THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 4, 2023
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 Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. It’s good to see you here today. I know that there will be a few other colleagues arriving later.
I’d like to begin by welcoming members of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, our witnesses and those watching this meeting on the web. My name is Rob Black, a senator from Ontario, and I’m the chair of this committee.
Today, the committee is meeting to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada. Before we hear from our witnesses, I’d like to start by asking our senators to introduce themselves around the table.
Senator Cotter: Good morning. My name is Brent Cotter, and I’m a senator for Saskatchewan.
Senator Burey: Good morning, everyone. I’m Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
Senator Klyne: Good morning. I’m Senator Marty Klyne from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory. Welcome to our guests this morning.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc, senatorial division of Grandville, in Quebec. Thank you for being here.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: I’m Senator Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia.
Senator Oh: Good morning. I’m Victor Oh, senator for Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Before we begin, I want to remind you that should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue.
Today, we welcome, via video conference, Mr. Ian Boxall, President of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan; Mr. Jake Ayre, Vice President of Keystone Agricultural Producers of Manitoba; Mr. Paul Pryce, Director of Policy from the BC Agriculture Council; and Mr. David Rourke who is a farmer, applied crop researcher, PhD student, grandfather to nine and husband to one.
I’d invite you to deliver your presentations at this point in time. You will have five minutes each. I’ll signal with my hand up at the one-minute mark. When I have two hands up, that means you should be wrapping things up.
With that, Mr. Boxall, the floor is yours.
Ian Boxall, President, Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan: Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. As you mentioned, my name is Ian Boxall, and I’m the President of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan. We represent 15,000 Saskatchewan farm and ranch families. I’m a farmer from the community of Tisdale in northeast Saskatchewan.
We thank the chair and the committee members for undertaking this study. Agricultural soils are a strategic resource for Canada. Saskatchewan farmers manage over 40% of Canada’s cropland and more than a third of the country’s native and tame pasture land. We have seen first-hand how improvements in soil health and productivity can create positive environmental outcomes and economic opportunities for Canadians.
For many farmers, sustainable agriculture means keeping the land environmentally and economically viable for the next generation. By that definition, Saskatchewan farmers are world leaders in sustainable production. There have been major advances in soil conservation, productivity and carbon sequestration since the Senate’s last report in 1984. The soil conservation benefits of direct seeding and continuous cropping cannot be understated. We don’t need to look any further than the historic drought from two years ago when we were spared the major dust storms and soil drifts that used to characterize droughts of this magnitude before zero till was a common practice.
Our farm started zero-till production in 1997. We have seen significant improvements in soil health since that time. The soil is better protected, moisture retention has improved and we continually see increased organic matter in our soil tests. These improvements — expanded over millions of acres across the province — have increased both productivity and the amount of carbon that is stored in our soils every year. According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, or AAFC, Saskatchewan’s agricultural soils went from being a net emitter in 1981 to a significant carbon sink by 2016. Meanwhile, crop production increased 91% over the same period.
The widespread adoption of these sustainable farming practices wouldn’t have been possible without the partnerships of agricultural scientists and researchers. This leads to our first recommendation: Canada has world-class researchers specializing in agronomy, plant breeding and soil science. We need to ensure that these researchers are provided with the necessary funding supports to continue their work. Previous witnesses have identified practices to further improve soil health, carbon capture and production efficiency. We rely on these scientists and researchers for the testing and data needed to adopt these practices at the farm level.
Our second recommendation is as follows: Somewhat related to this point is the need for baseline data and regionally appropriate models to measure soil health and carbon sequestration. This is a very complex area of science that is further complicated by the production diversity and climate variability that exists across Canada. It is important that we have accurate data to measure progress and verify outcomes.
A third and very important recommendation for this committee is to support a policy approach that recognizes the contributions of early adopters. Canada’s current carbon credit and pricing policies represent a significant challenge for our members. Saskatchewan farmers have adopted farming practices that store millions of tonnes of carbon in the soil every year, but they are ineligible for credits because they are generated from a practice that started before 2017. Meanwhile, Saskatchewan farmers are incurring thousands of dollars of additional costs from the carbon price on fuel and other inputs.
We understand that the Senate is considering Bill C-234, which will expand the farm exemption to qualified propane and natural gas. This bill will provide significant cost relief from the carbon tax, and we strongly urge its timely passage.
Our final recommendation for the committee is to recognize the need for specific measures that support the soil health of Canada’s forage and pasture land. These lands are of high ecological value and a significant carbon sink. Our recommendation around research funding, soil health modelling and incentive programs apply equally to forage and pasture land. Previous witnesses have talked about the specific need for forage and grasslands in these areas.
I also want to mention the financial pressures facing livestock producers in Western Canada, and the potential loss of forage and pasture land if cattle numbers continue to decline.
Addressing these economic factors is likely beyond the scope of this study. However, I will highlight the need for better access to risk management programs and drought support. Increased government funding for on-farm water infrastructure projects would help in this area, while also supporting enhanced grazing practices that are known to improve soil health and carbon sequestration on the landscape.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity. I look forward to the discussion.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Boxall. Mr. Ayre, the floor is now yours.
Jake Ayre, Vice President, Keystone Agricultural Producers of Manitoba: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members, for inviting our organization to participate in today’s study on soil health. My name is Jake Ayre, and I am a farmer from Minto, Manitoba. My family immigrated to Canada in 2002 from a grain and livestock farm in the southwest of England to our current pedigreed seed and cash crop farm in Minto.
On our farm, we have become heavily involved in precision agriculture. Variable rate, or VR, fertilization; grid soil sampling; moisture probes; electrical conductivity, or EC, mapping; and data tracking are currently some of the most important tools on our farm. As a result, we can effectively track and map seed and fertilizer placement across our farm, and correlate it with yield data after harvesting.
I’m also the Vice President of Keystone Agricultural Producers, also known as KAP. We are Manitoba’s general farm policy organization, supported by grassroots farmer members — and providing them with a unified voice on issues that affect agriculture through our advocacy work. We work with governments, industry and stakeholders on overarching issues that affect all farmers with a focus on providing them with a sustainable and profitable future.
Today, I want to provide my perspective as a farmer regarding some of the methods and techniques we are implementing on our farms, our vision for the future in building on these optimal methods for maintaining and improving soil health and the role that government can play in helping shape this future.
Manitoba farmers recognize the benefits of enhancing and preserving soil health. This is done mainly through crop rotation, grazing management, zero-till practices, soil sampling, nutrient management, the 4Rs, prevention of soil compaction and planting cover crops.
As a farmer, I strive to ensure the sustainability of the lands that I work and harvest. My farm is my livelihood — without the continued prosperity of the crops and products that we produce in conjunction with our soils and environment, we could not continue to earn a living and generate the billions of dollars in economic activity that agriculture produces here in Manitoba and across Canada.
We cannot do it alone, however, and additional investments in best management practices, or BMPs, would result in the increased capture of greenhouse gas emissions and improvements to soil health. This includes investments in 4R Nutrient Stewardship — which KAP promotes as an organization through a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, that we have signed with the provincial government and Fertilizer Canada — as well as rotational grazing, intercropping, cover cropping and expanding riparian areas.
Incorporating soil health practices positively impacts farmers. This could result in higher soil organic matter, reduced erosion, increased soil carbon and increased resistance to drought and flood. Ultimately, this can lead to higher productivity and increased climate resiliency.
Public discourse regarding agriculture and the environment is generally focused on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. While it may not always be mentioned explicitly in these conversations, this is absolutely a part of soil health and reducing nitrous oxide emissions.
According to Fertilizer Canada data, it is possible to reduce 1.6 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent from fertilizer emissions from 2020 levels through adopting 4R Nutrient Stewardship which would not impact food production.
Manitoba farmers have embraced innovative agricultural practices to reduce emissions and enhance soil health, such as 4R uptake and the uptake in the On-Farm Climate Action Fund, or OFCAF, programs. However, factors such as crop inputs, debt, market conditions and profitability may influence the decision making around adopting these practices, so it is key to have an incentive-based model to increase adoption. At the end of the day, you can’t be in the green if you’re in the red.
Adoption of zero or minimal tillage and reducing summer fallow in Manitoba have resulted in a reduction in annual soil erosion rates. More can be done in Manitoba that would lead to higher adoption of practices that would increase soil health, as well as lead to increased funding from all levels of government.
In 2021, according to AAFC, there were 3,476 farms in Manitoba who reported the use of zero-till practices, representing 3.16 million acres. Additionally, one quarter of Manitoba farmers used slow-release fertilizers in 2021. Overall, there has been a positive change in cumulative soil organic matter in Manitoba.
More subsurface and tile drainage are occurring in Manitoba, and it is important to minimize nitrogen losses when a farmer increases drainage on a property. Drainage is a component of soil health that increases productivity, and it is one approach to ensure that more acres can be utilized in production.
Other areas that we believe require more research would be cover crops, irrigation land-specific research, nitrate leaching and ammonia. It would be beneficial to encourage subsurface placement of fertilizer, while being mindful that some soil types are more prone to leaching than others. We would also recommend a province-wide soil health survey in Manitoba.
In closing, as with any discussion around sustainability, I want to stress the importance of looking at solutions with consideration for all three of its components. As farmers, we look at sustainability as a three-legged stool, consisting of environmental, social and economic factors. Each of these components is of equal value to us.
I want to thank the committee members again for taking the time to listen to the perspective of one Manitoba farmer and our group on this issue of soil health, and for undertaking this study on this important topic. I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Ayre. Mr. Pryce, the floor is now yours.
Paul Pryce, Director of Policy, BC Agriculture Council: Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee on the important topic of soil health. I have the honour of speaking to you today on behalf of the BC Agriculture Council, or BCAC.
BCAC is a non-governmental, not-for-profit organization and the lead industry advocate for key sector-wide priorities in British Columbia. The council proudly represents a membership of 29 farm associations who, in turn, represent about 96% of the farm gate sales in B.C.
We support several of the points raised in the letter to this committee in December 2021 by the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, such as the call for the development of Canada-wide soil mapping. In B.C., the most recent soil mapping was completed around 1980. The Government of British Columbia’s current manual on land capability classification for agriculture was published 40 years ago this April. As an aside, you can find that manual online, but it’s not a searchable PDF. About 10 or 15 years ago, some poor, hard-working civil servant took their physical copy, put it on a scanner bed and copied it — with eyelashes and dust and all.
While the data on the soil mapping from 1980 is still relevant, a refresh could have considerable value to ensuring the long-term sustainability of agriculture, especially in the B.C. context. As you may know, B.C. has a unique feature: the Agricultural Land Reserve, or ALR. Recognizing the competing pressures for land, the Government of British Columbia decided 50 years ago to dedicate 5% of the province’s total land mass for agriculture production. Today, only about 3% of the total land in B.C. is used for this purpose. There are many factors that likely contribute to this gap — not least of all the sheer cost of land in B.C. However, updated soil mapping can help us understand if there are lands included in the ALR that were suitable for agriculture production in 1980 but are no longer suitable today, and, if so, what may have brought about that change.
I understand that this committee is examining possible federal measures to support and enhance agricultural soil health, so I would also like to take some time to share specific challenges that we are experiencing in B.C. The city of Delta is a community in the Lower Mainland region, and it’s an important area of agriculture production for the province, but rising sea levels have increased the risk of soil salinity in this area, as well as reduced the access to irrigation water during the typical growing season. Inundation in coastal regions like Delta could affect food security in the long term. As the salty seawater moves further inland, it makes the soil saltier, and it makes the irrigation water unsuitable for use. Investments in flood mitigation infrastructure, as well as in the commercialization of emerging technologies that integrate desalination into irrigation systems, could possibly help address this risk.
Runoff from wildfires and other natural disasters can also have an impact on soil health. For example, if macronutrients from a wildfire enter a river, and a farmer downstream sources some of the water from that river for their operation, that will affect soil health. Aerosolized debris from a wildfire can carry these macronutrients far and wide, so you don’t even need to be downstream to experience these adverse effects.
When looking at the ways to help farmers and ranchers, it’s important that different levels of government avoid duplicative programs or regulatory requirements. Currently, the Government of British Columbia is prioritizing regenerative agriculture practices. While there is still some discussion as to what exactly “regenerative” means, this could include practices like low-till or no-till farming, which can contribute to carbon sequestration. Even as the provincial government is promoting regenerative agriculture, the federal government has launched consultations on a sustainable agriculture strategy that already show some signs of overlap. Greater coordination between the federal and provincial governments to promote the sustainability of agriculture — economically and environmentally — can ensure any overlap is an opportunity for mutually complementary efforts rather than a source of confusion for the agriculture sector and the communities that our farmers serve.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to share with you these reflections on the state of soil health in B.C. I look forward to any questions you might have, and I would be happy to follow up with any information or resources that might assist this committee in its study. Thank you so much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Pryce. Mr. Rourke, the floor is now yours.
David Rourke, Farmer, as an individual: Hello, sharks — oh, sorry, wrong program. I mean, hello, senators. I’m here to sell you on net-positive carbon farming in Western Canada, innovation, policy and practice. What I need from you is a full tool box to get that job done.
Who am I? My name is David Rourke. I grew up in Winnipeg. I’m a first-generation farmer. I farmed here in Minto, Manitoba, just south of Mr. Ayre’s farm, for the last 43 years. I’ve conducted small plot replicated research for 47 years and been a husband for 46 years, as well as a father of four and grandfather to nine. The grandfather to nine part is perhaps why I’m here.
We started humbly with a chance to rent 300 acres of land in 1980, and we have grown that to a 6,000-acre farm today. Along that line, we also built an agricultural research company called Ag-Quest which has five research stations across Western Canada and may, in fact, do more for applied research trials compared to any other single entity in Western Canada.
I’m told that I’m a rare beast. I’m a farmer and a researcher offering pragmatic, scalable solutions to global warming mitigation. So why am I here? Why is a 67-year-old farmer doing a PhD in search of — what I call — net-positive carbon grain farming in Western Canada? Other people might call it “zero till plus.”
In 2015, I finally took my head out of the sand, and realized that global warming was something that we should not ignore any longer — this was during the time of the Paris Agreement. In 2016, I almost cried when former President Trump was elected; I knew that he was going to withdraw from that agreement. In 2018, there was a special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regarding the impacts of global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, suggesting that we were not on track.
In 2019, I attended a seminar with Al Gore on climate leadership. In a breakout session on forestry and food, I was aghast at how little knowledge there was in terms of how to feed populations. My conclusion coming out of that meeting was that there wasn’t enough knowledge in that room to supply the food for the coffee break — never mind supply the city of Atlanta, or 7 million people.
In 2020, I wrote a book called A Road to Fossil Fuel Free Farming: An Example and a Challenge. I joined a farm club, sponsored by General Mills, on regenerative agriculture. In 2021, I started my PhD.
In 2022, we continued with replicated field plots on our own farm, but I also linked the Weston Family Foundation with Assiniboine Community College, or ACC, to start a soil health net-positive carbon farming initiative.
I have two Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, or NSERC, proposals: There is one with ACC that’s almost ready to go, and another one with the University of Manitoba on — what I call — delayed germination seed technology.
We’ve essentially accepted global warming as an existential threat: There are lots of satellite images. The Pope says it’s so. The Pentagon is able to show it. Insurance companies feel it. God forbid we believe the scientists who have known about the global warming phenomenon since the 1800s. James Hansen has shown that it’s man-caused within his report to the U.S. government in 1978 — and all of the UN reports since then.
What do I need from you? I need a full tool box. I need help in refining and, in some cases, replacing 11 best management practices.
The one that I want to bring to your attention is cover crops. Everybody suggests that cover crops are part of the solution, and they are. However, it’s like asking the farmers in Western Canada to seed 78 million acres for a second time in the year — this time while they’re combining — and to remove $30 to $70 out of their pocket, and hope that someday in the future they will receive a return on their investment.
My wife says that if I think I should get off the combine to seed in the fall, I must have seasonal seeding disorder. I suggest that we need more tools; I’ve suggested a delayed germination seed technology program whereby we can have a one-pass seeding of cover crops and cash crops. That’s just one example of what we need to do in order to get this job done. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rourke. Thank you to all of our presenters. We’ll now proceed with questions from our senators. I know that we have a long list of senators wishing to ask questions.
Before asking and answering questions, I’d like to ask members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone, or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact our colleagues who are assisting us today around the room.
As has been our previous practice, I’d like to remind each senator that you have five minutes, which we’ll monitor. I’ll put my hand up at one minute, and two hands up close to the end of your time.
Senator Simons: Mr. Rourke, I want to start with you and your seasonal seeding disorder. We’ve just returned from a tour of Guelph, where we met with farmers who were cover cropping successfully. Like you, I am from the Prairies, and I thought to myself, “How on earth would that work?” I’m wondering how it would work not only with the larger fields that you described, but also with the — I don’t want to say that it’s extreme climate conditions — much earlier fall and much later spring.
At the University of Guelph, they showed us fields that were in constant cultivation with winter crops. I have to confess that I don’t know the following: What can you use for cover cropping? In my neck of the woods — in Edmonton — and in the North, does winter wheat actually work? If you plant in the fall, what are you actually getting? What is hardy enough to overwinter?
Mr. Rourke: That’s why I’ve suggested this delayed germination seed technology. There are lots of ideas, as well as a few things we can do in niche situations, but most of them aren’t very scalable.
I worked as a winter wheat researcher at the University of Manitoba from 1980 to 1983. That’s when my wife came up with the term “seasonal seeding disorder.” It really disrupts the flow. We don’t have enough equipment and staff to do that on a large‑scale basis. If we can coat something like hairy vetch or fall rye, and have it actually grow — it’s put in the field when we’re sowing our canola or spring wheat, and it germinates about 80 days later so that it corresponds with the early senescence of our cash crop — then we can start to see the benefit. But if we’re waiting until the combine leaves the field, or even if we do it while combining — there are a lot of years where we don’t start until it’s already past the time that they should start growing.
Ideally, a lot of fall crops should be in by September 1, or maybe even a week or two earlier. In my neck of the woods, if it’s early, then it’s too dry and they won’t grow; we’re in the middle of a drought. If it’s a wet year, it’s already too late and we’ve missed that opportunity. There are a lot of times when it’s too dry, too wet and too late, and that all takes place in about a week or two. We don’t have a lot of time.
You’re absolutely right; what they can do in Ontario is great. They can broadcast red clover on winter wheat, and it will grow. If I do that in Manitoba, it’s like throwing money away.
I’ve talked to California State University, Chico. They sow their cover crops at the end of October, and they grow all winter. They have some large advantages in multi-species cover crops with zero till in terms of building soil organic carbon.
We have to specialize our use of cover crops. It is absolutely key to ensuring better soil health, in combination with zero till.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here with us today. My question is for Mr. Ian Boxall and Mr. Jake Ayre.
What tools are in place at both the federal level and provincial level to help maintain and enhance the long-term success of the livestock industry?
Mr. Boxall: I think that the current tools in place for the longevity of the livestock sector are very limited. In Saskatchewan, we have seen a decline in the herd size — in the hundreds of thousands — over the last couple of years because there aren’t enough tools in the tool box to secure that sector.
When I drove around the province last summer, as I do every summer with my children, I saw more grain land behind fence which, at one time, was pasture land. It is a huge concern.
The tools in the tool box, provincially and federally, for the success of the livestock sector — and the continued growth of tame forage or native pasture land — are in jeopardy.
Mr. Ayre: I would echo Mr. Boxall’s comments in the sense that we have seen the same thing in Manitoba. We hear consistently from our cattle producers in the province that the current business management suite of programs does not fit the cattle operation, whether it’s a sole cattle operation or a mixed operation, which is both grain and cattle producers.
There have been questions and comments raised in our province in terms of how to preserve the grasslands, as well as since there’s no current incentive to preserve those grasslands when it doesn’t make financial sense to do so.
Senator Oh: Who do you think should lead the way — the federal government or the provincial governments — to benefit both of your industries?
Mr. Boxall: Like everything, when it comes to agriculture, our federal and provincial governments have done a great job working together in agriculture, and I think that moving forward it will be the same. I think there’s benefit for us in Saskatchewan — and also a huge benefit for all Canadians — in ensuring that we continue to have, especially, the native grasslands that are so viable to the environmental side of this equation.
Mr. Ayre: I would echo the same sentiment: Collaboration between our federal and provincial governments has shown to be successful in the past — in order to be successful in the future, it would need to continue to do so.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
Senator Cotter: Thank you to each of the witnesses for their presentations. It is always insightful for us and much appreciated.
My question is primarily for you, Mr. Boxall, but perhaps for Mr. Ayre as well. It’s sort of a Prairie question, more than anything.
I should begin by saying, Mr. Boxall, that I have relatives in and around Tisdale. I won’t mention who they are, just in case you know them, and I have some acquaintance with the challenges and achievements that you have just described. I’m continuously impressed by the linkage between imaginative farmers, the research that’s generated — often from our universities and other sectors — and the ways in which that has advanced agriculture and also benefited soil science.
You observed the improvements in terms of carbon sequestration and the significant increase in yield over the last 20 or 30 years. Whether it’s with the right tool kit and the right knowledge or growing knowledge, is it possible to advance those? Are we near the tapped-out level of productivity at this stage, or can more be achieved in progressive farming techniques?
Mr. Boxall: If we look at what has been achieved — from my Statistics Canada report — from 1981 until 2016, we went from 21.7 million tonnes to 41.7 million tonnes. I think if we continue down the path — farmers are innovators, and we have done this on our own accord for two reasons: We care about the soil and the environment, and we are paid on production. At the end of the day, sustainability on the farm is both environmental and economical, and I believe that there are things that we’ll continue to do — and I believe that farmers will do them — if the research shows that it’s worth it, both for the environment and for the economics.
I believe more can be done, but what exactly are those things? That’s why we need to continue funding the researchers to ensure that happens.
Senator Cotter: Thanks. Mr. Ayre, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Ayre: If I look at the last five years on our farm, my sister and I have been heavily involved in the integration of technology that we have seen in those last five years. I’m not just talking about the GPS and Autosteering.
I mentioned in my speech about how we can effectively track fertilizer placement right through to harvest and yield data. In our province, not every farm has that technology employed on their farm. There is a cost to retrofitting equipment in order to do that. In regard to technology such as that, to give you an example, on a quarter section, or 140 acres, of oats that we sowed on our farm last year, by using this approach of zone‑based fertility — EC mapping — and then putting those maps into our equipment to put the fertilizer on the field, I saved over 2,200 gallons of liquid fertilizer on one field. I’m talking about potential leaching, or the emissions, or even the cost savings by using this technology, and we have been taking that approach field by field on the farm. It hasn’t been a whole-farm project yet, but we will get there.
It’s important that more farms use technology like that not only to capture and track the data, but also to show it and say, “I have actually saved X amount of fertilizer” or “This is where it correlates on our farm.” I think the technology is there; it’s just about the adaptation of it.
Senator Cotter: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I will ask my question in French.
My question is for whoever wishes to answer it, because it’s rather general.
It’s been a little while since we started this study. I notice that we’ve heard some very regionally and provincially specific things, but there are also some common places that come up.
My question is this: Since eventually, recommendations will have to be made as a result of this study and there is a report that I’m sure you’re familiar with, the RBC report entitled “Fertile Ground: How Can Soil Carbon Be a Cash Crop for the Climate Age?,” which recommends, among other things, the development of a national soil strategy, I’d like to hear from you on that.
Is this the right approach? Would it be useful? Is it needed? Would you like a national soil strategy? If so, how do you see this strategy? What should it include?
I don’t know who would want to answer the question first.
[English]
Mr. Boxall: Thank you for the question.
I believe there could be a national strategy, but, by the same token, agriculture is so diverse across the country that it would be very difficult to implement a national strategy. Do I believe the federal government has a role to play in setting some targets in certain areas? Absolutely. But it needs to be regional.
The way that we farm in Saskatchewan is substantially different from the way they farm in Ontario. Even in southern Manitoba, where Mr. Ayre and Mr. Rourke farm, what they do is substantially different from what I do.
It needs to be regional, and we need to ensure that the research is done regionally. I believe there are carbon savings or nitrous oxide emissions savings that can happen at every region, but it needs to have the research.
That’s one of the biggest points.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much. This is very helpful.
Do our other witnesses want to comment on that?
This is very helpful for us, because we often think of having a national strategy, but basically, what we want to know is what exactly we need, what will be most helpful. Mr. Pryce, perhaps? I see some hands up.
[English]
Mr. Pryce: I will take the invitation to speak. I hope that Mr. Ayre and Mr. Rourke will forgive me for budging in the line, I guess.
I think the RBC concept of a national strategy is enticing, but, at the same time, I do worry that we have an excess of strategies. There is a sustainable agriculture strategy that is ongoing with the federal government, and there is also — at the provincial level — a watershed security strategy, as well as a flood strategy, a coastal marine strategy and so on. There are so many strategies that the average producer may become confused and wonder if this is a make-work project for the government; it’s not. I think the intentions are there to create a tangible benefit for the producer.
I wonder if, perhaps, such a strategy has to be integrated within the federal government’s existing efforts on the sustainable agriculture strategy, given the overlap — perhaps some of those components could be the things that we have spoken about today, like updated Canada-wide soil mapping and so on. Instead of a political statement, there are a series of tangible actions that the government can take and producers can take.
Those are my initial thoughts. Thank you so much for the question, senator.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
Mr. Ayre: My comments echo Mr. Boxall’s statement, too, in the sense that our province of Manitoba is very diverse. In Minto — my area — I’m producing corn and soybeans, as well as a variety of other crops, which I don’t think Mr. Boxall would ever grow over on his farm in Tisdale.
From our perspective at Keystone Agricultural Producers of Manitoba — when talking about and hearing from Mr. Pryce and Mr. Boxall regarding the most recent soil studies done in the province — I don’t know off the top of my head when the last one was done in Manitoba. Maybe, Mr. Rourke, you could add to this. I think it was quite a while ago.
As part of a national strategy, one of the things that we see fit would be some of these updated soil surveys in our province. Like what Mr. Boxall said, a national strategy sounds like a fantastic idea, but it’s difficult to compare what’s going on — as Mr. Pryce said — in Delta, B.C., to Minto, Manitoba, to Guelph, Ontario, to just outside of Charlottetown in Summerside, Prince Edward Island, as it’s quite diverse with different soil types and different practices going on. I think it would be very hard to have a one-size-fits-all approach. You have to, maybe, have some basic benchmarks.
Mr. Rourke: I guess this is an opportunity for us — as citizens of the world and as Canadians — to be really bold. It’s a lot like when former President Kennedy suggested in 1962 that we were going to put a man on the moon and bring him back safely. We have an opportunity to try to, essentially, save our environment, and we have to be quite bold.
Yes, we need not only a Canadian strategy, but also a world strategy, on how to reduce or eliminate the use of fossil fuels — it’s not just about making nitrogen fertilizers more efficient; that’s great, but that’s not the end goal for 2050 — as well as how to sequester as much carbon into the soil, and ensure that carbon is out of the atmosphere while, at the same time, feeding people.
This is a time to be bold and to make those national strategies. As well, we have to take into account those regional differences. I think that we can have both.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rourke.
Senator Jaffer: I’m also from British Columbia, Mr. Pryce. I want to speak about the extreme climate events in British Columbia — floods, droughts and heat waves — and the challenges with it. I have a number of questions for you, but the first one is this: What is the impact of extreme weather on soil health in British Columbia? What kind of research is being done to understand these impacts and build resilience in your agricultural sector?
Mr. Pryce: Thank you so much for the question, senator. I think there are many negative effects from these extreme weather events on soil health. The one that I had highlighted, of course, was Delta: They have the salt wedge there, so the rising sea levels bring more of that salt water inland. It’s threatening prime agricultural land. Of course, wildfires have a more significant effect. Floods mix things up; they move different nutrients from the riverbed onto the soil and vice versa. But the wildfires are the most severe situation, and it’s not exactly clear how to address that — other than effective forest management practices that will hopefully prevent or limit the intensity of wildfires. It’s difficult to cope once that damage has been done, and once the debris is in the air and being scattered around on areas like agricultural lands.
There are quite severe effects, but so far the technology is a bit limited in what we can do. There seems to be some promising research in other jurisdictions of the world regarding combinations of desalination and irrigation. There are ways of preventing the salt water — in an area like Delta — from reaching the irrigation water. However, that technology is very small-scale, very experimental and quite expensive. Maybe more investment is needed in order to pursue these developments. A lot of that work, as I said, is happening elsewhere in the world as opposed to in Canada.
Senator Jaffer: I have a specific question. Do you know what kind of impact the 2021 floods in B.C. have had on farmland and soil health?
Mr. Pryce: The effect on soil health is difficult to discern at this stage, especially with how outdated our soil mapping data is — in order to be able to compare and contrast. However, the impact has certainly been quite severe. The support that was provided by the federal and provincial levels of government is quite appreciated by producers, and it has helped prevent a lot of producers from going out of production. It made some people whole, but it didn’t necessarily mean it was a good year. People were still in a bad situation, but at least it kept a lot of farm families from failing and having to go out of production.
The ongoing effects are there. There are still some farms — that I’m aware of — within the Lower Mainland that haven’t fully rebuilt or gone back into production. There is still the detritus left by the floods, and still a lot of work to be done just to pick up the pieces.
Senator Jaffer: I have a further question for you. You said that there was government support that made some farmers whole, but has the help from the government helped build resilience to such weather events? What more needs to be done?
Mr. Pryce: I think significant investments in flood mitigation are necessary — there really has been nothing done. There have been some announcements from the provincial government about the pump station, for example, in Abbotsford, which could help. Maybe there could be some investments in riparian production, where you are using natural buffers to try to limit the extent to which water would encroach on agricultural land in a flood situation. But, at the end of the day, hard infrastructure — like dams and dikes — is necessary in order to prevent floods of this scale. Providing $10 million here or $20 million there for some hedges and bushes is not going to prevent the crippling event that we experienced in November 2021. Yes, I think significant investments are needed.
Senator Klyne: I’ll begin with a question for Mr. Boxall. Recently, Mr. Rick Burton, Deputy Minister of Agriculture for the Government of Saskatchewan, appeared before our committee here. His opening remarks, I would say, were a great source of Saskatchewan pride for me. In a background check, I noted a quote by you when you appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology when they were studying Bill C-244, or the right to repair. I’ll share this quote from this past December with the committee:
In the last decade, farm equipment has gone through a significant amount of modernization. This modernization has been part of the story that has made Saskatchewan the world’s most sustainable place to grow food, fuel and fibre. With the integration of digital and mechanical tools, we can do so much more with less, and we are 30 years ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to section control, zero till and precision agriculture.
Mr. Boxall, you are a fourth-generation farmer from Saskatchewan. That suggests to me that you have seen first-hand what it looks like when farmland changes over time, as it experiences weather events and human interference. Given the glowing remarks we received from Mr. Burton, as well as the quote that I just referenced when you appeared before the other committee, are you concerned at all about soil erosion or degradation on the farms in the Prairies? Have you noticed a significant change in soil conditions during your lifetime as a farmer?
Mr. Boxall: Thank you for the question, Senator Klyne. I am not concerned — currently in Saskatchewan, with the way that we farm, and the fact that we are zero till. I’m getting ready to seed here next week, and I’m going to seed land that has not been touched since last fall. I have stubble to ensure that the moisture is there, and to ensure that the soil is where it was last fall. With the proper drainage strategy that the province is also doing, we are seeing less erosion and less stuff from water runoff.
I am not worried about the soil in Saskatchewan. I think it’s important to note that farmers care about the environment and soil health more than we ever get credit for; I believe that. I believe that we care. We see first-hand every day how it affects our farms — I was involved on the farm when we started zero till, and I remember driving around with my dad when he said, “That is never going to grow” because he was used to seeding it to black dirt. He said it would never grow. Since 1997, our production has gone through the roof. We do it with less water, less fertilizer and fewer chemicals.
Senator Klyne: Mr. Ayre, the committee has heard a lot from farmers about using technology to help track productivity on their farms. For example, some farmers now use technology to help track yield, make water usage more efficient and make farming operations more sustainable. I assume many of your farmer members are following these practices using the improvements in technology.
Do you have many late adopters or outliers among your members that haven’t or are unable to adopt a new technology? If so, what can be done to encourage more of your members to make use of the new technology, including things like, perhaps, the incentives that are passed over for electric vehicles? Is there a consideration in that regard?
Mr. Ayre: Thank you for the question, Senator Klyne. At this time, we don’t have the exact data on the uptake of the newer technologies that farmers have. I know that Autosteering usage is mentioned quite often, and in Manitoba that has well over 60% uptake across our farms.
In regard to some of the technology that I talked about, and if there were some sort of programming to retrofit equipment — some of the funding has just come out. Yesterday, I was talking to a producer, and there is now programming to retrofit a sprayer to look at the technology WEED-IT, which only sprays green in the field instead of a blanket pesticide approach. There is some programming coming out now, but this was announced two days ago.
Senator Burey: Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for being here. I’m a new senator from Ontario, and I am learning a lot.
My question is about knowledge exchange; I may have missed a little bit because I had to step out of the room. I heard about precision farming. I’m just following up on Senator Klyne’s questions. How do you receive funding for these types of initiatives? We could start with Mr. Boxall and then Mr. Ayre, or anyone else who would like to jump in.
Mr. Boxall: Thank you for the question. Looking back on our farm, farmers have adopted a lot of these practices because it’s the right thing to do. There hasn’t been funding for it; in regard to zero till and variable rate, there have been some programs for it, but it isn’t available to everybody. We have done it because we have seen benefits on our farm when doing it. Farmers here in Saskatchewan did it because it’s the right thing to do — they want to ensure the soil health and the environment of their farms.
Mr. Ayre: I would echo the same message. From speaking on our farm and talking to other producers, I know that producers have done it because not only have they seen the environmental benefit, but they have also seen the financial benefit too. I talked about the three-legged stool earlier, and that hits those pillars of sustainability.
In regard to the programming that I was previously talking about, it was the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership, or Sustainable CAP, funding that just came out. There are a whole bunch of programs that came out of there: programs to reduce tillage intensity, and low-disturbance placement of seed fertilizer. If we had these sorts of programs 5 or 10 years ago, perhaps there would have been some uptake there. But, like what Mr. Boxall said, I know that a lot of our producers, and our farm included, did it because it was the right thing and we saw the benefit.
Senator Burey: Following up on that, we heard from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada about Living Laboratories and peer support programs. Is there anything like that going on in Saskatchewan, British Columbia or Manitoba?
Mr. Rourke: There has been a Living Laboratories program in the eastern Prairies; this is actually the second round of it. The first program was set up by Dr. Gray who was with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada at the time. One of the main purposes was to try to increase soil organic carbon following the “4 per 1000” Initiative announced at the Paris Agreement — it really didn’t tackle that.
It’s a great program, and it’s a great idea, but it’s only starting to learn how to function and grab hold of those key concepts in terms of innovation. I’m really looking forward to the next round of the Living Laboratories program.
Mr. Pryce: In B.C., we do have a Living Laboratories program, and it’s doing exceptional work, although I might be a little bit biased because BCAC is one of the joint proponents of the Living Laboratories. We are very strong supporters of it and appreciate the great work that it’s doing.
On the theme of your question regarding knowledge transfer — and maybe this is building on what Mr. Ayre had said previously — under the five-year Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership agreement, in B.C., for example, there is the Knowledge and Technology Transfer Program, and there are probably counterparts or equivalents in other provinces too because of the nature of the Sustainable CAP agreement as a federal-provincial agreement.
In that particular case, sometimes it’s challenging because the funding available to the producer or farm association is quite limited — maybe about $1,500 to participate in conferences, academic seminars and so on. If it’s a field day, visiting a farm that’s doing a regenerative practice and doing some hands-on learning, that’s more like $7,500. Sometimes that can be challenging to do on a bit of a limited budget.
If there were a possibility of a greater cost share, and a greater commitment from the government in future years, that is certainly something that we would welcome, but, of course, the Sustainable CAP agreement has recently been signed, so maybe that’s something we’ll revisit in five years. Thank you so much.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Mr. Ayre: Keystone Agricultural Producers is a collaborator of the Living Laboratories project.
The Chair: I have a question for Mr. Rourke. Some of us, as you heard earlier, went to Guelph last week. We toured an organic farm where we learned that they follow minimal till practices, but every four years, they conduct a deep till. How does this compare with the practices that you have heard about in the Prairie provinces? Is it effective? Are you doing any research in this regard?
Mr. Rourke: Sometimes I’m too inquisitive for my own mind, and I have been interested in organic since the late 1970s.
For a few years, we had gone from zero till to organic in 2017, and now we’re back to zero till plus. I think there are niches where organic can work, and I think it is more forgiving where it’s wetter — such as in Ontario — but whenever we till in Western Canada, we create drought. Then, we can’t establish our cover crops. We end up tilling more to control the weeds.
We need to be really careful in terms of how we look at organic, particularly in the dry regions. But there are always innovative farmers who make it work well. I thought I could do zero till organic, but it’s pretty much impossible.
Again, I would be very cautious. There are some really good lessons that we can learn from our organic friends in terms of agroecological opportunities — where we can start to use it to replace some pesticides and ensure better natural fertilizer efficiency.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Ayre, we have heard you talk about precision agriculture, and the fact that you are using it. What is the general uptake — let’s just say, in your neighbourhood — in using precision agriculture? Are you a beacon of hope for folks around you who will see this and want to try it? What is the uptake?
Mr. Ayre: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. In terms of precision agriculture, Autosteer GPS is one that gets thrown out there quite often. Quite honestly, it’s 100% uptake in our area, just for the sake of efficiency, operator fatigue and massive reduction there — I would say that’s at 100%.
In regard to some of the practices that we use, this includes grid soil sampling, EC mapping and zone-based fertility — maybe Mr. Rourke can chime in too — but it’s maybe 70% uptake. In my area, just talking to producers, certain producers deal with a lot of salinity in our neck of the woods. The first 100 to 200 feet around a field are often very saline, so limited crops grow. Zone-based fertility quite often switches the fertilizer off in those zones because there is simply so much available nitrogen, but nothing is going to grow.
It’s garnering more and more interest, and people are asking questions — I think that this is a practice where we will see more uptake because people are seeing not only the environmental benefit, but also the cost-saving benefit too.
The Chair: Mr. Rourke, did you want to chime in?
Mr. Rourke: I would agree with most of that. Certainly, we all use auto steer. More of us are getting zone control, so we can avoid overlaps on our sprayers, which is relatively easy. Some of our seeding equipment has that, so we can avoid those overlaps with technology.
In terms of precision farming, I did a study a number of years ago, and I found that the best thing to do with those saline areas — wet areas — is to sow them to forages, put some of the manure from my barns onto the hilltops and try to even things out. As the technology becomes better — and people like Mr. Ayre are being very pragmatic about that — more of that will come. I have another generation behind me that, I think, will be more interested than I am.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Simons: I have a great deal of empathy with this concern over strategy creep and strategy inflation. Everybody has a strategy. The only thing worse than having a strategy is having a framework. I spent 30 years as a journalist, and anytime somebody told me, “This is a story about a strategy or a framework,” my eyes glazed over. I’m afraid that I haven’t lost that as a senator.
So what do we do? All of you have lots of practical experience. My dad used to say that an expert is a guy from out of town with slides. What do we do to ensure that — for our report — we’re not just putting words on a page that will become a strategy or a framework, but instead ensure some practical solutions to the challenges that we face in making our soils enriched and good repositories of carbon?
Sorry, that was a very scattershot question — bad reporter. I would like to start with Mr. Pryce. Then, I’d like to hear from each of our guests in turn.
Mr. Pryce: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. I’ll respond to the question of strategy creep. I think it can be avoided if, perhaps, the committee report — I don’t want to be too presumptuous — has three clear actionable items that the federal and provincial governments together can implement, rather than, as we’ve kind of landed on, a call for some sort of strategy or framework.
I think a mandate to pursue Canada-wide soil mapping would be a clear and tangible action that can be accomplished quite quickly. Of course, it requires someone to pay, I guess — that’s where the committee can put its weight behind this, and say that the federal government and the provinces need to work together to figure out who’s going to foot the bill for the soil mapping.
Perhaps another tangible item might be the following recommendation: As AAFC develops this fertilizer emissions target or strategy, it should be data-based — based on emissions intensity rather than a blanket reduction of emissions. That, of course, forces us to think from a data-based perspective on soil health rather than a back-of-the-napkin calculation.
We’re calling for that soil mapping, and then we’re saying, “Put it to use by measuring emissions intensity.”
Hopefully, that answers the question and those are some decent ideas to consider.
Mr. Rourke: I appreciate your question. As I’m doing my PhD, I have a framework and a bit of a strategy, so I have to be careful.
I think the Senate is in a unique position to not necessarily tell people what they want to hear, but to try to interpret what we actually need to know. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report kind of says what we need to know: We need to stop using fossil fuel-based products, particularly single‑use products like diesel fuel and nitrogen fertilizer. We can’t do it without nitrogen, so we need another strategy. We need to use legumes and zero till which, as Dr. Dave Franzen has shown, can reduce nitrogen usage by 40 or 50 pounds on wheat and up to two thirds in corn. Some of his data is quite amazing. He has 100 trials behind those numbers.
We need to support more asymbiotic nitrogen-fixing. Every major company is working on this technology.
We need to look at some green strategies. There are a number of small companies and big companies.
Then, we need to use the 4Rs to make sure the emissions from the new practices actually reduce the strategy.
We need to be bold here and take advantage of the opportunity that exists to steer us in the right direction.
Mr. Boxall: I have to disagree with Mr. Rourke. There isn’t an opportunity to get rid of fossil fuels. Currently, we cannot use electric tractors on my farm. SaskPower and, I think, every province is in the same boat in that we do not have the infrastructure. Eliminating fossil fuels completely is out of the question.
But here’s where the Senate has an opportunity: What has come out since COVID, and over the last couple of years, is what’s going on geopolitically around the world, and the fact that countries are looking for food security — Canada is looked to for high-quality, safe food. There needs to be a balance between the environment and production. At no point should a policy or strategy, or whatever you want to call it, implement production because our products are wanted and needed around the world to feed the world. There needs to be a balance between both.
Senator Jaffer: I have another question for you, Mr. Pryce. Since you are part of the BC Agriculture Council, how do you find the cooperation between the federal government, provincial government and the municipalities? For example, I want to be transparent and say that I’m a farmer in Abbotsford. The dikes are a big issue for us. We find that the federal government is not pushing for dikes, which is leading to flooding in the area.
Do you know anything about it? Is your council doing anything about getting help from the U.S. to stop the flooding? Are you aware of that?
Mr. Pryce: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. First of all, in regard to the cooperation between different levels of government, I think that the cooperation is excellent between the province and the municipalities. I think that, for example, as you’re likely familiar with it, we have the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission in B.C., so that forces provinces and municipalities to talk to each other.
I think that cooperation is lacking between the federal and provincial levels of government. As an example, in my opening statement, I had mentioned that we have this regenerative agriculture push at the provincial level, and then going off in a separate direction is the sustainable agriculture strategy at the federal level. Speaking for BCAC, we like sustainable agriculture because it’s a multi-spectrum way of looking at farming in that it needs to be environmentally and economically sustainable as opposed to regenerative, which is a niche and narrow definition of sustainability that doesn’t consider the economic component. There’s a gap there between the federal government and the province.
I think that flood mitigation is another example of how there’s a lack of discussion. Perhaps it’s a case of realizing that it’s a serious issue, but it will also require significant investments and resources to address flood mitigation in the future. Neither side wants to be on the hook for that amount of money, so that means waiting to see who will blink first and who will take leadership.
From a BCAC perspective, whether it’s the province or the federal government, we don’t care who takes leadership. Someone needs to step up. Producers can’t exactly build dams and dikes. It requires regulatory support and funding from the government.
We are involved a little on the Columbia River Treaty because that is coming up for renewal in September. However, it doesn’t involve us engaging with the U.S. government. We understand that’s a nation-to-nation relationship. Of course, Indigenous consultation components are also involved with that treaty.
We engage with the province and try to hold them accountable for taking action, but we don’t feel that we’re able to bypass the federal government per se and engage with American counterparts. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Jaffer: Yes, it does. Thank you.
Senator Klyne: I’m going to try to fit two questions in quickly — the first is for Mr. Rourke.
I was quite interested in this practice on your farm called zero till organic. I’m glad that Mr. Chair asked a question about that because it kind of shocked me that you’re not using it. I’m going to take a different twist on that because I am interested in it.
For the committee and those viewing, I’ll reference that you were quoted in the Manitoba Co-operator around zero till organic. According to that editorial, “zero till organic” means:
. . . trying to have living roots in . . . soils for as much of the year as possible, increasing biodiversity, minimizing soil disturbance, keeping the soil surface covered and integrating animals on all acres.
That was of interest to me.
As I understand it, there are limited regions and soil conditions that could adopt that practice. Could you describe what those conditions are? Would you recommend this to those who aren’t practising it in order to potentially have the right conditions?
Mr. Rourke: Thank you for that question. I’ve grappled with that a lot. I’ve been interested in organic because I thought we could become a little more self-reliant. We went down that road for a little while.
I think you can do zero till organic. There’s a fellow in Indiana, Rick Clark, who does it at scale. However, he has three advantages that I’ll never have.
He gets 40 inches of rain fairly consistently. When he puts something on the surface or in the ground, it grows. I don’t have that luxury. I put it in the ground and cross my fingers. Zero till helps a lot; it helps to keep that moisture so that the seed is more likely to grow. If I till, it’s as follows: sow and pray.
The second thing that he has is a mild enough winter where he can grow a winter annual legume, and he can green seed into that. He already sows fall rye, and he can green seed into that. That gives him a tremendous agronomic advantage. I think we can do that more and more if we can get something like delayed germination seed technology.
The third thing that he has is a neighbour who has an organic dairy. Anything they don’t like, they chop, so the weed control becomes less of an issue. Due to our moisture limitation, I don’t think we can do that at scale in Western Canada. The more cows that you have and the less that you till on an organic system, I think the closer you can get to it. But, for most of us, we’re not going to put up fences, put down perennials and buy cows. The economics and the market are against it.
Senator Klyne: Thank you for the answer.
The second question I have is for those who were just in a discussion around fossil fuels and the reliance upon that. I’m wondering if you’ve heard of — or thought about — Soileos fertilizer, which is purported to solve micronutrient delivery problems of today while improving the land for tomorrow. Don’t quote me on this, but I believe it was also suggested that it could replace nitrogen fertilizer.
Mr. Rourke: If your question is directed to me, I’d like to back up a bit. Certainly, Mr. Boxall is right; we can’t get rid of nitrogen fertilizer tomorrow. We need nitrogen fertilizer for the foreseeable future. But we keep evolving, as he has noticed on his own farm. The best management practice used to be summer fallow, and now we frown upon anybody summer fallowing.
I think that investments are needed to get rid of fossil fuel‑based fertilizers. I don’t think that we should ever have electric tractors, but we can use biodiesel and synthetic diesel, made from our own canola, to power our own tractors. I don’t think that’s out of the question at all, and that would be in line with what the UN thinks we need.
In terms of the Soileos fertilizer, I’ve tried a lot of micronutrient-type products over the years, and I haven’t found a great deal of advantage. I’m not an expert on what that product will do, but I’m usually cautious.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Mr. Boxall: I think there are lots of products out there. I’m not familiar with that either. I am signed on with the 4R Nutrient Stewardship, so I put it in the right place, at the right time and at the right rate. I think that will achieve as much as any of these other snake oils that are out there.
Farmers sometimes get roped in with all of these micronutrients and other stuff. If you soil sample your land, understand what you have, follow the 4Rs and do what’s best, I think we can achieve a lot based on that.
I will reiterate that production is where it’s at. We are looked to, and we will continue to be looked to.
The Chair: I will direct my questions to Mr. Ayre and Mr. Boxall.
With respect to your provincially based organizations, what is being done? I know that you folks are sharing information, as well as hosting meetings and workshops, to help farmers learn new skills around yield, water retention and soil health. What else needs to be done, both provincially and federally, in this regard to enhance that knowledge transfer? Do you have any recommendations regarding what else might need to be done?
Mr. Boxall: What’s happened in the agriculture community — not just in Canada, and not just in my neighbourhood, but also worldwide — is around social media. I have tried things that I’ve seen being done in other countries because I think there’s a benefit to my farm. Nowadays, the knowledge transfer should never be an issue. We have so many platforms where we can lay out what works and what doesn’t work. At the end of the day, there is still some stuff that’s regional. We have research farms that can conduct the research, host field days and put out papers, and there’s an opportunity for them to share knowledge in that way. Currently, with all of the platforms that we have, communication and knowledge transfer should never be an issue — that’s how I feel.
Mr. Ayre: To echo what Mr. Boxall has just said, I talked about the Sustainable CAP funding that was recently announced. I found out about the programming through our organization’s retweet from a provincial government post. As the committee is well aware, knowledge transfer and communication are definitely a struggle at any level of government. As Mr. Boxall said, it is about ensuring that a diverse medium of programs are being used — whether it’s social media, local on-farm research, universities or community colleges — and that there is wide access to read or receive that programming information.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Boxall, Mr. Ayre, Mr. Pryce and Mr. Rourke, for your passion and optimism this morning. I want to thank you very much for your participation today. Your participation in this study is very much appreciated, and it will help us create our final report, which we hope will resonate across Canada.
I’d also like to thank our committee members for your active participation and thoughtful questions.
I want to take a moment, as I always do, to thank the folks who support us in what we do: the interpreters, the Debates team who transcribe the meeting, the committee room attendant, the multimedia services technician, the broadcasting team, the recording centre, ISD and our page.
Colleagues, if there’s no other business for today, I’ll adjourn this meeting with the words, “May the fourth be with you.”
(The committee adjourned.)