THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 1, 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: Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee allow the Senate Communications directorate to take photographs and video recordings for the remainder of today’s meeting? They’re right over here and will be bouncing around. Is it agreed? Carried. Thank you.
Hello, everyone. It is good to be back. Welcome members of the committee to today’s Senate committee meeting. My name is Rob Black, and I’m a senator from Ontario and chair of this meeting. Today, the committee is meeting on its continuing study to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada. Before we hear from our witnesses, I would ask the senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: I am Paula Simons, a senator from Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, a senator for Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory and the homeland of the Métis.
Senator Duncan: Good morning. Senator Pat Duncan from the Yukon.
Senator Klyne: Good morning. Marty Klyne, a senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Good morning and welcome. I am Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon from Nova Scotia.
Senator Oh: Senator Oh from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Before we begin, I’d like to remind you that if there are any technical challenges that arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair and clerk, and we’ll work to solve the issue. With that, I want to also thank the folks behind us involved in interpretation and the TV, making it public to the worldwide web, and our colleagues that support us on this committee, our clerk and our analysts and our staff. Thanks very much for all you do to support us.
Today we welcome, from the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association, Angela Straathof, Program Director; and from the Ontario Soil Network, Tori Waugh, Executive Director.
I’ll invite you to make your presentations. We will begin with Ms. Straathof, to be followed by Ms. Waugh. You each have five minutes. At one minute left, I’ll put one hand up, and when you see two hands, it’s time to wrap up. From there, we’ll go to questions from my colleagues.
Angela Straathof, Program Director, Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association: Good morning. As Senator Black said, I am a program director with the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association, or OSCIA. OSCIA is a grassroots, not-for-profit farm organization representing membership in each county and commodity type across Ontario. While I currently work out of our organization’s head office in Guelph, Ontario, I was raised on a dairy farm about 70 kilometres west of this Senate building. That early start in agriculture galvanized my career path in this industry, and I completed my PhD in agricultural soil biology and chemistry, studying soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics under varying soil types and farm management practices. I’m happy to say that this expertise supports the investigations of this standing committee and the mandate of the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak here this morning.
At OSCIA, we would suggest that the current state of soil health in Canada is in need of improvement, but Canadian soils and Canadian farmers will benefit from having the right tools on hand to move towards an improved state in the coming years. These tools include farmer education and knowledge transfer opportunities, financial incentives to offset the risk farmers assume when implementing practices proven to advance soil health, and research programs that support the agronomic, environmental and profitability benefits of farming practices that enhance soil health.
In Ontario, we have seen nearly 30 years of the successful implementation of farmer education programs, such as the Environmental Farm Plan, to access financial incentives in support of on-farm stewardship initiatives. We also benefit from an abundance of knowledge transfer opportunities. A key takeaway from their delivery is that farmers are most prone to behavioural change when inspired by their peers or when they are able to view and interact with practice demonstrations performed by other farmers.
While establishing a shared vision on the state we want to see Canadian soil health in, regional differences in climate, farm type and soil properties mean the path towards that state may have different starting points across the country. Farmers as individuals will also have different starting points. We must recognize that dedicated, innovative farmers have been achieving positive soil health outcomes for many years. Instead of their achievements being recognized and rewarded, as early adopters, they are often excluded from participation in incentive programs. Incentive programs are instrumental in reducing the financial burden farmers may be disinclined to assume on their own.
While delivering Ontario’s On-Farm Climate Action Fund program, OSCIA witnessed unprecedented demand from farmers seeking financial support to improve their nitrogen management, start cover cropping and implement or expand rotational grazing of livestock. Our recent call for applications to the On-Farm Climate Action Fund received three times the level of demand that funding was available to meet, validating the need for federal support mechanisms such as the Agricultural Climate Solutions funding package.
Positive soil health outcomes are associated with a multitude of other environmental and economic co-benefits, including water quality improvement, greenhouse gas emission mitigation and carbon sequestration, and improved soil structure and crop resiliency. Coupling education on this array of benefits with access to financial support for practice implementation will certainly help improve Canadian soils. Education and knowledge transfer includes the sharing of the latest applied research discoveries on beneficial soil health practices.
As the applied research delivery agent for Ontario’s Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada-funded Living Lab program and our own province’s On-Farm Applied Research and Monitoring program, OSCIA has seen first-hand the innate curiosity and intrinsic motivation that inspires farmers to work with researchers and share insights from their journeys towards improved soil health. We are well positioned as an industry to improve our soils’ health through implementation of the proven tools of education, financial support for practice implementation and research that verifies management paths to positive soil health outcomes.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Tori Waugh, Executive Director, Ontario Soil Network: Honourable senators. I am with the Ontario Soil Network, a farmer-led organization that has been innovating in knowledge mobilization and innovation adoption since 2017.
Soil plays a large role in our sector’s stability, food security, water quality and climate change resilience. Soil quality has yet to fully recover from past practices or is in varying states of decline. While researchers and governments have defined the key best management practices to sustain our soils, farmers have to do it. Currently, we have lots of great strategies in place to sustain our soils: incentive programs, knowledge transfer pathways and some of the best academic institutions in North America.
I know you’ve likely heard a lot already about how Canadian financial programs stack up globally. I don’t see any country today sitting on a perfect solution. I don’t want to let perfect get in the way of good, but I do want to propose three very doable measures that I know ag organizations, researchers and provincial governments can and will leverage to secure the future of soil health in Canada. My first two are quick, because I’m really reiterating what many of my colleagues have reported on back in March and earlier.
First, a national repository for all the information that we have on soils in this country is essential.
Second, soil health will seem subjective until the means of assessment are calibrated to Canadian contexts and standardized. OMAFRA extension staff led an ambitious project developing a soil health assessment protocol that the University of Guelph is now using to create a database of soil health in Ontario. Certainly, this needs to go further than Ontario and be set up for success right away with a repository of information collected in accordance with a Canadian standard and data stewarded at a national scale.
Third, and from our unique perspective as the Ontario Soil Network, farmers must be involved in a soil innovation cluster. I often hear that given the right information or technologies, farmers will continue to improve Canadian soils. I’m here to argue that knowledge mobilization and, certainly, innovation adoption are not a “build it and they will come” scenario. The programs supporting research and innovation are far too valuable to continue leaving out strategies that secure the end goal of adoption.
Senator Deacon focused much of his career on enabling collaboration between research and businesses, and just like him, I’m sure, we’ve spent considerable time partnered in research and program evaluation to understand what makes information usable and innovations adoptable. In fact, we just wrapped up a study that demonstrated a 19% increase in the amount a farmer was willing to pay for cover crops when the prospect was vetted by a farm organization versus a researcher. This tells us two stories: social proof is worth millions, and there is a relevance gap in how farmers perceive information coming from academia.
Farmers are often given information without the guidance to implement it — and for good reason, because every farm is different. They all have different resources, soil types and equipment, and the researcher is just one person. Often the strategies that work well for reaching a large audience are not effective strategies at getting the audience to do anything. It’s essential that the researchers share their work. It’s essential that we have unbiased extension agents translate and compile all that research. It is also essential to enable farmers to carry those messages into their communities.
Through peer learning, farmers are able to fast track innovation, sort and filter the best ideas, avoid mistakes, improve their confidence and build a stronger chance of success. The soil network grew quickly because farmers needed it, and it offered a means of uniting farm organizations, academic institutions and government extension under the common objective of improving our soils through a network approach.
Chantal Petitclerc said, “Excellence doesn’t happen accidently . . . we can always choose the attitude we will have to face life’s challenges.” An enabling environment and structures for collaboration are vital to creating and propelling the kind of can-do attitude that will allow farmers to rise to this challenge. A soil innovation cluster would enable us at the soil network to share our methods so other provinces may adopt similar approaches.
Soil is the heart of agriculture and a huge opportunity for unifying many stakeholders. We need to break silos and equip the right messengers to advocate for the adoption of soil health practices. We must innovate in existing research and incentive programs and focus on comprehensive program evaluation. By incorporating insights from behavioural economists and addressing social norms and perceptions, we can design programs that are adaptive and more likely to succeed. By acknowledging the current state of soils, the risks of maintaining the status quo and opportunities to innovate in policies and programs, we can plant the seeds for a sustainable future.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentations. I feel like clapping. Applause doesn’t come often, so you’ve done well. Thanks very much for your testimony.
Before asking and answering questions, I would ask members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning into the microphones as it does cause feedback at times, and we don’t want to negatively impact the work of our folks behind us.
As has been our previous practice, I would like to remind each senator that you will have five minutes for questions, and that includes the answers as well. We have a list, and I’m sure it will be added to as we go forward. If we need to go into round two, we will.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to both of our witnesses.
You’ve touched on topics that we have been talking about for weeks and months now. This is the question of how you get people to be early adopters or even secondary adopters. One of the challenges is that if you provide incentive programs for the people who’ve lagged, you may disincent people from moving early because they’ll think they can just wait until they get their cookie before they do the thing.
I have two questions — one for each of you, I guess. How do we set up a system that does not penalize or disincent the early adopters by giving more attention to the prodigal sons? Also, how do we get farmers to get past feeling shy about doing things? I attended a soil conference in Edmonton in December where farmers spoke very frankly about the fact that it was peer pressure that stopped them from adopting techniques, basically because they didn’t want the other farmers to laugh at them. How do we set up those peer-to-peer networks so that people can see the behaviour modelled and wish to replicate it?
Ms. Straathof: I can take a first crack at it and then hand it over to Tori.
Yes, that’s the million-dollar question. As a delivery agent of these incentive programs, this is something that OSCIA really receives perennial feedback on: that those folks behind the curve are essentially being rewarded for waiting.
I think what’s interesting and important to recognize about soil health is that alongside the kind of long-term resiliency benefits, there can be mid- to long-term economic gains. I think a lot of the early adopters have benefited from the return on investment of implementing those practices earlier relative to later adopters, although they didn’t receive direct financial incentives.
Again, communicating the economic benefits that are confirmed by research might incent people in advance of direct financial incentives to pursue that long-term return on investment independently. Communicating that there could be, alongside environmental, soil health and societal benefits, an economic gain to be made for the farmer might increase rates of early adoption.
Ms. Waugh: The Ontario Soil Network has been founded in and partnered with behavioural research for six years now. It’s a really great question. It certainly does take a multipronged approach.
Those early adopters, innovators, late adopters and laggards — that’s the innovation diffusion curve, right? That’s partly personality and partly capacity. Ensuring that you have those multiple access and support points for every innovation type is really essential to maintaining momentum.
We recently put out a Social Networks for Healthy Soils report with a number of the researchers that have been studying the Ontario Soil Network as well as world-renowned researchers. The report is on the influence of peer networks in effecting behavioural change. There are six parts to using the kind of peer influence that stops people from adopting these practices and to flip the script. First of all, it takes a different means of looking at it. Contagiousness is not like a virus in this situation. It works in peripheral networks. It’s very difficult to perceive in intuitive ways. Second, it protects the innovators. Those innovators, even though we may not be able to argue that they need to be financially incented, do need to be supported so that they don’t feel crazy. Also, establish wide bridges. Redundancy is often looked down on, but in a social network and in influencing change through peer networks, the more people saying the same message, the better.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses. You don’t normally get applause from a Senate committee. Well done.
I have two questions. What technology do you suggest the farmers need to maximize healthy soil and to increase productivity and profitability? Either one of you can take that question.
Ms. Waugh: One technology? I feel compelled to take it first because I made you take the last one first.
Ms. Straathof: Please.
Ms. Waugh: One technology — farmers work with so many — but certainly their data collection and management systems are going to be the backbone of good decision-making when it comes to humans making those decisions. They’re going to enable a lot more technologies to be in their tool belt. That’s a broad answer. That’s one of the most essential fulcrum points for farmers right now.
Ms. Straathof: I have a relatively broad answer as well, or a suggestion that the specific type of technology is less important than the outcome.
Probably the most effective means to improve soil health is keeping soil covered, whether with living material or residue material. There are many field implementation means to achieve that. Those are just means to the end. Maintaining that cover is going to reduce erosion and increase soil carbon sequestration. Depending on the crop rotation and the soil type, there are many different instruments that can be used to achieve that, including no-till planters or reduced tillage instruments. A lot of the technology will depend on the farmers’ management approach.
Senator Oh: My second question is about what recommendation you have for how the federal and provincial governments can support farmers to increase agriculture production. Is there any method that you would like to suggest?
Ms. Straathof: To increase agricultural production or to increase soil health?
Senator Oh: Agriculture production, yes.
Ms. Straathof: More evidence is needed to convince farmers that they are one and the same. There do need to be longer-term datasets that support that. A lot of agricultural production gains are met through yield achievements, which have a lot to do with plant genetics. Reducing the susceptibility of crops to extreme events is going to have a longer-term insurance policy for productivity. That does go alongside soil health achievements.
Senator Oh: Since both of you have been studying soil health, from the start of your studies until now, have you seen improvement in soil conditions for farmers?
Ms. Straathof: I would say the most dramatic improvement I’ve seen in the nearly 10 years since completing my PhD is the familiarity, comfort level and vocabulary that farmers have as individuals in describing their soil’s conditions and in understanding the trajectory they want their soil health to be on. That has been a very dramatic improvement, in my experience.
Ms. Waugh: I want to speak to the last two questions.
To back Angie up, we’ve conducted a couple of cost-benefit studies with Ag Canada economists. They are worth their weight in gold. They’re very valuable. They do require a significant amount of funding to be usable, not to be these huge database metrics that farmers have to then explore, so that is one very easy and tangible step.
On the second question, in pockets, we have seen objective improvements in the Lake Erie basin where we’ve directed a lot of funding and programming support. We have seen improvements certainly in the adoption of soil health improving and profitability improving practices. Generically, the federal data suggests that it is a hodgepodge, that some places are improving and some places are in decline. I would say that, overall, we are not where we need to be in terms of the capacity to support the kind of productivity that will keep us competitive on a global scale.
Senator Klyne: Soil degradation and erosion are not just environmental problems; they’re also an economic issue, not to mention the key factor behind food security. During the study, we’ve been focused on how to best mitigate and manage these issues.
From your perspective, how big of an issue is soil erosion and degradation in Canada? I heard you say it was certainly an issue, but you may have been speaking of just Ontario. Nationally, how big of a problem is this nationally?
You have already mentioned that incentives should or could be available to offset the investment of adopting best practices and new technology. Should our study include other recommendations on what the federal government should do to combat the issue? Could you tell us what those recommendations should be?
Ms. Straathof: I’m going to address the first part of your question and then ask you to repeat the second half.
Yes, it is true that erosion and degradation are a nationwide challenge, economically challenging for farmers because that’s a resource that’s physically leaving their field, but also a societal, economic challenge because those soil particles are literally moving downstream and off-site. The effects of those elements of soil moving need to be addressed either in water quality or municipally as they impact people’s quality of life and enjoyment of downstream environmental conditions.
Certainly, there’s disparity nationally in the degree to which erosion is a challenge. There have been some provinces and regions that have made more gains toward reducing the rate of loss of soil organic matter over the last 20 years, for example, but I do think the means to reducing that loss nationally are more or less the same.
Senator Klyne: The second half of the question, the back half, was whether our study should include specific recommendations on what the federal government should do to combat this issue and what would those recommendations be.
Ms. Straathof: I would say, yes, specific recommendations are always easier to implement than subjective or broad-scale recommendations.
A lot of what’s already in place just needs to be amplified and accelerated by a level of support. When I say “what’s already in place,” I’m referring to the knowledge that we have on practices that do reduce erosion and degradation by increasing soil organic matter. Those include reduced or no-till systems, keeping soil covered, whether by living plants or crop residues, and minimizing the disturbance or passes over an agricultural field throughout the growing season. These are all things we know, have measured and can measure that have a positive impact on soil health.
Senator Klyne: I’m going to get back to that in the second round. Should the federal government be leaning into something specifically to make some things happen, or are they viewed to be providing a good service in an advisory capacity and support services? Maybe we’ll come back to that later.
We have heard from a lot of provinces and territories, Ontario included. I want to know if you find the provincial Government of Ontario has a good understanding of the issues facing farmers who are trying to protect soil health, particularly around urban sprawl. Do they have the urban sprawl in hand?
Ms. Straathof: Any time soil is covered in buildings or pavement, it ceases to be able to produce food. That’s the bottom line.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much to both of you.
Yes, once you plant a house, you can’t plant a crop. You have done a great job, both of you. We are very grateful to have you here. Evan Fraser, I think in this committee, said that we have to feed more people in the next 40 years than in the previous 10,000 combined. What you have identified is that the amount of arable capacity is dropping, so we need to get more productivity out of our soil.
I love the summary about the need for a national repository, assessment standards and tools, and being farmer-centric. Because if you aren’t centric to each customer — and that’s part of getting technology adopted. You need to be central to the things that keep them up at night, or else they will not adopt whatever you are delivering. I think those are three different elements of the same thing. You can’t get farmer-centric if you don’t get a national repository that allows you to make comparisons within a region and between regions to share practices in a way that they can be applied. I think you would find we agree with those three points.
What are the barriers? We are seeing barriers all over the place at AAFC and wherever else around managing some of these issues, particularly around permanence, additionality and soil carbon, and how to measure in a way that allows us to create markets that can reward farmers, be they early or late adopters, in knowing the best practices, feeling comfortable in applying the best practices and adopting them. Help us find what the barriers are. I think we would fully agree with what you are recommending, but we need to know how to make sure that we can get it done. Easy question.
Ms. Waugh: It is sitting with the deputy minister at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada right now, but we are imminently going to be producing a study of barriers and incentives to cover crops specifically and for our nutrient management that simultaneously is validating a model of innovation adoptability for Canada. It is called the “adopt model.” It has been used nationally, and it was developed in Australia. It has 22 points that influence adoption and whether an innovation is adoptable.
The two largest factors will not surprise you: the economic feasibility within the year used and the simplicity with which it is integrated into an existing farm operation. The third is complex, but it is also no surprise if you look to theories of perceived behavioural control, which is when other people want me to do it, I can do it and I want to do it. The “I can do it” is largely influenced by peer networks and is the pinch point that changes “I want to do something” into actually doing the thing. That “I can do it” is a very colourful story that involves many partners at the table and many different access points to information and capacity building.
Then measuring carbon is a whole other thing.
Senator C. Deacon: But that’s the evidence that will drive. I’m really pleased about how you are thinking about the factors that are going to enable adoption, because if we don’t, we won’t get the right policies to catalyze that. Please, carry on.
Ms. Straathof: I think the problem with identifying the barriers, first of all, is that if there were one or two or we could reach consensus on them, we would not be here today. It would be a problem solved. I think the problem is that if you ask six different farmers what their barrier or perceived barrier to adoption is — a policy barrier does extend from the need to address a farmer’s identified barrier, I would argue. Going to farmers and understanding their perceived barriers is the root of being able to address policy barriers, because they need to overcome the farm-level barrier.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Duncan: Thank you to the witnesses.
I kind of have some short snapper questions, to borrow a phrase from another, leading into a final question. I’m interested in the reach of your organization in Ontario. How far north do you go?
Ms. Straathof: We cover all of Ontario. As a member-based organization, we have members from Cochrane to New Liskeard, and as far south as Chatham-Kent.
Senator Duncan: Has farming gone further north?
Ms. Straathof: Yes.
Senator Duncan: Thank you.
Looking at other soil network organizations in other provinces, for example, the workers’ compensation boards nationally have a national meeting every couple of years. Are there soil health organizations in every province — I know there are not in the territories — and do you meet?
Ms. Straathof: The short answer is no, not in such an organized fashion, but there are soil health initiatives adjacent to a lot of other national initiatives that bring representatives from all the provinces and territories together, such as planning for a national environmental farm plan. Tori can probably answer about other soil networks.
Ms. Waugh: Ontario sits on an abundance of extension networks — from Soils at Guelph, which is a University of Guelph initiative explicitly for knowledge mobilization, to our incredible extension field staff out of OMAFRA, to a number of farmer network driven approaches in our organizations that are constantly working together.
In our work with the Living Laboratories Initiative, that was a huge opportunity to work with federal scientists, and I didn’t meet anyone from any other provinces, not even on Zoom. I do think that a soil innovation cluster, some federal means for inciting collaboration between the provinces, would be hugely valuable for understanding when you sit on a gold mine of extension or understanding what you can ask for from your province and sharing methodologies for influencing adoption. I think there certainly are attempts, but until organizations across this country have an opportunity to form those kinds of partnerships together instead of underneath a program, we are not necessarily going to have those kinds of connections.
Senator Duncan: The other part of our title of this committee is, of course, forestry. We are seeing quite the climate change effects. There will be a significant impact on the soil throughout the country that has suffered forest fires and are suffering from forest fires. I’m curious about what you have seen in terms of climate change in your years of research and the effect of climate change on our soil.
Ms. Straathof: You made the observation earlier or asked for confirmation that agriculture was extending north in Ontario. That extension is associated with land clearing and associated with the changing climate that basically increases the growing degree days that are able to support crops that far north. There are ways to capitalize or expand agriculture as temperatures increase, but they come with that risk of more extreme events. I think of where forestry and agriculture meet at an interface of potential land clearing or the impacts of disruptive forest fires. I’m glad to see those two industries adjacent in the standing committee’s investigation because I don’t think their priorities are unique to one another.
Senator Duncan: You have good measurement of the soil health in northern Ontario now and you are seeing changes and you are seeing —
Ms. Straathof: I think there is room to collect more data especially in the north. It has, I guess, been a blind spot, basically due to logistics. I think there is a need for more data to be collected from that region.
Senator Duncan: Thank you.
The Chair: I might point out that if we meet next Tuesday, we actually will hear from some forestry specialists as well.
Senator Burey: Good morning, everyone. First, let me apologize for being a little bit late. I have a little bit of an excuse, however. I was so taken doing my homework last night that I was reading up and watching the videos, particularly of the social change information recommended highly. I’m going to get to you if I have time later.
I wanted to speak with Dr. Straathof regarding your mention in your opening comments that there were unprecedented applicants for the programs. I wanted to know are you able to give us some more information on that. For example, do you have any disaggregated data specifically on women and marginalized and racialized persons who apply? That’s the first thing. Next thing: What is the approval rate?
There is a big question at the end if we have time. Using modelling and adoption, saying if we can get 20% or 30% from your studies to adopt this year, next year, and looking at what we want to do with our net zero and agriculture, how much money would we need to fully support this program? You may think about that one. Let’s start with the disaggregated data.
Ms. Straathof: Thank you for that question.
Under the On-Farm Climate Action Fund program, we are trying to disaggregate participant demographic information. Applicants and claimants to the program are invited to provide that demographic information voluntarily, so we don’t have necessarily a complete picture, but in year one of the program we had approximately 14% participation by women farmers and about 25% participation rate from young farmers, which AAFC has indicated is farmers under the age of 40. Less than 1% of farmers identify as farmers of colour, but we will have a more robust data set as we support more projects in the second year of the program.
As for the approval rate, there are a couple of different ways to measure approval rate. There is the approval rate of successful applications, so those which were eligible under the program guidelines and received complete of the applications that we were able to fund. That rate is about 75% under the On-Farm Climate Action Fund, which was consistent with environmental stewardship approval rates we were delivering under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership. But the decline rate of potentially eligible applications which we were not able to support due to a lack of funding was about two thirds of the applications we received to the most recent intake, which we hosted in January 2023.
Senator Burey: I’ll leave the other modelling question, if I have time, to ask Ms. Waugh. Thank you so much for all the work you are doing. I’m a behavioural pediatrician so it was music to my ears listening to all this theory of change and models. It applies across the board.
You mentioned one other thing, which is the importance of peer-to-peer mentoring and adoption. This goes back to the same issue of diversity and inclusiveness in terms of the Ontario Soil Network. Have you been doing some outreach to some of these communities — say women, younger farmers, racialized communities — because that’s the network that will really drive this change. Can you tell us what initiatives you are doing on that?
Ms. Waugh: We partner with organizations across the province to ensure our reach for recruitment into the soil network reaches as broad an audience as possible. We cast a large net.
As well, we have a selection committee with particular selection criteria. In our selection criteria, we acknowledge that diversity is not only necessary for these large goals of a more equitable future but is also our secret power. When a network is diverse, people learn more and people are influenced and inspired far more than in a kind of monotonous network. We do take that into consideration in all of our selection.
I would say that the soil network is diverse and it is not. Yes, we do our best.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: My question will be for you, Ms. Waugh, but I’m happy to get answers from both of you, if you can. I’m trying to pin down if the goal is optimal soil health and recovery and healing of soil. I know you are in touch with the farmers. What would you say is the strongest motivator or driver? I know we want to think that everybody will and wants to do it because of environmental priorities, but in the end, what really works on the ground with the farmers? Is it profit? Is it productivity? Is it that innovation gets to them in an effective manner? Is it federal‑provincial targets, incentives or coercion? What is the best recipe to make it happen?
Ms. Waugh: That’s a million-dollar question and one that we have been really interested in for a while. I would say that it depends on what part of the innovation diffusion curve they are in. If they are innovators, then we have found that environmental outcomes are the large incentive. For those laggards and the late majority, we have witnessed peer pressure, coercion, to be a really strong motivator, in fact, over economic advantage. For that early majority, certainly economic advantage is the strongest incentor.
I say that with hesitancy because we survey for it. We ask people what their barrier is. If you ask me what my barrier is to changing the single-pane windows on my house, I would say it is money, but it is not. It is because I’m distracted one week and lazy the other week. There is a myriad of issues that are behind my actual reason. As long as we are relying on surveys as opposed to experimental behavioural economic studies, we will not know the true answers.
Lastly, to validate all of that, is it can be changed. At the Ontario Soil Network, we have seen our programming be able to change the reason why for farmers.
Senator Petitclerc: Would you say, then, that we should make sure that there is enough data and research on the why for productivity? What we hear is that we know it is good for productivity and, therefore, maybe profit, but not everybody knows how much. Should we document and communicate that aspect better, and innovation as well?
Ms. Waugh: Definitely, I think so. Look out for it. It’s coming. The University of Guelph Arrell Food Institute just announced its new chair, and it is Dr. Tongzhe Li of the University of Guelph from their Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics Department. That is their core focus, the why behind behavioural changes in agricultural sustainability, using an experimental approach. It is coming. It is a question that is well studied. There are really good tools for studying it beyond surveying. It is a question not only well worth studying but well worth embedding in our program evaluation. It doesn’t have to be separate. It can be part of informing a reflexive process in enacting change.
Senator Cotter: Thank you very much for your presentations and the upbeat and optimistic communications to us.
I’m from Saskatchewan. I have a sense of the nature of farming there, to some degree. I wanted to talk a little about Ontario and invite your thoughts on what seems to be not insignificant challenges in the world that you are working in. Arable land is shrinking noticeably in Ontario, and particularly the most valuable for development is also often the most valuable for farming and farm production. There are many farms in Ontario, but the sizes are relatively small. For over half of the farmers in Ontario, the revenues from their farms are under $100,000. They have among the highest numbers of farmers working off farm to make ends meet.
The challenge, it seems to me, with all of these features, and older farmers noticeably in Ontario, is the challenge of innovation — partly the economics, partly the mindset. Is it an uphill challenge for you? The level of innovation in Ontario is no greater than the rest of the country, though you are in certain ways the heart of the country. Talk about those challenges and whether they are achievable in the approaches that you and maybe the Government of Ontario are identifying.
Ms. Straathof: Ontario is unique in that it has a very high degree of urban rural adjacency. That supports the ability of farmers to have off-farm jobs more easily than in other parts of the country where there might be a greater distance between an urban centre and the location of the farm.
With the demographic shift that you noted, we are already seeing the impact of that in that there is a level of engagement that farmers of the next generation have that’s really inspiring and unique. They are getting post-secondary education in agriculture, agricultural economics or engineering. They are going back to the farm. That exposure to urban environments and group settings is inspiring them to stay connected with other farmers and other industry experts through Ontario Soil Network or OSCIA membership. Having this generation of farmers come in who are social media, tech and networking savvy is going to be critical for bolstering their confidence and their ability to learn about and implement practices as they get information on those. It is both a challenge and an opportunity. The next decade is going to be critical for Ontario’s ability to capitalize on that demographic shift.
Senator Cotter: Following up on the financial side of things, many Prairie farms would be generating $500,000 to $1 million in revenue a year. That produces an economic base to be able to make technology investments that are responsive to the ideas you have. It seems to me this has to be a challenge for many Ontario farmers. Even if there are ways in which those investments can be supported, the investment is really challenging if the nature of your farming business is more modest financially. Are you seeing that, or are people finding ways?
Ms. Straathof: There is a very high land valuation that supports leverage for investments among Ontario farmers. Economically, they are in a different state. Even across Ontario, there is high variability in what farmers are able to loan or what their revenue might be. If the variability within Ontario is like a microcosm of the variability across Canada, then it is a good case study in how a high range of economic diversity can be addressed.
Ms. Waugh: Innovation capacity can be built.
The Chair: We are approaching one hour. We do have time, because this is the only witness group, for a second round. Before we go to second round, I have a couple of questions myself.
Dr. Straathof, during AGFO’s fact-finding mission to Guelph a few weeks ago, we heard from an individual who mentioned that no-till practices in Ontario have plateaued around 30% for about 15 years now. Would you agree? Why do you think this has happened? What can be done to increase the usage of no-till practices?
Ms. Straathof: Yes, I agree. It is true that adoption rates of no-till have plateaued. That is probably related to a stasis being reached in the cropping rotation that a lot of cash croppers in Ontario are adopting.
There was a rapid adoption of no-till throughout the 1990s as a lot of previous livestock farmers and forage systems moved to a corn, soybean and wheat rotation. Soybeans especially allowed for no-till to be accelerated in its rate of adoption. Now we see that this rotation is kind of consistent across the province.
I would argue that there are a lot of market incentives that have supported that plateau as opposed to a lack of openness by farmers to change to that no-till technology. Even among higher tillage levels, we’ve seen that there’s increased technology to reduce the level of tillage and reduce the amount of soil that’s turned over and still have a viable crop planted in the subsequent growing season. I think while no-till as one type of tillage has kind of plateaued, there are gains being made in reduce-tillage types across the province.
The Chair: Ms. Waugh, the Ontario Soil Network has been engaging farmers at a hands-on level for seven years now, and having been involved in it at the outset, it is delightful for me to see where you have come. It has certainly seen far greater interaction between farmers and researchers as a result, and you mentioned that. You mentioned the Living Labs Program. Is what you’re doing with your local network something similar? Would you say there is an interaction or a similarity? Does the organization in general interact with the Living Labs program of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada?
Ms. Waugh: The Ontario Soil Network was a partner in the Living Lab-Ontario initiative over the last three years. Our role was knowledge and technology translation lead. We were the knowledge mobilization lead. We trained all the farmers that were in the Living Labs initiative. We were also the socio‑economic component lead, partnering with ag economists on cost-benefit studies as well as on the adopt model validation study and on a willingness-to-pay experiment.
It’s a similar idea, and it’s actually one that I studied in a component of my masters. The living laboratories approach is supposed to be very dynamic and reflexive. The intentions are the same, but the outcome is different. With the soil network and with provincial programs, we have far more capacity and agility to let a year’s worth of programming be built by farmers in March and make it happen, whereas at the federal level, that kind of farmer-led programming is not so feasible and it’s a lot slower to move through the channels.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Simons: We’ve talked a little bit about the diversity of agriculture in Canada. I was reminded of it this week because I had a meeting with the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada. There was a farmer from Ontario in that meeting who grows celery, and he talked about how hard it is to grow celery without a lot of nitrogen fertilizer. It really made me think, for lots of reasons. I’m from Alberta. I’ve been thinking about soil health in terms of fields of wheat, canola and barley and not thinking so much about soil health for fruit and vegetable production, which, of course, there is a lot of in Ontario and the south. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about what soil health means for those farmers who are growing fresh produce as opposed to grains and pulses. What different techniques would there need to be to encourage them to adopt soil health practices? Cover crops are not really relevant if you’re growing celery. Or are they? I don’t know anything about celery.
Ms. Waugh: I’m really excited about this question because I think the horticulture sector is at the beginning of reinventing itself. Robotics in Canada is largely focusing on the horticulture sector and are creating really novel solutions that will lead them toward healthier soils.
When it comes to cover crops, there are some horticulture crops where cover crops are feasible and even helpful toward their overall pest management strategies. Overall, when it comes to nutrient management, when nitrogen is used by the crop, it is not wasted nitrogen. The overarching goal — the 2050 goal — of reducing nitrogen emissions is reducing wasted inputs.
With robotics, we’re starting to see a suite of on-the-go tissue testing, which makes nitrogen sampling and action happen within seconds instead of within days. We’re seeing all sorts of robots enter into the field to take over a lot of weed management. We’re seeing AI take over disease assessment and project management from there on. I think robotics is really going to wildly change the horticulture sector. That’s the sector that AgRobotics is focusing on first.
Senator Simons: I have this image of Isaac Asimov robots going into the field and doing the weeding. I’m sure they’re not anthropomorphic robots.
Ms. Waugh: If you’re around in the province of Ontario in late July and early August, the Ontario AgRobotics Working Group is partnering on and hosting a number of AgRobotics field days that I’m sure they would be thrilled to host you at. You can see these things in action.
Senator Simons: That’s very exciting. Thank you very much. That took us in a whole new direction.
Senator Klyne: This is a question for Ms. Waugh. You’ve mentioned a number of programs and considerations that we should or could be doing. Few would challenge that, but please tell this committee what job number one is. Who should be the lead, or what level of government should be taking the lead? How do regional differences figure into this?
Ms. Waugh: I will back my colleagues and say that job number one is a national repository of soil information for Canada. Who should do it? It could be Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It could be a national organization focused on soil and soil health, like the Soil Conservation Council of Canada. They are both very capable bodies. It certainly needs to be done, and I think every single province would be very enthusiastic. I think we would see very little pushback from the provinces or barriers to the provinces making that happen if there was an opportunity to see that kind of an initiative. I think we would see very few barriers in that.
Senator Klyne: So we would see a national repository, probably or maybe led by Ag Canada, and the provinces and territories would feed in their samples on a recurring basis. Then, of course, there would be the special resources and the right personnel there to synthesize the data and provide the reports and feedback to the provinces and territories for their consideration and what changes they may need to make. We recognize every province and region has different soil conditions and different soil types. Saskatchewan, I think, has five different soil zones. There are a lot of moving parts there, if you will, in terms of different focuses on five different zones in Saskatchewan. That, I’m sure, is reflective of all the other provinces and territories as well. It would take quite a bit, but I think with the technology we have, it’s doable.
Ms. Waugh: It certainly is doable. It’s the one situation where I would compare us on a global scale, not to countries in Europe that are small and feasible but to countries like Australia who have some of the best national repositories of soil data in the world. They have very innovative solutions to making that information public, usable and the foundation of programs and initiatives for their country, and they’re quite large.
Senator Klyne: We should take a field trip. Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: I’m glad I get to be the clean-up hitter on a really great session. You two are very inspiring. Thank you both. It’s great to the degree you understand you’re in a sales job, selling evidence-based ideas and solutions. You’re doing your very best to have them centred around what each different group needs.
We have to find a way to get higher farm gate incomes to keep getting more people attracted into agriculture, because too many have my colour of hair, and we need their kids and grandkids to be inspired, as well as those from outside the sector. That can come from higher prices or reduced costs, and what we’re talking about offers the potential for both. But we need data repositories at the base of the whole system. You need to have really good data to build evidence-based decisions on.
What I find is that there is a lot of insight and consistency with other things we’ve heard about the administrative burden around federal programs. I feel so many of those programs are built out of past practice versus best practice. We’re not really learning from where we need to go. If we could have a good information system at the foundation of behavioural change that is beneficial to the climate, beneficial to farmers, beneficial to all of us and delivers all these benefits, then we’re going to have to focus on best practices and get people to drop their belief systems and focus on what works.
There are two examples recently that really impressed me. The Canadian Sheep Federation has a blockchain system for enabling traceability that is farmer-centric, processing-centric, retailer‑centric and consumer-centric. It goes right through. Each group gets the information they need from the farm straight through. We saw that as well in Australia around spirits, beer and wine from the farm right through to the consumer, that traceability, and it had huge excise tax improvements and benefits.
Help us understand what we need to do or say to make sure that we get to the best practice, because I am really worried we’re going to come forward with recommendations that are going to be interpreted through a lens of what is being done right now, not through a lens of what we need to do. You’ve hit on it with the federal program burden. It’s just not effective because it’s not farmer-centric, or it’s not nearly as effective as it could be. Is that a fair question to be asking? How do we make sure that what we recommend is going to actually get something that is going to work?
Ms. Waugh: I want to tread lightly on that subject because the opportunity to partner with federal researchers is huge, especially to a little organization like the Ontario Soil Network. We’ve produced so much out of it with the right personalities. There are certainly structural barriers that have slowed down collaboration within those initiatives that could be addressed with a greater risk tolerance in those programs.
Senator C. Deacon: A willingness to iterate.
Ms. Waugh: Willingness to iterate, yes, certainly. But then too there is this lower level, a level at the personhood of a mindset shift, and certainly at least some kind of training, if not greater supports, to the project managers to understand capacity development and network approaches or community organizing, those kinds of skill sets to support those researchers that are maybe very keen on their research but not so keen on the approach to influence them and support them in adopting those best practices.
You spoke of blockchain as well and that overarching dilemma of how we can increase profitability at the farm gate. It is kind of a game of who gets pinched. Is it the consumer, or is it the farmer? It can’t be either. I think there are lots of opportunities for horizontal growth on farms that are beginning to be made available now.
Ms. Straathof: I think the double-edged sword with the federal programming administration is that in order to make any meaningful comment on its effectiveness, we have to collect this data. I think the data provision seems onerous to farmers and the data collection is onerous to program administrators, but you can’t have those markers of success without them. I think of finding some middle ground. To Tori’s point about a greater risk tolerance being required, that’s where you’re also going to have opportunities to recognize and reward innovation. It’s finding that middle ground between being able to track success and being willing to take risks with public dollars.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you both very much.
The Chair: I have one quick question. In a few weeks’ time, or within the next few weeks, we’re likely to hear from Australia’s National Soils Advocate as a witness, Dr. Penelope Wensley. What are your thoughts about the need for a national Canadian soils advocate?
Ms. Straathof: An individual?
The Chair: This is an individual with a small secretariat, and she travels the country and the world advocating for soil in Australia.
Ms. Straathof: How interesting. Wow. Any committee or initiative needs a face or a figurehead or an owner. I think any national soil strategy is going to have some top overseer. That model makes sense to me.
The Chair: When we post the job, I’ll let you know.
Ms. Straathof: Let me get my card.
Ms. Waugh: I can see that being very effective for seeing soil considered at all levels of government, whether it be in municipal planning or within federal budgets. I can see that being a very effective tool for reaching out into urban spaces that don’t necessarily get the opportunity to interact with the beautiful thing that we call soil health in Canada. I can see that being, yes, very helpful to those groups. I wonder what farmers would think of it. You would have to choose the right person. That’s for sure.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Dr. Straathof and Ms. Waugh, I want thank you very much on behalf of this group for your inspiration. Thank you for your assistance today. Your help will be instrumental in the long-term study that we’re undertaking.
Again, I want to again thank the folks that support us around this room and off-site. We couldn’t do this without you folks, so thanks very much.
Colleagues, we will be meeting again next Tuesday, I hope, and there will be a forestry perspective on that evening. Then next Thursday, for our two-hour regular meeting, that will be two panels: Toronto Black Farmers, Sundance Harvest Market and Quebec organizations that are not provincial in scope.
If there is no other business, honourable senators, this meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)