly exciting field, as advancements will make it possible to create new traits faster and with less expense to address things like climate change. We believe that Canada can, and should, be an agriculture technology hub for much of this research and development.
We have three recommendations. Like the government, we need to focus on regulatory modernization as a tool to encourage innovation. We’d like to incentivize and reward the efforts made by Canadian farmers, and we’d like to promote the sustainability of Canadian agriculture on the world stage. I can elaborate on those.
The Deputy Chair: We now go to Cassandra Cotton.
Cassandra Cotton, Vice President, Policy and Programs, Fertilizer Canada: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
Fertilizer has been a key factor in boosting crop yields, feeding a growing population and relieving pressure for land use change. At the same time, crop producers and their advisers are under pressure to find ways to reduce emissions while continuing to increase crop yields and soil health. We believe the principles for our nutrient stewardship have much to offer toward this goal.
For over a decade, we have been in partnership with leading scientists, agricultural organizations and provincial governments to implement the 4Rs, namely, applying the right source of fertilizer at the right rate, at the right time and in the right place. The application for our best management practices improves nutrient use efficiency — that is, a measurement of how well crops utilize the nutrient inputs. It results in a reduction of nitrogen surpluses, and can contribute to soil carbon sequestration.
Canadian farmers are leaders in nutrient use efficiency, sitting at 72% compared to our competitors. While we can and should continue to improve, we have much less room than some of our competing countries such as in the EU with a nutrient use efficiency of 61%.
In late 2020, the Canadian government set a voluntary target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer use by 30%. Recently, we released a report assessing the potential adoption of practices that would contribute to this target which points out that the current rate of adoption of 4R practices effective in reducing emissions ranges from 5 to 25%, depending on the practice, the crop and the region within the country.
Reducing absolute emissions from fertilizers by 30% is an immense challenge, and we believe not realistically achievable without imposing significant costs on producers and requiring virtually every acre of fertilized crops in Canada to adopt advanced practices under the 4Rs. However, the outlook is not dire. Assuming continued increasing trends in crop yields and realistic but aggressive adoption rates of 4R practices, we believe a 14% reduction by 2030 is possible with the right investments in place to accelerate adoption.
One of the 4R Nutrient Stewardship components that have had significant interest due to its potential for further innovation is right source. While plants still need the same essential nutrients they’ve needed forever, the fertilizer industry is continuously evolving to meet the challenge of getting those nutrients to the plant the most efficiently. That means optimizing product chemistry to make sure that nutrients are in their most available form for plant uptake, introducing new additives or coatings and creating products that don’t provide plants nutrients directly but offer supplements to indirectly improve conditions in the soil.
In 2021, 14% of nitrogen volume for canola growers, for example, was applied in a protected form. It’s a positive start, and something that we believe we can work to increase. It will be important for regulations to keep pace with science to ensure that farmers have access to these effective fertilizers and supplements. Of course, every farm and every field is different, so 4Rs promote the use of certified crop advisers to help farmers assess their soil conditions and develop customized plans that are site-specific.
In 2021, Fertilizer Canada had over 6 million acres verified under a 4R plan in Canada. We have a goal to achieve 50 million validated acres by 2025.
We have been conducting a fertilizer use survey since 2014 to better understand 4R practice adoption at the farm. This is critical to understanding adoption rates, gaps and trends. For example, 33% of Western Canadian growers report soil testing for nitrogen every year, a key starting point to any 4R plan. However, although almost 60% of respondents are familiar with the concept of 4Rs, only 20% work with a designated agronomist and 6% have a formalized plan in place.
It’s clear we’re not starting from ground zero, but there is more room to do better.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much to both of our witnesses. We are now going to begin with the question-and-answer period.
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our guests. For your presentations, thank you.
My question is for Ms. Cotton of Fertilizer Canada. Through this process of listening to the testimony of expert witnesses like yourself, a recurring item is how soils across this country from coast to coast to coast differ so much by region, not just by province, but region by region.
On your website it notes that plants require 17 essential nutrients in the soil to survive and to grow. I would categorically think that means across any soil condition in the country, and with those vast differences in soil conditions, can a plant survive in soil that has, say, 9 or 10 of these 17 nutrients? Is there a minimum number of nutrients that are required? Do you have data on the differences between soils in the regions, not just in their degradation or their health but also in those which have all the 17 nutrients or those which are considerably lacking?
Ms. Cotton: Sorry, I think I was cutting a bit in and out there, but I think I got the base of your question.
The foundation of the 4Rs relies on being able to tailor your fertilizer plan to the cropping region, the soil and the climatic conditions, and that’s why we depend on a farmer’s relationship with their crop adviser so that they’re implementing the best possible practices.
A key component to a 4R plan is soil testing. It’s the basis of developing a 4R plan — you can understand what the soil already has and what is depleting in the soil, so that you’re starting from that knowledge base. The 4Rs recommend that you soil test annually for nitrogen, and we know that number is starting to increase.
You’re completely correct in that all soils are different and require different things. We’ve seen through our fertilizer use survey, which we’ve been running since 2014 across the country in different regions to understand those practices, that there was in 2021, for example, a lower average nitrogen rate in canola that was applied because of soil testing and accounting for residual nitrogen left in the soil. Rates were adjusted based on that. There were a lot of drought conditions that happened particularly in Western Canada over the last few years, so growers have adjusted their plans for nutrients based on understanding what the soil needs.
I think the fact that we have a significantly higher nutrient use efficiency in Canada than we do in other countries speaks to that as well.
Senator Klyne: Chair, I would like to invite the other witnesses if they have an opinion on this.
With all that data you gather from the soil tests, do you catalogue that and do you see any trends anywhere?
Ms. Cotton: We are definitely seeing trends in uptake in soil tests across Canada. One of the barriers to adoption of that as well is logistics and timing on the farm.
I think we would like to see further investment in giving better tools to growers to test for their soil. Typically, a lot of growers will test in the fall after harvest to understand what’s left in the soil. A lot of times they need to utilize that to look at the next growing season to understand what they need to order in terms of their inputs long before the spring hits. The issue becomes, then, if growers are going to soil test right before planting at spring, which is the ideal time to test your soil to know what the crop will require, logistics and timing are a hindrance to that because of the growing seasons that we have in Canada. I think there’s an opportunity, hopefully, in the innovation space to improve on soil test tools for growers to have a better understanding in that capacity.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Ian Affleck, Vice President, Biotechnology, CropLife Canada: As you mentioned, soils are so different across the country. I grew up on a potato farm on P.E.I. where it’s incredibly sandy, and then I went to university in Guelph where it sticks to your boot and gets to be about half a foot high before you’re out of the field.
But there are consistencies across that, and one is that weeds will grow well in all of them in an agricultural system. Those weeds look to steal those nutrients that you’re looking for those crop plants to get. There are only a few ways to manage the weeds. Historically, prior to having newer technologies, it was to till the soil. The more you turn that soil over, you lose moisture and organic matter and emit more greenhouse gas emissions into the air.
Coming from an input provider point of view of helping farmers with those technologies, this is why innovation, technology and access to choice for farmers become so important. The less you have to disturb the soil to stop those weeds from stealing that or opening the soil up to let the nutrients and organic matter back into the air, the healthier your soils are. That’s why we’ve seen that increase in soil health over the last 20 or 30 years with modern farming practices.
The Deputy Chair: That was a very interesting answer.
Senator Cotter: Thanks very much. I thought, Mr. Affleck, you were describing my lawn when you were talking about the weeds. I now understand why I have so much trouble.
Mr. Affleck and Mr. Petelle, I will ask a couple of questions, and then I’ll sit back and listen as you maybe complete your observations about the three themes you identified as priorities that could make an improvement. You mentioned regulatory modernization, incentivization and promotional sustainability.
Ms. Cotton, that was a very interesting presentation and thank you very much. Could you elaborate on what the techniques are or could be to address the 30% reduction and your observation that only 14% is possible? You observed the percentage of farmers who are annually testing, and I think you said specifically with respect to nitrogen. Senator Black, who is the chair of this committee, and I heard a presentation in the summer that in Northern Ireland, all the farmers are given the opportunity to test their soil. They’re not obliged to, but if they don’t get engaged in a testing and analysis exercise, they will be ineligible for government financial support, which is kind of a rough-edged carrot, if I can call it that. How do we get farmers to be more fully engaged in assessing the quality of their own soil for their sake and these larger public goals?
Mr. Petelle: Thank you very much. I wanted to elaborate on our recommendations, focusing on regulatory modernization as a tool to encourage innovations. I think Mr. Affleck presented it well in the sense that those tools have enabled farmers to do a lot of great things for sustainability and protecting soil health. We need to make sure that our regulatory system is prompt, predictable and science-based, so that it attracts those innovations to Canada.
Many of our members are global companies. Their research dollars are able to move between countries, and our job is to make our members view Canada as the place to invest and bring those technologies to the benefit of farmers.
Canadian farmers are some of the earliest adopters of technology. They’re always willing to try new things and be innovative, so we want to make sure those tools are there for them to try. We have no control of farmers. It has to work for them to adopt it. Some of these techniques and processes you’ve seen are adopted widely by farmers because they work — and word of mouth among the farmers. The things they have done already to improve their own soil health need to be recognized by government policy.
The last one was really around — we heard some statistics from Fertilizer Canada and from the beef sector earlier. Canada does a lot of things really well in agriculture compared to its competitors around the world. We, as a sector, want to make sure our government is aware of that and is touting those things internationally so that our export markets can really see the benefits of Canadian agriculture.
Ms. Cotton: On your first question about the techniques to address a 30% target, we essentially used a series of regional scenarios for major cropping systems across Canada to build out what broader implementation would look like. We looked at a Prairie wet and dry, and we did Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island. We looked at those practices that currently have had some success on adoption rates under the 4Rs and those with the biggest opportunity for impact in reducing emissions — things like split apply, utilizing enhanced efficiency products and some other practices. It didn’t encompass every single practice — just those with the biggest opportunity for a shorter‑term uptake. So, for example, it didn’t include something like banding versus broadcast mostly due to the fact that we suspect the capital investment required for equipment and things like that will take a longer-term timeline to implement compared to 2030.
Senator Cotter: Can I interrupt and ask a question? Is there a publicly available report that could be provided to us so we can understand those techniques and strategies a little bit better?
Ms. Cotton: Yes, absolutely. There is an executive summary as well as the full study. I’m happy to have the study authors provide a full breakdown as well. There was also an economic analysis tied to that, which I think is also important in order to understand the cost-benefit to the grower of adopting these practices.
Senator Cotter: What about the percentages of farmers that do testing and the large percentage that don’t do testing? Have you any thoughts on that?
Ms. Cotton: Yes. In terms of how we get farmers to engage in increasing soil testing, I think at the end of the day it comes down to promoting practices that provide agronomic benefit to the grower and a return on investment. A lot of what a grower needs to see in terms of adopting some of these practices and sharing data is an opportunity to turn the societal benefit they’re providing in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through these practices that cost more money — they need to see incentives and benefits. We like to talk about that in terms of turning carbon into a commodity for growers, offering them rewards and incentives for those practice changes.
Senator Cotter: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: If you have a copy of that report that you can send to the clerk to table with the committee, that would be terrific.
Ms. Cotton: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Jaffer: My origin is African, and I come from Africa. The only thing we learned in school about Canada was the great farmers and the great farmlands that you have. The farmers used to come to Uganda to teach our farmers. There was a lot of teaching. I’m wondering — I’m asking this question of both of you — if you do work internationally to share your knowledge. You’ve acquired so much knowledge. Are you sharing it internationally? What kind of work are you doing internationally? Mr. Petelle, you talked about world innovation coming into Canada, but what about us taking it outside of Canada?
Mr. Petelle: Excellent question. I can start, and Mr. Affleck can add. CropLife Canada is part of an affiliate of CropLife sister organizations around the world. There is a CropLife Africa Middle East, and my counterpart there does a lot of the same things we do — trying to explain the innovations to people who maybe don’t understand them and also encouraging those innovations to the benefit of the African farmers.
About Africa specifically, they’re just on the cusp of adopting some of the techniques that we’ve widely adopted here. A lot of that is, frankly, due to the European influence on Africa and Europeans’ decision to not go forward with some of the genetic modification tools that we’ve widely adopted here. However, some of the potential in Africa is starting to become unleashed, and we’re starting to see traits being approved. Kenya has recently eliminated its moratorium on genetically edited crops, and I think there is a lot of excitement in those regions because the potential and impact it has is life changing. I’ve spoken to farmers in Africa who say that one year of having access to proper fertilizer, crop protection tools and good seed means they can send their kids to school and build a house. It has life‑changing impacts. So yes, we certainly want to see these innovations in those places that have so much potential.
Senator Jaffer: Ms. Cotton, did you want to add anything?
Ms. Cotton: Yes. In terms of the 4R Nutrient Stewardship program, it has been a Canadian innovation. It’s something I think we should be proud of in Canada in terms of the framework and how it was built out. Since its inception, it has been translated into over 40 languages and utilized internationally. So while it’s very site-specific, the framework is very much broad.
In terms of influence in Africa, we actually have a $17 million project to 2024 in partnership with the Government of Canada called the 4R Solution project, working in Ghana, Ethiopia and Senegal with 80,000 smallholder farmers to implement the 4Rs there and build resilience, incomes and food security with those farmers. We’re looking to extend that project beyond 2024 into some other countries as well. Certainly in terms of food insecurity, providing that extension service and knowledge sharing to those farmers is extremely important.
Senator Jaffer: I wasn’t so much asking that question because I’m African to see how you’re helping Africa, so I’ll follow up and ask if we are able to use or sell our export innovations to countries that don’t have them so that our exports increase. Besides sharing knowledge, are we able to trade as well?
Mr. Affleck: I can answer that. I’ve been lucky enough to visit Uganda and see the potato fields and the mountains. Coming from a potato farm, that’s very interesting to me.
When it comes to exporting and — as Mr. Petelle mentioned — the influence of other countries who haven’t adopted innovation as rapidly, one thing we need to export first is our modern, science-based regulatory approaches. If we can export a regulatory approach that is grounded in science and truth, then a country can adopt the technologies and be willing to import Canadian products into their country. Then their farmers have the same access to the tools our farmers have. An unfortunate reality is that Canadian farmers have the great advantage of having access to technology, and, unfortunately, some of the farmers in the countries where we export don’t have that same access. While that is a benefit for us, it is very unfortunate to see those farmers disadvantaged in access. The first step is for Canada to continue to be a scientific leader in its regulatory programs and help others see that so we can have free-flowing trade between those countries.
Senator Jaffer: My other question has nothing to do with what I asked. Maybe I’ll go on second round.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My question doesn’t really pertain to our study, but it’s about something of great interest to me. You invested in a product and you sell that product on the marketplace in a rapidly evolving world. So that’s how I will frame my question.
We know that environmental research and studies are being done. Organizations like Équiterre have shown us that when it comes to agriculture, about 70% of greenhouse gas emissions are produced by nitrogen-based fertilizers. We know all of that. We also have consumers who, like me, are becoming better informed, and they want to know what they’re eating and how it was produced.
Canada has set targets with the provinces, and they may well turn into limitations.
As a business, as an organization, I wonder how you’re reinventing yourself to make sure that your business model remains viable, of course, and can adapt to this shifting market and these shifting requirements.
[English]
Mr. Petelle: I’ll take a first stab at that, and Mr. Affleck can add from an actual grower perspective.
The prime goal for us is that the system remain science-based and that ideology doesn’t take its space. If you’re talking about data in terms of production systems, we’ve got the data that shows the adoption of modern practices, including genetically edited technology and proper use of herbicides, has enabled millions of acres of no-till and conservation tillage which has had tremendous environmental benefits. Those points are irrefutable. As long as we keep the discussion of science and fact-based decision making, our industry is continually adapting and evolving.
We often hear about transformation or the need to transform our food system. We actually think that word is misleading because it gives a negative connotation about what is happening today. We see it more as an evolution. If we look at evolution in agriculture over the past 30 years, it is tremendous. However, if you take an ideological position and say we should not produce this way or produce that way based on ideology and not on science, that is going to create significant risks.
The public is torn between an information overload in social media and misinformation. I think the government — certainly, we do our part — has a role to play in terms of correcting a lot of the misinformation that exists out there. Many groups are actively fuelling some of that misinformation. I’ll stop my answer there.
Mr. Affleck: Maybe I can add from a grower point of view or from having grown up on a farm. We live in an age of — and I love hearing this term — “chemophobia” right now where all chemicals are bad. Someone said to me, “How would you feel about calcitriol? Does that sound scary? I’m a scientist. It kind of does.” Well, that’s vitamin D. If you break things down to weird scientific names, they become unfamiliar and uncomfortable. This is where there are opportunities for education about modern agriculture because modern agriculture is science. It’s farmers applying science in our fields every day. Unfortunately, there is a gap between an understanding of the consumer or they haven’t been presented with the information that farming is a high‑science activity. The more we can help bring that information to the consumer, the more comfortable they can be with the food that is on our shelves.
Ms. Cotton: To echo CropLife Canada’s comments in terms of being a science-based organization, we will always continue to be steadfast from that perspective.
I think there is a call happening to understand where our food comes from. While Canada remains and is a leader in that, there are some data gaps and gaps we need to fill to better understand it. If Canada can produce greater yields and better-quality grain without increasing overall emissions and improving our soil health, that’s a competitive advantage for Canada. We should be looking at that in terms of the global benefit that we could be having in terms of increasing soil health, limiting global warming and also encouraging further innovation.
Senator Mockler: Mr. Affleck, I was surprised when you said you’re from Prince Edward Island and you didn’t mention New Brunswick.
I have a few questions related to “science-based” and also looking at our regions of Canada. I agree with you, Mr. Petelle, that Canada is the best in the world when it comes to agriculture if you look per capita at what we’re producing.
When you talk about “science-based,” that is important. It is the path forward if we want to compete. We do a lot of things very well. I would like you to expand on that a bit.
I would also like you to be more specific. If you look at the five regions of Canada — Eastern Canada or Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Western Canada, B.C., and even Northern Canada, can we share best practices and data which is science‑based? You represent the industry. On a scale of 1 to 5, where could we improve? Who’s leading the charge and in what domain, if possible? There are a lot of questions in those two comments, but I’ll leave it to the specialists.
The Deputy Chair: They have five minutes to answer.
Mr. Petelle: I don’t know if I want to go on record as comparing regions in Canada in terms of where they rank in scores, but I get your point. Earlier, the variability of soil from coast to coast was mentioned. That’s not lost. Some of the examples I gave of the adoption of no-till and conservation tillage is a process that’s a bit easier to do in the Prairies, for example. It’s a little harder to do on a potato farm, for example, where Mr. Affleck is from because you can’t have no-tillage potatoes. It’s not a practical agronomic practice. For certain things, obviously the adoption of which are much more feasible in certain regions than others. That’s why we always say that one solution doesn’t fit every situation. We have to make sure that all innovations are available to all growers across the country, and that we continue to innovate and bring these technologies to them.
In terms of adoption of technologies that have been recent and pretty impressive are some of the things on precision agriculture, for example, digitizing farms. If you look at a combine today and the amount of data it collects, a farmer knows what per square metre the yield is for his or her field. They know the low and the high spots of the field, and some areas that are not worth planting because you’re not getting any productivity out of them. That type of information and data is being widely adopted in all provinces. That helps farmers make informed decisions as to where they’re going to apply which products. There is variable application technology now where the machine will detect those areas and apply the right amount of fertilizer and pesticide to those areas in a variable role. These are phenomenal innovations.
Another one from our sector is gene editing. This is the ability to select plants that are more efficient at fixing nitrogen, for example. You can help achieve some of your fertilizer emission reduction targets just by changing the plant and the way it synthesizes nutrients. That’s just one example. You can have plants that develop deeper, more fibrous roots so they store more carbon in the soil because they go deeper to get more moisture from the soil without changing anything else in the plant. For us, it is exciting to see these innovations and some of the solutions they’ll be able to target at a regional level. With gene editing, the cost and who can play in that space is much broader in genetic modification, which is an extremely expensive process to follow.
That is why you have seen the benefit limited to very large‑acre crops. Now with gene editing, there are public and private researchers, and small companies that are very invested in this, so we are going to see some exciting innovations in that space that will provide real solutions for farmers.
Ms. Cotton: Maybe I’ll just add a comment to that in terms of sharing data and best practices. For us, the key there is really the need to utilize the talent, skills and dedication of Canada’s certified crop adviser community, professional agrologists and field agronomists who are the trusted advisers of Canadian farmers.
We know how busy and difficult it is on the data side to collect that on the side of the farmer. Leaning on that expertise and advice from Canada’s most extensive extension network that already exists is something that we need to do a little more of in order to deliver the message, ensure knowledge-sharing, help farmers collect the right data and utilize it for the right purposes — for those practices that are happening regionally. Because the practices are so different across Canada, we need to have growers working with those experts in the field for those regions to provide them with the best advice — it needs to be that level versus a national approach.
Senator Duncan: Thank you to the witnesses. I apologize that other duties called me in and out of this meeting.
I would like to pick up on a comment from Mr. Petelle. There is data on farming in the Yukon that goes way back to the 1800s. Because the land was under federal control until 2001 when we signed the devolution transfer agreement, some of those records are with the federal government and some are with the Yukon government now. I’m hoping to be able to provide them to this committee.
I just want to flag that for you because agriculture must be considered not just coast to coast, but further north as well. That is true particularly in light of climate change. But even before we were aware of climate change, the crops grown in Dawson are amazing.
I apologize if this question has been asked, but I heard you mention weeds. Is there research or information you would provide on invasive weed species and their control? Perhaps that answer is best provided in writing if that subject has already been covered. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: It hasn’t, so perhaps a short answer followed by a written one would be great.
Mr. Petelle: The northern agricultural element is incredibly interesting. The first thing you have to do is breed crops that are suitable for the amount of sunlight you are getting and things of that nature. That takes a long time. With newer breeding technologies, that timeline can shorten so that crops can be provided that will grow better in those spaces. That is an exciting part of the technology.
On the other side, in terms of invasive species, as an input-provider industry, chemistries and pesticides are used to sometimes try to push back on the arrival of an invasive pest, insects, weeds or diseases. That is essential to the work that our members do so we can provide additional information.
Mr. Affleck: To follow up on new crops, there was a news story about a gentleman growing pineapples in Dawson the other day in the news. Just for the record.
The Deputy Chair: I will take my prerogative and ask a few questions before we go to the second round.
I want to ask about glyphosate. I was recently contacted by an Ottawa journalist who was doing an investigative piece about the fact that Italian pasta makers had banned the import of or had stopped purchasing Canadian durum wheat because of concerns of glyphosate being used as a drying agent post-harvest.
From what you are saying, there are clearly strong feelings in the European Union on some of these issues. You characterized your evidence as facts, so I imagine they think theirs are facts also.
What are the risks that we run in using technologies if big trading partners like the EU are going to get their backs up about it? As we use these pesticides and desiccants, surely we run a risk of getting out ahead of where other people are.
Mr. Petelle: We could be here for a while talking about that Italy issue.
Let’s take glyphosate as an example. Even in the European Union, all of the scientific regulatory bodies, including the European Food Safety Authority, the German regulators and many others, have reviewed and re-reviewed glyphosate in the past five or six years and not a single one of them has made a scientific finding that is different from Canada’s, which is that glyphosate is safe to use as directed by the label. That’s the first thing.
The fact that politics are getting into the mix, and companies or countries are making unilateral decisions about the use of this product, this is not what I’m talking about when I say “sticking to science” because if we were strictly sticking to science, this would not be an issue. We are always going to have these non‑tariff trade barriers and non-science-based barriers. As a heavily export-dependent country, we are going to have to manage those techniques.
I wouldn’t want to see other regions dictating the tools and approaches that Canadian farmers use because our system is world-leading and founded in science. It is incumbent upon us to make sure we are part of those discussions. We have done a good job of being at those tables — the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and many others — even in some of the free trade agreements, there have been tables set up to discuss some of these challenges. That dialogue needs to continue. The Italy example is an example of how things should not run in a proper trading partnership.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Cotton, I happened to have had a meeting with someone from Nutrien yesterday who was talking to me about coded, time-release nitrogen fertilizer so that you could be more targeted and there would be less waste. Also, because it would be a slow release, you wouldn’t need as many applications.
I understand what you are saying about 30% being an ambitious target, but if we set the target and mean it, do you foresee market innovations and innovations in invention that will allow you to help us move toward that admittedly ambitious goal?
Ms. Cotton: Absolutely. It is important that we be ambitious and that we engage in this conversation. It has been constructive on our side since it was announced.
The problem is that while I understand it is a voluntary target and was meant to be ambitious, it is still a target that was not set with anything that we can see from a scientific standpoint. There was no economic modelling, and there was no analysis undertaken that has been provided by the government as to how they intended to reach the target.
It goes back to us being in favour of reducing emissions from fertilizer applications. We can and should continue to do better. But targets still need to be set based on what it is realistically achievable. We want to succeed, and we take that very seriously.
Yes, we will continue to invest in innovative technologies like you heard about in terms of stabilized nitrogen fertilizers, controlled-release fertilizers and slow-release ones. There are many new and innovative products coming into the market to support farmers’ ability to both improve yields and reduce its environmental impact.
There could be new innovations that come down the pike, but with what is available and what we know right now, 30% is not something we think we can get to. But that’s not to say that we can’t get anywhere. I think we have to look at what the adoption rates look like of those best management practices that we know reduce emissions and make some realistic assumptions about what adoption rates could look like. Even at 14%, that’s not a slum dunk, either, to be quite frank. It’s still going to take a lot of work, acceleration, knowledge transfer, incentives and things like that. The challenge is not small, but we are ready to work with growers, academics, government and industry to make as much progress as we can.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. We are on to the short snapper round. We have two senators on the list. I’m going to make these three minutes.
Senator Klyne: I’ll look to our witnesses to assist me in making this short and snappy. When you spoke to the idea of weeds and how they can become such irritating things to deal with agriculturally, but everything you nailed on that was also a cause of soil degradation in terms of having to deal with these weeds. In the world of science, is there anything that is soil‑friendly and climate-friendly that can be combatted with?
Mr. Affleck: Absolutely. I think this is the primary space in which our member companies operate in the plant sciences. Some of these technologies they already have. Pesticides and herbicides are a very effective and non-soil-disturbing approach to managing your weeds in a way that will maintain all the nutrients in the soil. You combine that with genetically modified crops which allow you to only have to use one herbicide. You maybe only use it once or twice instead of multiple times. Now you are driving the tractor less, less soil compaction. All of these things build up. That is what really brought the Prairies out of the dust bowl situation into the really stable soil we see.
Senator Klyne: So science is well under way. Is it climate-friendly as well?
Mr. Affleck: Absolutely. It reduces greenhouse gas emissions by an enormous amount.
Senator Klyne: In the interests of time, I’ll try to make it quick. Canada’s arable land is coming under a lot of stress, everything from urban sprawl to growing populations that are demanding more. As food security becomes prevalent globally, should we be worrying about other countries — if they are not looking after their soil degradation — because more people are going to look to Canada for us to continue to feed the world. Not that we feed the world entirely. But will that put more pressure on Canadian soils?
Mr. Petelle: You touched on it. We have a growing population. We have food security challenges currently. We have food affordability challenges that all Canadians are facing today. The reality is we are going to need to continue to produce not just what we produce today. We are going to need to continue to grow that productivity every year into the future. So yes, we are losing land to urban sprawl. Some areas are going to continue to have climate challenges, droughts and floods. That’s why when we say the farmers need access to all the tools, it’s because of that extreme challenge.
The fact that population growth and Canada’s role in feeding the world, it is an obligation. It is a moral obligation for Canada to play its part. I talked about ideology earlier. We have to make sure that, as Canada, we don’t do anything that will impact the productivity growth that we have seen over the last 20 years. We need to see that growth continue. In fact, we need it to accelerate.
Senator Klyne: Is there negligence in other agricultural countries that —
The Deputy Chair: Senator Klyne, I’m sorry, we are going to pass the baton to Senator Petitclerc for our last question.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My final question picks up on the one I asked earlier. You talked about science. Farmers have told us how they are actually going to move toward regenerative agriculture, while trusting in the science of fertilizers by using less of it and making better use of it.
What kind of work do you do with farmers? What’s the nature of your relationship with them in helping them meet their needs?
[English]
Mr. Petelle: We work very closely with all of the agricultural groups, whether provincially or nationally, whether it is the Canadian Canola Growers Association or Grain Growers of Canada et cetera. We work with them on policies to make sure that with the work we are doing to provide them tools, they also see the benefit of that and so they advocate with us for those same access things.
We have done training programs with those growers in terms of proper pesticide application. We worked on online programs for them. We were the first country to have brought in pesticide container recycling. Back in the late 1980s actually, Canada was the first region to manage all the pesticide containers in Canada, which was industry-funded. That program has now been exported. Similar to what Fertilizer Canada was saying, our success has been exported now to countries all around the world. That Cleanfarms brand is now in different regions of the world.
We work very closely with farmers to deliver what they need, not just in terms of technology but in terms of training and things like end-of-life tools.
Ms. Cotton: Maybe I will just add that I think the 4R Nutrient Stewardship program has significant value in regenerative agriculture working with crop producers who use either commercial or biological fertilizers. The framework and the best management practices provide the desired outcomes under that initiative.
I think what we can’t lose sight of is maintaining increased productivity on existing land and contributing to global food security, and that lens cannot be lost. I think the issue is potentially the definition, or lack of definition, of regenerative agriculture is something that could create a lot of challenges in the future as food companies look to it and consumers look to it for claims about how their food is being grown and priorities with research and things like that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much to all our witnesses, Mr. Petelle, Mr. Affleck and Ms. Cotton. I want to thank you for your participation today. Your contribution to our study is very much appreciated.
[Translation]
Thank you to the committee members for actively participating and asking such thoughtful questions.
[English]
I would also like to take an important moment to thank all of the staff who support the work of this committee. Thank you to our amazing interpreters, the debate team transcribing and editing the meeting, the committee room attendant, the multimedia services technicians, the broadcast team — and I know they were up against some technical difficulties on the Hill today, so thank you very much for that — the recording centre, the IT technicians, our page, our analyst and our clerk.
[Translation]
Our next meeting will be on Tuesday, November 15 at 6:30 p.m., and we will be hearing from other expert witnesses as part of this study.
[English]
If there is no other business, honourable senators, this meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)