Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 46 - Evidence - Meeting of March 22, 2018 (afternoon meeting)
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 22, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 1:17 p.m. to study the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors.
Senator Diane F. Griffin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I am Diane Griffin, senator from Prince Edward Island, and I chair the committee. With me is my colleague, Senator Maltais from Quebec, and he’s the deputy chair of the committee. The other members of the committee who were here yesterday would have liked to have been here today. They were very disappointed that they had to be called back to Ottawa last night. For us, it’s unfortunate.
We’re continuing our study that we’ve been involved with for little awhile on the effect of climate change on agriculture, agri-food and the forestry sectors. We’re really happy to be in Calgary. This is our second day here. We were in Vancouver for two days and heard some great presentations there.
We’re looking forward to some more great presentations from you. There’s no pressure. I would invite each of you to introduce yourselves.
Guillermo Hernandez Ramirez, Assistant Professor, Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, as an individual: This is the first opportunity I have had to speak to a body of policy-makers. It’s great to have this chance. My name is Guillermo Hernandez. I work for University of Alberta as a professor of environmental sciences in the Department of Renewable Resources in Edmonton.
William Shotyk, Bocock Chair for Agriculture and the Environment, Department of Renewable Resources, University of Albert, as an individual: My name is William Shotyk, and I am the Bocock Chair for Agriculture and the Environment in the same department as Mr. Ramirez, Department of Renewable Resources at the University of Alberta.
Mr. Hernandez Ramirez: I have a few notes that I hope can help us to start the conversation. They are not meant to be comprehensive, and I will be very happy to take any other questions or thoughts from you.
On the second page, I have a very short list of items that we can cover today. I would be very happy to hear any questions you may have about how temperature can impact cropping systems or how the moisture or precipitation could be interacting with climate change effects. Most of my academic training and research focused on what is beneath the ground in the soils. Then I will be hopefully making two or three points about how soils interact and can contribute to manage climate change. After that, we can talk about pollenization, night and day temperatures, and all those different elements. I have an idea that maybe we should talk a bit about buffering climate change, and after that maybe we can talk a bit about mitigation of emissions. Today we don’t have an overwhelming amount of data but just two pieces of data. That is great. Finally, I will make a point regarding how we can transform the cropping system to help us to adapt to climate change.
I am very practical. It’s true that we need to study the problem and to understand the processes. However, we also need to look into solutions. I am hoping that today we can also have a conversation about potential solutions.
I am also philosophical. On page 3, I am showing a very simple diagram of what can be defined as sustainability. Climate change is at the centre of what the sustainability conversation is about. We need to integrate societal needs, but also need to look at nature and the way that we interact with nature and use natural resources. It all bounces back to how the economy is evolving and how the three sustainability sectors interact.
Also on page 3, essentially, is one of the points I try to make to my students. Soils have the ability to hold water and to provide water for plants. That capacity exists. However, we can improve that capacity. Why do I mention this today when we’re talking about climate change? One of the problems with climate change is variability of precipitation.
I speak with farmers across Alberta. I talk with them about many different aspects. However, I get the most eye contact when I speak about drought. They feel concern about drought. It’s something that can have a serious impact on their business.
How can we manage drought? In my view, one way that we can do it is by increasing the capacity of the soils to hold water for crops and to deliver that moisture that crops need to grow during the whole growing season. That’s a way that we can buffer the effect of climate change. If climate change is bringing variability in precipitation, if climate change is bringing drought in some years, then we’re able to better manage if we have capacity in the soil to increase water availability for the crops.
That’s what I hear from farmers. My conversation goes along with them. It’s very simple. If we look at this piece of data, one of the potential ways to increase the capacity of the soil to hold more water, to be more like a sponge and make water available for crops in dry years, is by increasing organic carbon or organic matter.
Guess what? That’s also beneficial because if we have more organic carbon in the soil, then we have less in the atmosphere. It’s a win-win strategy. We are able to increase the capacity of the soil to deliver moisture or water for the crops, for the plants to grow and produce food. At the same time, we are removing carbon from the atmosphere. Therefore, it’s a study that resounds. It makes total sense. It’s something that we already know. We just need to implement management that can enable us to move in the direction to buffer climate change.
How do we do that? How do we increase the buffer capacity? How do we increase that sponge effect, the ability of the soil to hold water and to make that water available for plants? On page 5 is a very quick list or a small list of different practices that perhaps we can implement to increase the ability of the soils to have more organic matter but at the same time to have more water-holding capacity. With more water-holding capacity, the moisture in our soils from the spring or from the snowmelt will stay there for the growing season for the plants to use and for the crops to grow better.
Perhaps three of those elements are not comprehensive at all, or maybe they are biased because I work in these three different areas. I work in manure management and the addition of biosolids that can improve organic matter in soils. I also work in controlled traffic farming, which is a way to have precision agriculture, and on implementing management so we can actually have more water-holding capacity in soils for crops to grow better. We work with farmers directly in the fields to implement some of this management. Also, we research to improve those strategies and those practices.
Finally, we are implementing research in developing perennial crops where we’re able to grow crops year after year. I will go back later to one of my ex-lives and an interesting point on transformation in cropping systems.
On page 6 is my second piece of data. How can we reduce those emissions? My students and I go to the fields. We try to manage manure. With additional nutrient in the fields we have this powerful greenhouse gas, which is called nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide is a very powerful greenhouse gas, not only because it’s 300 times more powerful than CO2 but it can deplete ozone in the stratosphere. In addition, if we have CO2, we can actually sequester CO2 back into the ground because of photosynthesis processes. In the case of N2O, that’s not possible. We don’t have that sink. It’s a major problem. N2O, nitrous oxide, is a greenhouse gas which will stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. It’s a major concern, and that’s why we also focus on this greenhouse gas.
If we look at this piece of data, we have an addition of manure in the fall. Not much happens during the fall. That nitrogen stays there in those cold and dry conditions in Alberta. However, in the spring, in April, we wet conditions. It happens every spring. For instance, it’s coming up in the next few weeks. We have a major emission of N2O happening in a narrow window of time. In this episodic event the amount of N2O is very concentrated. In just a few weeks, we have about six kilograms of N2O. It doesn’t sound like that much, but because of the high warming potential it equates to almost two megagrams of CO2. It’s very powerful happening in a very narrow point of time.
It’s a concern. It is a problem. How can we move to a solution? On page 7, my students or my collaborators and I use the same manure and add an additive. Additives have been studied for years and decades to find ways to inhibit the emissions and move into solutions. We study the problem. We are hoping to find solutions to the problem. Are you able to see the orange and red lines reducing those emissions by more than half? Today I am not mentioning any commercial brands. Instead we used additive A and additive B, and my favourite is additive B in this case because it reduces even more. We are continuing that study. I am just trying to make the point that we also need to move into the mitigation of emissions before the mitigations actually happen and cause climate change.
On the next page there are two pictures of what my students and I learn in the laboratory. Now we not only move into quantification of fluxes, but we have the ability to measure parts per trillion in the precision setting. We are able to measure these in the laboratory. We also use isotopes to backtrack those processes. If we are able to understand better this problem and these processes, then perhaps we can model and we can quantify better those responses. Then we are able to get a better handle on it.
For example, nowadays, the Holos model used by the federal government in Agri-Food Canada is the model that includes the submission of N2O. However, it could have an uncertainty of even 60, 70 or 80 per cent. Therefore, if we were able to improve those models, perhaps we are able to have a better estimation. Also we would have better management of how greenhouse emissions could be reduced, perhaps, by looking at efficiency. That’s part of the work we do.
In wrapping up my presentation, if we move to the last page we see that we are working on perennial crops. Farmers across Western Canada and around the world go about planting annual crops year after year. Instead of having cultivars that need to be seeded every year, we are proposing seeding a crop and then being able to grow the same crop in the same place, two, three or four years in a row, without having to seed it or do tillage again. Without having all those operations, we are saving that cost. However, in addition, we are able to have benefit to the environment because maybe those crops are able to grow more roots. There is a picture on that page which shoes compilation of roots grown by perennial crops. A crop that is only annual has a much shorter rooting. Roots are very important, not only because they will add carbon to the soil, but also because they will find water.
This takes me back to my first point. We need to buffer the impact of climate change in extreme precipitation events including drought. One way to do it is by accessing the resources in that soil profile. Maybe it’s a cycle, going back all the way to the beginning of my presentation. This is being implemented. We’re doing the research in perennial rye. However, work is already being done in developing perennial cultivars for wheat and barley. That’s on the go. In other parts of the world, there are also perennial efforts to establish perennial crops for rice and other crops. This is perhaps one of the revolutions that will take place in agriculture, and this will maybe help us adapt to climate change, as well.
With that, thank you very much for your attention. I would be happy to entertain any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Hernandez Ramirez. We will hear both presentations, and then we’ll ask questions of both of you.
Mr. Shotyk: Guillermo, that is a hard act to follow. It was beautiful and inspiring. I have an idea for the next Bentley Lecture in Sustainable Agriculture.
I’ve prepared a very general statement on improving the environmental resilience of our farm and forest lands in the face of changing climate. There are seven main points in the text I’ve provided you.
Point No. 1 is just a reminder. I know you know this. Soil is the basis of our civilization. That’s a quotation from Thomas Jefferson. It’s the basis of agriculture and forestry. I would say soil is our third most important natural resource after oxygen and water. It’s an important part of the global carbon cycle and, therefore, part of the global climate system and the global nitrogen cycle. Soil is also a major component of our global biodiversity. It’s a storehouse of essential nutrients for plants and animals and a water reservoir but also a water filter. During the past 7,000 years, civilizations have risen and fallen, depending on how they treat their soils. Our soils are at risk.
Point No. 2 is climate change. As we increase sea surface temperature we can expect more weather extremes. We talk about the average annual temperature and how it will change. The average temperature is a very misleading statistic. The average temperature of patients in a hospital is 37 degrees. Some are hot; some are cold. We have to be aware of the extremes, the intensity of rain storms and the intensity of drought. Dr. Hernandez Ramirez mentioned concerns about drought. These together signify an increasing potential for soil erosion. Everything possible must be done to prevent the acceleration of soil erosion.
Point No. 3 is a warning. We’ve been warned many times. If you’re familiar with the manmade deserts of Simcoe County in southern Ontario, when the pine trees were removed Midhurst, Ontario, became a desert. The sand dunes were the size of hay barns. When the trees were removed, the organic matter blew away. This is very well documented. That was only 100 years ago. When Algonquin Provincial Park was clearcut, there was an acceleration of sedimentation. I’ve seen that in lake sediment accumulation rates and, of course, the dust bowl of southern Alberta. There are important history lessons that we can’t ignore.
Point No. 4 is on taking action. What can landowners do?
First is protecting the soil using vegetation cover. Bare soil equals vulnerable soil. See the report by Lowdermilk in 1948.
Second is increasing amount of soil organic matter. We’ve had an excellent plea for doing exactly by practising conservation agriculture. On this topic, I suggest the book by F. H. King, Farmers of Forty Centuries, on how agriculture has been maintained in Asia through the constant addition of organic matter. This will help to stabilize global climate, boost the nitrogen reservoir, reduce nutrient losses, boost the reservoir of macronutrients and micronutrients, maintain soil health, immobilize contaminants, improve the water quality of surface and groundwater, and help to reduce flooding. As was pointed out, soil is a sponge, and we can improve that capacity.
Third is planting windbreaks. There are numerous ecological benefits.
Fourth is riparian buffer strips. Again, there are numerous ecological benefits.
Fifth is protecting natural wetlands. Again, there are numerous ecological benefits.
Point No. 5 is also on taking action. What can educators do? Students have to develop a better understanding of the foundations of a habitable planet. Students can learn history, geography, math and biology as they learn to understand how the earth functions. Students have to learn about conservation, not only from a theoretical perspective but also a practical perspective. We have to promote public education. Education is for everybody.
Point No. 6 asks: What can our governments do? Our best farmland must be protected from development. Development represents a permanent loss. Just have a look at how the best farmlands are disappearing in southern Ontario. We need to recreate the tree nurseries that provide the planting stock of native plants. I give you a quotation from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture annual report for the year 1888: “The way to encourage the planting of trees is to plant them.”
Point No. 7 is planning for seven generations by consulting with First Nations communities regarding environmental stewardship, embracing traditional knowledge and engaging First Nations communities to help Canadians better understand the meaning of environmental sustainability. Let’s look at the Fort McKay First Nation in northern Alberta. We have archeological evidence that people have been living there for 10,000 years. Somehow they figured out sustainability. We need to promote traditional knowledge in Canadian society and promote western knowledge, especially our science, in First Nations society.
Finally, there is an epilogue from me personally. We have to practise what we preach. On our little farm near Elmvale, Ontario, I’ve planted 25,000 trees during the past 40 years, 10,000 of them by hand and more than 50 species. It’s now permanent grassland. Ephemeral wetlands were preserved, not drained. A constructed wetland has been added to help educate the general public. I’ve created the annual Elmvale Water Festival, the first festival in human history where you can drink all you want for free all day, and the Elmvale Foundation, a federally registered charity for environmental education.
As I speak to you here today, local citizens including First Nations communities, are working together to prevent the expansion of aggregate extraction in the Simcoe Highlands to preserve farmlands and forest soils that constitute the groundwater recharge zone of the artesian springs of the Elmvale area, arguably the purest water on earth. Please see the attached letter from the Elmvale Foundation to the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
As I speak here today, I think of these citizens and I thank them for their efforts in soil and water conservation. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentations. We’ll move into questions now, and Senator Maltais will lead off.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you for your fascinating presentations. I think the committee will find them extremely informative.
I’ll start with you, Mr. Ramirez. First off, I want to congratulate you on being one of the few ecologists to focus on society, the economy, and productive ecology. That’s fantastic, because there’s a lot that needs to be prioritized. Obviously, ecology is great, ecology is the future, but we can’t overlook the fact that our society has ongoing needs that must be met with the greatest care possible. So I commend you for that.
You talked about several issues, but what I retained is that it’s now possible to prevent drought. I’ll let you answer.
[English]
Mr. Hernandez Ramirez: Could you repeat the last part, please?
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Is it possible now to prevent drought from happening?
[English]
Mr. Hernandez Ramirez: That is a good question. I don’t think we are able to anticipate or prevent drought from happening. Actually, we don’t know if we want to talk about drought in terms of the whole season or just spacing out rainfalls. It used to be that every week nice rain was added to the soil or added to the fields. Now maybe it’s happening every 10 days or every even 20 days, but much more intense.
Drought is expressing itself not only as a whole season that it’s dry, but it’s also expressing itself by spacing out of those individual rainfalls. I don’t think we are able to prevent drought. We’re able to manage to prepare ourselves or the conditions that can help us to deal with drought, for example, by building more our water-holding capacity or choosing crops that take water deeper.
We are able to think of drought as an event that happens. In a recorded way, maybe 15 or 20 years ago we had intense drought around central Alberta and maybe, during the last six or 10 years, a more relatively wet cycle. It’s possible, then, that we are to go back to a dry cycle in the next 10 years or so. Historical data is able to show a cycle of maybe 15 or 20 years where conditions shift from being dry to being wet. I don’t think we are able to anticipate when drought will happen. Perhaps we’re able to forecast for a few weeks or a few days, but we are not able to prevent drought. We’re able to manage drought according to the choices we make.
I remember in May 2015 it was very dry around Alberta and western Canada. However, farmers had been working with conservation agriculture, no-tillage, precision agriculture and controlled traffic farming. In their fields the crops were continuing to grow, whereas other neighbouring fields didn’t have that capacity, perhaps because the management was different. We’re talking about the interaction between the environment, which is drought, perhaps, or weather, and how management can help to mitigate or modulate those extreme environmental events. Climate change is changing the environment, but maybe through better management we’re able to deal with this factor of the environment itself.
It’s a three-factor equation, actually. We have the environment, which is changing because of climate change. We have management practices, and then we have the third factor which is genetics or breeding. We also work closely with breeders so that we have crops that are able to better manage conditions by shifting more of the resources of the plants from the canopy to the roots in the underground so that the roots are able to access the water and nutrients that are there. Those resources are there. It’s just that during many years we have been shifting the focus to rain and the canopy instead of building the resiliency of crops to access those resources by having stronger root systems.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: You also talked about the water-holding capacity of soils, including the use of additives to make soils spongier. What are those additives?
[English]
Mr. Hernandez Ramirez: That is a very good question. We need to increase organic matter. We need to provide feedstock for the soil system to increase the organic matter that comes from, for example, adding manure, from adding plant residue and from adding biosolids. We use biosolids from the cities. Humans have been getting very good at concentrating nutrients and resources in the cities. They know the signs if they become a problem.
My students and I take biosolids from Edmonton and Banff waste management facilities and we test how those different biosolids are able to increase the capacity of the soil to be a sponge. I mean that is a metaphor, but it’s essentially that they have more pores. They have more spaces that can store water and make it available for crops.
In addition, there are other processes that can help. For example, by using no-tillage conservation and controlled traffic farming we are able to prevent compaction. By doing that, then, we are able to have that nice sponge structure in the soil. Farmers refer to that property in terms of soil tilth or soil health. It’s a soil that is healthy. It’s used for growing crops, but it also has the benefit of adapting or buffering climate change and sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. It has multiple purposes. If we go in the right direction, I think we are able to harness all these different benefits.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you. Someone we heard from this morning spoke about perennial crops, which you mentioned at the beginning of your presentation. Is that something that has a future in all the regions, or is it still at the experimental stage? And does it apply to all the types of grasses we need, for ourselves and for the countries we export to?
[English]
Mr. Hernandez Ramirez: I guess the question is about whether it is something we can implement. The answer is yes. For example, perennial rye cultivar ACE was released by Agri-Food Canada as a commercial cultivar. We’re able to actually buy commercial seed. Farmers are able to make that choice. Right now that’s possible.
This is also world that is in progress. Breeding programs takes some time. They can take many years. In the next few years or decades we hope to have perennial wheat and perennial barley. Those are under development, in pure development. We are doing the testing to see how these different cultivars, these new cultivars, could be beneficial for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and for sequestering carbon. That is still unknown. We are measuring that, but it’s implemental because the commercial seed is already available. Farmers are able to assess this for rye.
Yes, there are developments that are necessary for wheat and for barley. They are coming up. Stay tuned. I am very hopeful there will be a revolution, a change in the way we do agriculture around Western Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I have one last question for you. Your theory is very interesting. You’re doing collaborative research with farmers. Have you used a plot of land to put your theories into practice? For example, have you tested out your theory on a few acres of farmland?
[English]
Mr. Hernandez Ramirez: At least half of the results that I mentioned here have already been used by farm collaborators. A part of my collaborators are farmers. We work directly with James Jackson in Dapp, Craig Shaw in Lacombe, and many other farmers across Alberta, all the way from Cleardale in Peace County to Rolling Hills in the south, from irrigated land all the way to rain-fed areas around Edmonton and beyond. Those farmers have questions. We work directly with at least half of them to implement the management we have developed.
Some of the insight I provided today is still in development. We test in the laboratory and in research farms. The university has research with farms in Breton, in St. Albert and in other places. We’re working on a whole range of differing variables. We are working on direct farms operations where they are making decisions based on profit. However, there are other areas that are only experimental. Some of the additives to reuse greenhouse gases that I mentioned are already commercial. They have other benefits, as well. We will continue working with practitioners, consultants and farmers to advance knowledge that can lead us to sustainability.
Perhaps I can add something. One of the reasons I mentioned today the sustainability of nature, society and the economy is that I am a professor of sustainability in my department. I speak about this subject with my students directly. I think the next generation will bring change for us because they care. They are already experiencing climate change around western Canada. They are the students or the professionals that will be handling these problems directly. We want to support the new generations and work with them in research so that we can actually continue in this tri-direction.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you very much.
My next question is for William Shotyk. You gave a great presentation from your brief on biodiversity. You mentioned desertification. It’s not a new phenomenon. It’s been happening for several decades in all the provinces. As the population grows and cities expand, farmers need more and more arable land, so the forest recedes, often with disastrous results. It’s not being done under the best conditions. We haven’t done enough about reforestation. Can you tell me how much land has turned into desert in Canada in 2018?
[English]
Mr. Shotyk: I am sorry, but I don’t have the number on that one. I couldn’t say.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Do you think things have improved over the past few years, or is clear-cutting still going on in most provinces?
[English]
Mr. Shotyk: Again, it would be hard for me to say. What I can say is that we have a much better general awareness of the issues. It’s very important for us to put these into practice at every opportunity.
Traditionally, we had a model of a forest and a model of a farm. In terms of achieving sustainability of the landscape, we have to think more along the lines of a hybrid model where there are parts of the farm that are forested for ecological reasons and for reasons of minimizing soil erosion, for example. If we look at traditionally how farmland was created and divided in Canada, it would be helpful for us to think more along the lines of watersheds, the connectivity between our land and our water, redesigning our landscapes going forward such that we’re maintaining our agricultural lands, and reducing the impacts on water quality by using native vegetation like our trees or riparian planting and this kind of thing.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: You mentioned climate change several times. How fast can we expect this change to happen in the next 10 years? Will the climate change dramatically?
[English]
Mr. Shotyk: I am not a climatologist, but I think the evidence of rapid climate change is there. For example, here in Alberta, we’re not so far away from the Athabasca Glacier. If you at old photographs of the Athabasca Glacier from the turn of the 20th century and at the Athabasca Glacier today, you can see how much retreat there has been.
I did a report for the Alberta Institute of Agrologists when I moved to Alberta about six years ago. Don’t quote me on the number, but I think the number in there is that by the end of the current century we will have lost 90 per cent of the ice volume in the glaciers on the east side of the Rockies.
There is lots of evidence that climate is changing very rapidly. I am actually just following all the research on climate change on the periphery. What I am seeing is that the climate is changing much more rapidly than we anticipated. This is why it’s important for us going forward, in terms of protecting our soils, to plan now how to reduce their susceptibility to erosion as the incidents of drought and of flooding increase in storm intensity as those intensify going forward.
The Chair: Dr. Hernandez Ramirez, I am really taken with the photograph on page 9. How old is the perennial plant on the left?
Mr. Hernandez Ramirez: This is a plant that grew during one year.
The Chair: That’s one year of growth.
Mr. Hernandez Ramirez: That’s one year of growth. It is indicating more of the resources below ground than above ground and it’s growing. For example, the annual plant that you have on the right grew for only two to two and a half months. Then it stopped growing and was dedicated to feeding the grain in store. In the case of the perennial plant, we were able to seed it. Then it will continue growing during the fall and in the next spring it will also be able to grow. This is annual cycle comparison.
The Chair: If it has grown that much within one year, would it continue that rate of growth in future years, or will it put more energy into the shoot and the grain?
Mr. Hernandez Ramirez: With perennial plants, what we typically have is a renewal of fine roots. Annually some of the fine roots will die and contribute to carboning the soil. Then new fine roots will be able to develop and grow. You need to dedicate resources to continue building the root mass, those components that are finer or smaller roots.
In other words, I guess the answer is yes and no. It would be a need to dedicate new resources to rebuild those fine roots, but the main roots would be already available there or present. The plants won’t have to dedicate all their resources to build again all the system.
One of the advantages in the spring is that perennial plants are able to start growing quicker than annual plants because they already have a system in place. In order to have a root system in place, they also store energy reserves from the fall to be used in the spring for the initial growth. By having this initial growing, in April or early May we are able to access weather resources that otherwise might be lost. Nutrients are available at that time. If we don’t use those nutrients, they can become pollutants or they can even be transformed into greenhouse gases. We are trying to use the windows of time in the early season and in the late season in the fall. We’ve also planned growth, which is actually something similar to what happens in natural ecosystems. It’s not that everything natural is good, but in this case the principle of filling that gap by using those windows of opportunity in the early spring and in the late fall there’s radiation or heat. Therefore, we’re able to have planned growth and productivity which can be used as forage or to underpin grain productivity.
The Chair: That’s a very dramatic picture.
Mr. Hernandez Ramirez: It’s very impressive. It was also the same impression for me to be able to grow all that mass in a single 24-month cycle. It’s also because the other plants are not growing that length of time. They grow roots during June and July, and they stop to be able to dedicate to other compartments.
The Chair: Very interesting. You’re both involved in research and are probably aware that on February 28, the Honourable Lawrence MacAulay, federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, announced a new funding program, the Canadian Agricultural Partnership. That has to do with combating climate change in the agriculture industry.
You’re nodding your head, so I am sure you’re aware of it, but are you both aware of it? Will such a funding source be useful to you for your research?
Mr. Hernandez Ramirez: I was present when the minister was on campus announcing the program. I am very glad to say I am one of the PIs for using those funding resources. We are grateful to have the resources. The perennial research we are staffing is using those financial resources from the federal government to be able to do our research. We are very pleased to be able to access those resources and to educate students. I have students in the project and technicians who are developing datasets so that we can learn how greenhouse gases could be reduced. I have deep involvement in at least two of those different programs through the Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Program or the AGGP partnership the minister was able to approve back in February.
The Chair: Terrific.
Mr. Hernandez Ramirez: I was happy to shake his hand.
Mr. Shotyk: Since I moved to the University of Alberta, and I have been here about six years now, my focus has actually been environmental impact of oil sands development. My main research area is trace elements in the environment, specifically heavy metals in the environment. That has been very much my focus.
There’s been a lot of misunderstanding about emissions of potentially toxic heavy metals from the oil sands. We built a metal-free, ultra clean laboratory to be able to measure trace elements in the environment. It took about three years to get that lab up and running. We’ve been looking at trace elements in the air, using moss, using snow and trace elements in the water in the lower Athabasca watershed. That has been very much my focus.
Now I am starting Reader’s Digest condensed version. There’s no heavy metal pollution from the oil sands. Heavy metals in the air have been in decline for decades. Heavy metals in the water are at natural background levels.
I am now starting to turn my attention to micronutrients in agriculture and to look at the speciation of trace elements in the soil solution. What is it in the soil solution that dictates availability of copper to plants or availability of molybdenum to plants? We’ve developed the technology for understanding trace elements speciation from our Athabasca River work and now we’re starting to turn it to agriculture. I’ve not applied for any of that funding yet. We’ve been developing the tools for collecting the soil solution and for doing the trace elements speciation. We’re now in the position where we can start to have a look at these things.
Mr. Hernandez Ramirez: Just to follow up on one of the points, I fully agree with Mr. Shotyk that an average can be misleading when looking at the data results. Average can mask the ability we are facing. For example, it could perhaps be said that the average annual air temperature is increasing because of climate change one or two degrees. That doesn’t sound that much, perhaps. However, the point they want to make is that actually the change that this happening the most is in night-time temperatures.
There are two main processes plant productivity. One is photosynthesis or bringing down carbon into the canopy, and we have respiration. The plants need to respire so that they can actually run their business or their process to get cash energy to be able to grow. In the daytime we can have photosynthesis with the light. However, during the night we are having mostly contribution for respiration. It used to be that central Alberta or western Canada experienced cold nights. However, that’s where the most of the change is happening. In those night-time temperatures we have the rise of heat for different reasons. Therefore, out of the two components of photosynthesis and respiration perhaps photosynthesis is changing a bit because of original heat during the daytime, but respiration is increasing the most. Respiration is taking away some of the carbon that has been fixed. Climate change or global warming is actually taking away some of our capacity for plant productivity because of increasing night temperatures.
There are warmer temperatures around Edmonton. I heard that from my neighbours. It used to be cold there. Now nights are getting a little warmer. The challenge for us is that there’s a disproportional change between day and night, and night is compromising the ability for us to be able to harness the plant productivity that is happening.
Another reason night temperatures are increasing is that water vapour is a key greenhouse gas. We don’t typically talk about water vapour as a greenhouse gas but it traps heat. During the nighttime, water vapour can stay in the boundary layer. It will hold the heat that is warming the fields, the canopy and the cropping systems. It’s a challenge for us because now we have this shift to warming nights. There are other reasons for why night temperatures are increasing. It also has to do with turbulence. During the daytime we have more mixing of the atmosphere and therefore this cooling down effect. In the nighttime we have less turbulence and therefore the heat is trapped and is increasing those night temperatures for us, which is one of the concerns we need to be aware of.
That’s not the only reason for why heat and change in temperature are problems. There are also pollenization concerns. If at given point in time during the growing season there is a strike of excessive heat, then flowers can just stop developing. We don’t have pollenization and therefore we don’t have harvest. Wheat, for example, can be susceptible to these conditions. We always think that with the warm air maybe we have more productivity but there is an optimum. If we go beyond that optimum and then we have failure temperatures or temperatures that are too hot for flower formation, then there will also be negative feedback, a negative effect on our productivity systems.
Overall Canada and Alberta still have relatively cold temperatures. We still have some time to find solutions and to adapt to excessive heatwaves or higher temperatures. We still have some years to learn and to manage them.
The Chair: My next question is to both of you. In your presentation, Dr. Shotyk, you talked about things like preventing soil erosion, action by landowners, protecting wetlands, protecting soil and better education. They are all very direct actions. We’re part of the Parliament of Canada so we make our recommendations to the Government of Canada. The government basically has two toolboxes. One relates to regulations. It’s a regulatory toolbox for regulations, legislation, et cetera. The other is a toolbox related to what I would call economic instruments. It could be things like incentives or policies encouraging certain activities and discouraging other activities. In other words, it is for using financial means to gain a certain objective.
Land use primarily falls under provincial responsibility or could be also municipal in some cases. If land is within municipalities it’s subject to their bylaws also. That leaves us at the federal level looking more at the economic instruments toolbox in terms of things that we can do to make a difference, to encourage provinces and to encourage landowners to do or not do certain things.
I want you to think about this: What two major actions do you think we could recommend to the federal government to achieve climate change actions that would actually benefit agriculture? I don’t know who wants to go first, or you may want to take a moment to think about it.
Mr. Hernandez Ramirez: In my view a carbon credit is an implemental tool. It can be deployable and it can send a clear signal to implement management practices, not only to reduce greenhouse gases emissions but also to favour positive beneficial management practices. We know of things that are beneficial not only to emissions but also for many other reasons such as water quality, plant productivity and essentially better landscapes or multi-functional landscapes. It’s a signal that can help us to develop these and it’s a business proposition. It develops dynamics. It fosters the private sector.
I just heard that carbon credits have been used so far in some jurisdiction around Canada. However, it would be great to see a transition into higher prices of carbon credit. If we look around the world, perhaps it is true that Alberta is a leader in implementing carbon credits markets. However, we are maybe a fraction of carbon credit prices in other places around the world. It’s the same carbon we’re removing from the atmosphere.
I know this process takes time, but I think it would be in the right direction so that we are able to make it more attractive and because the implementation of carbon credits has a transactional cost. There are some intermediate organizations that need to be able to compile carbon credits and turn them back to the users or to the generators.
Typically every semester, when looking at sustainability, I have conversations with my students about how carbon credits could be an instrument to be able to foster not only carbon climate change management policies but to develop better agriculture for everyone.
Mr. Shotyk: Mr. Hernandez Ramirez hit the nail on the head with organic matter and carbon credits. If farmers are motivated to increase the amount of organic matter in soil, there are numerous benefits from that. When you talk about economic instruments, perhaps you could help to motivate farmers to think of the long term rather than just the short term. Farmers will think about their lifespan and not beyond that. However, if they’re compensated for actually improving the soil, there are numerous benefits from the health of the soil, surface water quality, productivity and the stabilization of global climate. There’s a long list of things. I agree that is job No. 1.
When we think about the design of our farm system, the German term is kulturlandschaft. It’s a cultural landscape. It’s an artificial creation. When farmers think about a wetland, they traditionally think about it as being wasteland. When farmers think about trees, they think about the inability to be able to crop that land. It’s the same when they think about a stream. It’s an area they’re not able to farm. If we can help to slowly change that mentality by using an economic instrument, then I would say the windbreaks on farms that we really encouraged back in the day to reduce wind erosion are very effective. Not only does the windbreak reduce soil erosion. It’s helping to remove CO2. We’re also developing timber resources and so on. A windbreak doesn’t have to be simply fast growing, low economic value species like poplars. On our farm property, I am amazed how fast the black walnuts and the red oaks grow. These can be valuable hardwoods. There’s an additional long-term economic benefit in bringing back windbreaks and the riparian zone.
The riparian zone should be protected. Tree planting is certainly a very good idea there. There are issues in the country from east to west and north to south with an animal known as the beaver. I know on my farm property the beaver has completely misunderstood my intentions. A large part of my vacation every year is spent protecting my trees from the beaver. Planting in the riparian zone is not just a matter of planting a tree. It’s also protecting it from the beaver. In the long term there are many ecological benefits from that, and it’s an area that the farmer can’t use, anyway. The farmer is not benefiting at all from that area, so why not give it back to nature? Again, maybe there needs to be an economic instrument there.
The third one is the wetlands. One of my research areas is using peat bogs as archives of atmospheric change. Our wetlands are continually accumulating organic matter. They are carbon reservoirs and water reservoirs with a very long list of ecological benefits. We need to change a bit the mentality on the farm by saying they are not wasteland and should not be drained.
I am speaking here from experience. When the neighbour bought the neighbouring farm, the first thing he did was drain a beautiful little wetland. In response, I built a constructed wetland. I understand how he wanted a bit more farmland, but if we had an economic instrument in place for him to leave that alone, again there would be ecological benefits including the accumulation of organic matter.
We are now beginning to understand how valuable some of the areas that were considered wastelands in the past. In putting an economic instrument in place to encourage farmers to have them on the farm, the farm will become a much more resilient place. I don’t want to say that our little farm in Ontario is the most well-designed farm anywhere, but it may well be.
Mr. Hernandez Ramirez: I remember having this conversation with Mr. Shotyk on campus one or two times. We think about carbon and climate change. We had a conversation that perhaps the new carbon is nitrogen. We also need to think about nitrogen in agriculture. We use a lot of nitrogen from the atmosphere through industry to be able to make fertilizers. Then those fertilizers go into fields and are used to produce food.
Both fertilizer and foods are commodities and therefore there are interest groups behind them. We can work with those interest groups to develop a better management of nitrogen. Some of the nitrogen can be prevented from going back to the atmosphere as a greenhouse. We’re able to implement management in that direction.
Keep in mind nitrogen when going forward. It’s an area where we can make a lot of improvements. Retail companies are looking into how to improve fertilizer management on farms so that they can show better sustainability for products in the stores.
Mr. Shotyk: Perhaps I can add very quickly that we’re now going through the periodic tables of elements. We were talking about carbon and then nitrogen. All I wanted to do was to remind people the organic matter derived from plant and animal residues is full of all the essential micronutrients: copper, zinc and molybdenum. When we boost the organic matter in our soil, we’re boosting the fertility of these micronutrients.
If we’re only adding one nutrient to our soil to increase crop yields, we’re not increasing the relative abundance of nutrients in those plant materials. That organic matter is also money in the bank in terms of micronutrient fertility.
The Chair: That’s a very good point. I’d like to thank you for being here today. It has been a great conversation and it is greatly appreciated.
Our next panel is here with us. This is our second day of meetings in Alberta. We were in Vancouver for two days. What we’re doing is a climate change study on the impacts of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food, and forestry sectors. We did an eastern trip a number of months ago to eastern Canada, and we’ve heard from a number of witnesses in Ottawa. We’re just about ready to wrap up the study, so you’re here at a very good time.
I’d like to introduce our witnesses. From the Science and Technology Branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Dr. Henry Janzen, research scientist in soil biochemistry at the Lethbridge Research and Development Centre and Dr. Vern Baron, research scientist, Sustainable Production Systems at the Lacombe Research and Development Centre.
Thank you very much, gentlemen, for accepting our invitation to be here today. We appreciate that. We’ll ask each of you to make your presentations and we’ll have questions afterward.
Henry Janzen, Research Scientist, Soil Biochemistry, Lethbridge Research and Development Centre, Science and Technology Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: It’s a privilege to venture a few thoughts arising from our collective work in soil science, especially its relevance to issues of global change. I, with others at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research centre in Lethbridge, Alberta, have been studying how our ways of managing the land affects the carbon content of soil.
Carbon is the principal constituent of organic matter, or humus, which gives the surface soil its darkened hue. This is closely linked to the productivity of soils because it provides planned nutrients, energy from microbial activity and good structure. Preserving and augmenting this material in soil has been an abiding aim of farmers for centuries.
AAFC has a long history of studying soil carbon dating back more than a century. Much of this research effort was driven initially by the near catastrophic losses of soil which ravaged the lands a century ago, especially on the Prairies. This research through the years has identified many ways of preserving or restoring soil carbon such as planting more hay and pasture crops, always keeping actively growing plants in the soil, minimizing ploughing and applying nutrients judiciously. Any farming method that increases yield and returns higher amounts of plant matter to the soil tends to enhance soil carbon. These practices are being widely adopted in many Canadian farmlands.
In recent decades, another important reason for enhancing soil carbon has surfaced: the realization that carbon in the soil is connected to carbon in the air. This means that if we can increase the amount of carbon stored in soil, we can reduce carbon dioxide in the air, helping to offset some emissions from fossil fuel combustion which have been linked to climate change. This approach is often called carbon sequestration.
According to estimates by Environment and Climate Change Canada, soil carbon in Canadian croplands was increasing in 2015, offsetting roughly 1 to 2 per cent of total Canadian greenhouse gas emissions. Such estimates are approximate because soil carbon change is hard to quantify precisely. These removals could conceivably be enhanced somewhat by continued improvements in farming practices.
An important point to emphasize here is that preventing loss of carbon already stored in the soil is as important as adding new carbon to soil. For example, Canada’s vast grazing lands hold enormous reserves of soil carbon. Losses of this carbon by poor grazing techniques or by ploughing for annual crops would add to the CO2 burden of the atmosphere in the same way as burning fossil fuel does.
Despite extensive research progress many questions remain. First, CO2 is only one of the important greenhouse gases linked to climate change. Indeed, agriculture is a significant emitter of methane and nitrous oxide, both very potent greenhouse gases. Thus, we need to consider all emissions and removals of all three gases before recommending practices to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, AAFC has developed evolving software called Holos to perform such system-based analyses for use by researchers, producers and extension personnel.
A second important question is the uncertainty arising from ongoing global changes. For example, warming of soils under climate change scenarios may lead to future losses of soil carbon through faster decay of existing reserves. We are conducting a nationwide study of how temperature affects plant carbon decay. Climate change is only one of many coming stresses. Other global changes that might affect soil carbon and soil health include growing demands for food, affecting cropping choices and intensity, and increased off-farm use of crop residues, leaving less plant material in the field to replenish soil carbon. By maintaining optimal reserves of carbon in our soils, we can foster their resilience, helping to buffer against upheavals.
Third, we face the challenges imposed by time. Ecosystems, including farmlands, often change slowly in response to management practices and climatic changes. Thus, for example, the final benefits of improved management for soil carbon often can only be measured after many decades have passed. Early researches in AAFC foresaw this difficulty a century ago and carefully established long-term experiments to observe eventual changes to land properties. They even set aside soil samples from as early as 1910 so that today we can trace the changes in soil carbon for a timespan exceeding a century. AAFC retains an impressive set of such long-term experiments, but we may need more of these farsighted studies to encompass new cropping practices and innovations.
A final challenge is the growing disconnectedness between people and the land. As farms expand, farmers represent an ever-shrinking proportion of the Canadian population. This means that health of soil through forces of markets and policies is increasingly influenced by people remote from the land. An important research task, therefore, is to show how all citizens in effect live on the land. We can do this perhaps by telling more compelling narratives of how we all depend on land and how it depends on us.
One example is that of carbon flowing through and connecting all life. The biosphere, our home on this planet, faces many stresses: climate change, food security, loss of biodiversity, energy transitions, and threats to air and water quality among others. All of these in one way or another are tied to the land, the ecosystems that sustain us all. Resolving them will depend on stewarding wisely the health and resilience of our soil, notably by preserving its carbon content, the source of its vitality. This aim demands a long view looking across the generations. We come and go, but the land stays.
Thank you for your kind attention and for the opportunity to appear before the committee today.
Vern Baron, Research Scientist, Sustainable Production Systems, Lacombe Research and Development Centre, Science and Technology Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the risks and opportunities of agriculture within the context of climate change in the northern Prairies of Canada. I am a crop scientist who specializes in forage crop management, grazing and impacts of crop livestock interface on the environment.
The Lacombe Research and Development Centre and the Beaverlodge Research Farm are the northernmost research centres in Canada. The central Alberta Peace River region has a crop complex consisting of canola, barley, wheat, peas, tame and naturalized perennial pastures. To add economic diversity, central Alberta has a dense beef cow population.
The current climate is a cool short season, with moderate winters supporting adapted high yielding cool season crops. Climate change models compare the present climate to future climatic projections. Whole farm models help us to determine the impacts of climate change on crop choice, yield quality and livestock productivity. Models provide information on how possible climatic changes and the result on on-farm management changes could affect future greenhouse gas emissions.
Climatic projections for central and northern Alberta are not as extreme in the near future as in other regions of North America. However, if greenhouse gas mitigation strategies are not effective in slowing the rate of climate change, then consequences may be more severe by the end of the century. For central and northern Alberta, the average annual temperature increase is likely to be 2.5oC and annual precipitation is likely to increase by about 35 to 40 millimetres. The mid to late summer may be drier and the growing season about a month longer than present. Anticipated carbon dioxide concentrations could enhance alfalfa yields. Warmer temperatures are likely to enable production of corn and soybeans, but these crops are not expected to yield as much as those grown in the United States corn belt but would offer new cropping alternatives.
Adaptation to the new climate and crop stresses will be needed. Grain yield of cool season crops decreases when maximum temperatures exceed 30oC during the flowering and grain filling stages. Currently this occurs on average of seven days per year. In the future, high temperature days may increase to 25 and then 40 days over sequential 30-year timespans.
Risk of yield loss to heat-sensitive crops such as barley and canola will be moderate at first but larger in time. Canola and barley may escape the heat stress by planting earlier in the spring, but alternatively a replacement for barley as a feed and malting grain may be required. Enough genetic diversity to provide heat resistance may be found within the brassica species in order to develop new varieties.
There will always be winter but it will be warmer, providing opportunities for perennial forages and winter cereals. However, intermittent snow cover may expose the plants to cold and variable temperatures at critical times of the year, causing winter kill. Plants prepare for winter by reducing growth and changing their chemical antifreeze when day length shortens in fall. The further north, the sooner this snow growth phase begins, limiting yield and preventing use of the longer growing season advantage to maximize annual production. Selection in alfalfa for less dormancy, high fall yield and retained winter hardiness is occurring.
Generally, producers adopt knew practices because of a lower production cost, lower labour requirements and the status quo. Fortunately, reducing greenhouse gases usually enhances agricultural efficiency or cost of production. From 1990 to 2010, the greenhouse gas intensity for canola production has been reduced by 24 to 27 per cent due to the use of high yielding, herbicide tolerant hybrid canola. Minimum tillage is now used by 70 per cent of canola producers. This brought about one-pass farming, which reduced labour and fossil fuel use. The amount of herbicide use decreased by 50 per cent.
Canola production increased to 8 million hectares while fallow acreage decreased. All of these factors reduced fossil fuel use while increasing carbon sequestration and seed yield, thus reducing net greenhouse gas emissions and cost of production per unit seed produced.
As a whole, the beef industry emits only 3.6 per cent of the total Canadian greenhouse gas emissions and represents 0.76 per cent of total global emission. However, beef cows are responsible for 80 per cent of the greenhouse gas emitted by the Canadian beef industry. The other 20 per cent is emitted by feedlot animals. Through consultation among beef industry stakeholders and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in the 1990s, we determined that reducing the cost of winter feeding for the beef cow was necessary. The practice of winter grazing would remove the cost of harvest, feeding, bedding, feed processing and manure removal from the cow feeding system. These are fossil fuel and labour-intensive activities. We learned that half the winter feeding days could be replaced by having cows graze through swath crops through the snow in the winter, reducing the daily feeding cost by 50 per cent over those days. Cost benefit studies by an independent party showed that 22 per cent of the Prairie cow calf producers have adopted swath grazing to date. Compared to traditional feeding systems, winter grazing 100 cows for 100 days saves about 2,500 litres of diesel fuel, 110 hours of labour and $9,500. On a Prairie-wide basis, $35 million is saved by the beef industry annually. In terms of greenhouse gas mitigation, the fossil fuel reduction created a carbon sink offset equivalent to removing 6,900 cars from the road.
In closing, successful research relating to climate change requires a multidiscipline scientific approach that must be tested and fine-tuned at a systems basis because the practices must fit inside the farming system. Systems need to be deconstructed to components parts tested in the field and verified in a scientific fashion. Adoption of new and improved practices for greenhouse gas mitigation of crops in a new climate will occur due to cost reduction, improved demand for products, reduced labour and simply ease of change. Modelling or estimating greenhouse gas emissions in tandem with costs will benefit the system’s level and may increase the rate of adoption.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address you today.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentations. At this point we’ll start with the questions, and Senator Maltais will lead off.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Your testimony is very valuable to us, and it is both interesting and instructive. We’re learning good things.
Mr. Janzen, what happened in 1918 to make the soil in Western Canada deteriorate so sharply?
[English]
Mr. Janzen: Thank you for the question. It’s certainly true. As mentioned, a century ago during the conversion of our lands from a perennial system to a cropland system, we passed through a period of loss and in some cases severe degradation and deterioration of our soils.
A number of factors can account for these losses. One that comes first to mind is the tearing open of the prairie sod through physical ploughing, which left the lands available and susceptible to wind erosion. Another factor, an underlying one that we don’t always perhaps sufficiently address, is that in that process we converted our natural prairie lands, which are based on perennial plant species, a very self-sustaining system, to a system based on export.
For example, when we shift from a grassland system to a wheat growing system, we shift from a self-renewing system where much of the carbon absorbed from the atmosphere is returned to the soil in this relentless and eternal or long-term carbon cycling system.
When we then convert that to a wheat system, we try to capture as much of that carbon, the grain, and send it away to cities or overseas, which means there’s less going back into the land. That is another very important in considering why these lands were left in sometimes degraded condition.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: You mentioned three gases that pollute the atmosphere, namely CO2, nitrogen and methane. Are there other gases in that layer that are degrading the soil or air?
[English]
Mr. Janzen: There are other trace gases that lead to significant radiative forcing or significant warming, but generally speaking their overall effect is small relative to CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. For example, there are various compounds related to CFCs that have very high rate of forcing potential. Some of these are no longer used to the same extent as they were earlier. They’ve been gradually eliminated or in the process of being eliminated from use. There are other trace gases, but certainly from the standpoint of agriculture the dominant ones are methane, nitrous oxide and CO2.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: You talked about the sense of disconnectedness between generations of people and the land, with farmers giving up land that’s being snapped up by big corporations. This is something we’re seeing in Saskatchewan especially, where there is no legislation to protect farmland, unfortunately. Financial institutions spotted a good opportunity there to secure their investments, because land is an asset that doesn’t depreciate. Land will always be land, no matter what the conditions are. With respect to this disconnectedness between the land and the farmer, do you get the sense that the situation is improving, or is it still just as bad as in Saskatchewan?
[English]
Mr. Janzen: Thank you for the question. I am not sure I can offer a good perspective on the extent to which the sense of disconnectedness is growing or waning. I comment here from my perspective as a soil scientist, but I will say as a researcher that there are opportunities for perhaps restoring some of those lost connections.
For example, one way is to ensure that the research we do finds an audience beyond scientists, that it finds an audience beyond the farming community, but that it reaches also the broader societal population who, in the end, are also influenced by the work we do. One way is simply finding ways of telling the narratives a bit more clearly in more compelling fashion. Another way is to actually involve a larger audience by bringing them to some of our research sites and having them walk on the plots of land where we have conducted various experiments. This provides a tangible means of reconnection and a showing of how the way we live on the land affects the land, not only for us and not only for this generation but, as I’ve tried to emphasize, also for those who come after us.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: On that note, since both of you are research scientists, can you tell me how young people, potential farmers, are reacting to your research? Are they encouraged to stay on the land or go back to their parents’ farms? Given the changes taking place in agriculture, how do young people feel about the new practices developed as a result of your research and the application of those practices on potential farms?
[English]
Mr. Janzen: I can speak to that question from my own experience, which tells me that there is a very strong interest among farmers in the research we are doing. That is shown in the level of interest when we speak to groups that may include farmers. It shows in the level of interest that is quite clear when we have conversations.
An important point to emphasize here is that the conversation between the researcher and the farmer is really a two-way learning process. I may have some expertise in my own little narrow area of research experience, but farmers generally have a much broader and wider experience and a much better understanding of the limitations and the opportunities that await them as they manage their lands. As a researcher, I realized more and more over time that the producer has a lot to teach me. It’s very much a two-way conversation.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I have one last question for Mr. Janzen, and then I’ll move on to Mr. Baron.
You said that soil management remains a crucial factor, especially for protecting the humus, which, ultimately, is the layer that provides nutrients to plants. In light of climate change, what recommendations would you make for the future in order to protect this layer, which is vital for life?
[English]
Mr. Janzen: I am just trying to collect my thoughts. There are many ways whereby we can restore and preserve soil, organic matter or humus. Probably the fundamental one is to preserve those lands which already hold a lot of carbon such as grasslands, for example, or other ecosystems. We might extend it to wetlands, forests and so on, which may hold a lot of carbon. Recognizing what’s there, quantifying what’s there and preserving what’s there is an important factor.
When it comes to rebuilding soil carbon on lands already cropped, generally speaking, anything that we can do to increase the amount of plant material returning to the soil will tend to replenish the soil organic matter. For example, if you apply nutrients carefully and judicially, that will increase yields. Some of that yield will be removed, but a large proportion hopefully will be returned to the soil, thereby increasing organic matter.
There’s a lot of interest in developing more diversified farming systems, including perennial crops. Perennial crops tend to maintain photosynthetic growth for longer periods of time, so they capture more CO2 from the atmosphere and tend to steer larger amounts back into the soil. In effect, what we are doing as farmers is managing carbon.
In very simple terms we lay out sheets of green, planes of chlorophyll which traps all of the solar energy in carbon. We hope to take some of that away to fuel ourselves, our industry and so on, but we hope to send as much of that as possible back into the soil. That, in a nutshell, is how we hope to restore soil carbon, capturing as much by photosynthesis, growing as much green material as possible and then steering as large a proportion as we can, given economic and other constraints, back into the soil.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Mr. Baron, your expertise primarily comes from the northern Prairies. Climate change is making more and more land available for growing certain plants. Has there been a big improvement in the northern Prairies? What about the southern Prairies? Can you compare what’s happening in the northern and southern Prairies? Can the northern Prairies become productive enough to compete with the southern Prairies?
[English]
Mr. Baron: The question is: Can the northern Prairies become a competitor in terms of food production with the southern Prairies? At present, the central portion of Alberta, the parkland of Alberta, does outproduce the southern part of the Prairies. It has deep black chernozemic soils in the central part of the province. The average yields of crops are higher. I would ask Dr. Janzen’s agreement with this, but the deep black chernozemic soils are naturally healthy.
When we go to the Peace River region in Alberta, with about 3 million hectares of agricultural land, those soils are not quite as productive as the black chernozems because they’re Luvisolic soils. They will not be as productive per se under equal climates as central Alberta, but their climate will increase in temperature to a certain extent where alternative crops may be used. The only problem is that we have to find out how to maintain yields and have consistent, sustainable agricultural production over a period of years.
The central and northern parts of the Prairies will become the breadbasket of the Prairies as it will take a lot more inputs or more extensive farming to maintain the southern part of the Prairies because of lack of rainfall and higher temperatures.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Mr. Baron, you’re the fourth or fifth person to mention perennial seeds. Is that a promising market? You mentioned diversifying seeds, like wheat, barley, canola, et cetera. Do you think this could become a new way of farming in the coming years?
[English]
Mr. Baron: The question is: What is the future of perennial cereal production? I believe you mean perennial crop production, per se. I don’t believe we’ll be moving entirely to perennial cereal or oilseed production very quickly. We may move a portion of the industry that way, but we have to remember that our whole background behind the grain marketing industry and grain industry is based on annual crop production. We have developed agronomic techniques to minimize disease and weeds. We would have to learn how to control these sorts of things in perennial systems.
First of all, as an intermediate step to that, I think we will see a movement toward more winter cereal production and longer and greater frequency of perennial crops within the annual system context. That has to happen first. Once we get the issues and problems that will come with developing the perennial crops worked out, we will know what an economical yield of grain is from a perennial crop, what the nutrient balance of the perennial crop will be, and how long it will remain resistant to crop diseases. That has to be worked out prior to adopting on a wholesale basis.
If you think about this in terms of how long it takes to develop a variety currently, even with our advanced genomics work where we stack genes to resist drought, disease and so on, which are starting to get quite effective, it still takes us about 15 years to develop a single variety from a cross. When you think about maybe ending up with one or two perennial varieties over that period of time, that isn’t enough potential resistance for diseases. You have to have variety after variety after variety coming out. You would need to do that with the perennial system. The whole infrastructure of the perennial system would have to occur first. We have to remember that by 2050, we will have 9 billion people in the world to feed.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Mr. Baron, climate warming is an indisputable fact. Canadians are increasingly aware of this issue and are working very hard on it. Do you personally believe that we will have effective methods for maximizing greenhouse gas reductions within the next 10 years?
[English]
Mr. Baron: The question is: Do we believe that in the next 10 to 15 years we will effectively reduce greenhouse gases at least to the level where it will not affect climate change? Most of the work done in the whole infrastructure of our business of agriculture and the research we conduct is not done on a systems basis. In my talk, I mentioned agricultural systems. The systems can be placed on the farm. When we make the changes we have to be able to show, both upstream and downstream, that we are being effective in reducing the greenhouse gas balance.
One of the critical things Dr. Janzen talked about was soil carbon. That’s the basis for productivity, but we also have to do that while minimizing the other greenhouse gases and allowing our agricultural industry to make enough money to make the investments to change.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you for your answers.
[English]
The Chair: I only have a couple of questions. One relates to the amount of organic matter in the soil. I am from Prince Edward Island. We grow a lot of potatoes with very red sandy soil, the Charlottetown sandy loam. It is not like the chernozems in Alberta. I think it’s a class 3 soil instead of class 1. Anyway, it’s soil that organic matter is fast disappearing in, simply because of the type of crops we’re growing.
How common across the country is the decrease of organic matter in soil? Is it common elsewhere? Surely we can’t be the only ones.
Mr. Janzen: Soil organic matter is changing in many places across the country. In some cases, soil organic matter is going up likely. In another it’s holding steady. In some cases it’s declining. Generally speaking I think it’s safe to say, on the whole, that the amount of carbon in agricultural lands in Canada is probably holding steady and may be gaining a bit based on the Environment and Climate Change Canada estimates that I showed earlier.
That raises an important point. We do well I think to think about individual ecosystems, rather than look at Canadian farmlands as a whole or as an abstract entity. We go to a given field on a given farm. We look around and we ask how we can manage this land better and more sustainably. How important is it that we restore carbon in this unit of land for its continued productivity?
Potato production lands are an example of a farming system where there’s sometimes a challenge to keep returning carbonaceous materials. Maybe there are ways of developing new rotations that provide additional restorative carbon benefits.
The Chair: The next question would relate to both of you. Obviously you’ve indicated a lot of things that have changed over the years: the longer growing season, the erratic weather and the amount of moisture. However, in your own research what has been the greatest impact you have personally noticed in regard to climate change?
Mr. Janzen: Maybe I’ll offer a partial perspective, and then Mr. Baron can continue and elaborate. For me, a very important transition happened when we realized, a decade or two ago, that how we manage our farmlands has ramifications far beyond the fences of the fields. Managing soils is an urgent question from the standpoint of the farmer and of the agriculture community, but it has implications far beyond that. The climate change issue brought to the fore the interconnectedness of our farm ecosystems to the urban centres because the atmosphere does not honour the boundaries we place upon our geographies.
For me, at least, that was an eye-opening, perhaps belated perspective that changed the way we do research, recognizing that farms are not just a resource from which we extract materials for benefit elsewhere. Farms are ecosystems that sustain us in many ways. Food is absolutely critical, but there are other societal issues: biodiversity, energy and aesthetic appeal. All these other benefits that we derive from the land have implications, as I mentioned, beyond agriculture. That was a pivotal point in my research career.
Mr. Baron: You almost asked more than one question because, first of all, as researchers we don’t work in a vacuum or silo. I am well aware of the work that Mr. Janzen does, even though he works in Lethbridge. If you asked what is the greatest contribution my research has had toward climate change, I would say there are probably two things. The most important thing that I’ve worked on has to do with extension of the grazing season and thereby really extending the growth of crops for as long as possible that you can in the year, and then the use of crops by an entirely different part of the farming system, the cow or the ruminant.
They’re kind of in opposition, when you think about that in terms of greenhouse gas emission, because the ruminant is producing methane. Yet, without the ruminant, it’s hard to justify the use of many of our tame pastures. In central and northern Alberta, we have over 60 per cent of the tame pastures in Alberta. Over half of our land is devoted to tame pasture and natural pasture.
Our rangeland is the larger part at 15 million hectares, but the number of beef cattle on that land is pretty much fixed. As grain prices go up and down and as cattle prices go up and down, we move in and out of tame pasture. That’s probably the biggest source. The biggest way we can most rapidly increase carbon sequestration is to increase the amount of tame pasture that we have because the rate of sequestration is higher as soon as we move from an annual crop to a perennial crop for a period of years. The better frequency we can keep that moving, the more stable our soil carbon reserves will be. Stability in all agricultural industry is really important.
The second part has to do with connectivity that Mr. Janzen talked about. When we speak as commodities, it’s almost like all of western Canada is one big field of canola or used to be in the 1950s and 1960s one big field of wheat and the other field was summer fallow. We’ve changed that completely in 30 years. When I was an undergrad student, we used to have 20 million hectares of wheat and 20 million hectares of summer fallow. Now we have a whole array of crops to assist us in crop diversification that helps us keep the land mostly in crop, and we’re down to less than 5 million hectares of summer fallow. I would say that’s one accomplishment, plus zero tillage on top of that.
Mr. Janzen: To elaborate a bit, I am not sure I interpreted the question correctly in my initial answer. I certainly don’t take personal credit for any of the innovations that I mentioned earlier.
I offer one additional insight, which is not my insight, but a collective insight. I refer to the importance of the variable time in all of these questions. It is one of our greatest research challenges and an opportunity. As I mentioned in my preliminary comments, many of the changes that are happening happen slowly and progressively over time. In fact, by definition change involves time. You only see change over time.
One of the questions we keep grappling with is: How do we include that perspective in our research when we tend to focus on short-term studies? What we’re really asking, in many cases, whether it’s climate change, land stewardship, biodiversity or other questions of sustainability, are very long-term questions, the answers to which will be finally available after a lot of time has passed.
Time, after all, is a final arbiter of what is sustainable or not by definition. We will only see what is sustainable in hindsight sometime in the future. That is another insight and opportunity that we see in our research programs.
The Chair: As you were saying earlier, there is a century of data. I guess it comes back to long-term research being important. That’s not to say short-term research isn’t, but in terms of sustainability often it’s only, probably, the long term that will really tell the tale of where we’re going and how we can stay there.
Mr. Janzen: Yes, that’s an excellent way of phrasing it. The short term is absolutely essential, the devoted, the meticulous short-term studies to understand principles and understand mechanisms to see how a system behaves or part of the system behaves. Alongside those very detailed hypothesis driven experiences, we also need the long term to keep us, if I may say, humble and to see if we really are understanding things as well as we think we may have.
As I mentioned, we in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada are very fortunate in that we had those who went before us that established these long-term experiments. We can learn. We can look back in the past and make measurements on these longer term experiments. The corollary is that those coming after us, presumably, may want to benefit from things we do today that may outlive us. That remains an important research objective, as well.
The Chair: Absolutely. I would like to thank both of you for being here today. It has been a great discussion. We greatly appreciate your input.
(The committee adjourned.)