THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 5, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 8 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-230, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement.
Senator Mary Robinson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
My name is Mary Robinson, and I am the chair of this committee. Welcome to members of the committee, our witnesses and those watching this meeting on the web.
I would like to start by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Before we hear from our witnesses for today, I would like to start by asking our senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
The Chair: I would like to ask all senators and witnesses to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
I would also like to remind all those participating to refrain from switching languages mid-sentence and to not speak too quickly. Clear audio supports accurate interpretation, transcription and captioning.
Today, the committee is continuing its study of Bill S-230, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement.
For our first panel, from the Soil Conservation Council of Canada, we have the pleasure of welcoming Susie Miller and Alan Kruzel. They will be given 10 minutes, as they are representing two organizations. We also welcome Ana-Maria Tomlinson, Director, Strategic and Cross-Sector Programs, Canadian Standards Association. Joining us by video conference, we welcome Phil Paxton, Government Relations Vice-Chair and Research Chair, Canadian Nursery Landscape Association.
Thank you all for joining us. We will begin with your opening remarks before we move to questions from members.
Exceptionally, today, Ms. Miller will have the 10 minutes that I mentioned earlier. We will begin with Ms. Miller.
Susie Miller, Acting Director and Executive Director, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops, Soil Conservation Council of Canada: Thank you. Good morning. We very much appreciate the invitation to appear before you today.
We are here on behalf of the Soil Conservation Council of Canada and the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops. Now, these are two separate organizations and probably not familiar to most of you, so I will give you a short summary.
The Soil Conservation Council of Canada, or SCCC, is comprised of individual members, mostly farmers, and they focus on promoting and supporting soil conservation in Canada.
The Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops, or CRSC, is comprised of organization members — so not individuals but organizations — representing the full grain supply chain, from input suppliers, farm groups, service providers, grain marketers, grain customers and conservation organizations.
The CRSC focuses on measurement and reporting of the sustainability of grain production in Canada, including environmental sustainability, social integrity and financial viability, so we’re quite broad in terms of our mandate. We also contribute to many industry-wide initiatives.
Because of the importance of soil health to financial viability and environmental sustainability, we have been at the table with the Soil Conservation Council of Canada since the beginning of their work to develop an industry-led national soil health strategy to maintain and enhance soil health. So we’re coming at it, from the CRSC perspective, as supporting the SCCC’s work.
So what is this industry-led soil health strategy?
First, it is a collaborative effort. We have many stakeholders. We bring together farm associations, researchers, extension providers, implementers of soil health initiatives, conservation organizations and governments, all of whom are there because they are interested in working within this partnership to maintain and enhance farming and ranching soils.
We are building on what is already there. Resources, whether they come from industry or whether they come from government, are very hard to supplement right now. We have to make the best use of what we have. Contributions are by partners, what they can and wish to contribute. There are significant gains, we believe, to be made by optimizing current contributions. That doesn’t mean we won’t go beyond that, but that’s our start.
We’re farmer focused — that is, it is about supporting the long-term viability of the farm enterprise.
We have four areas, and this will be very familiar to you because they are the same ones as in Bill S-230: extension, research, measurement and incentives and resources.
So how are we doing this? We first started in 2022 with a report produced by the Soil Conservation Council of Canada and the Compost Council of Canada called Recruiting Soil to Tackle Climate Change: A Roadmap for Canada. This was also included in the deliberations of Critical Ground: Why Soil is Essential to Canada’s Economic, Environmental, Human, and Social Health.
We worked with approximately 20 stakeholders to determine interest in developing an industry-led initiative to get a jump on things and actually bring us together. We produced a discussion paper using the road map and the work of this committee while referencing existing national and provincial soil strategies.
We engaged over 100 stakeholders, including provincial, national, farm and crop and livestock associations, soil conservation organizations, soil researchers, extension services and governments — anyone who would benefit from the work that we were trying to do and anyone who could contribute.
At this point, we would like to provide our sincere thanks to Senator Black. He has observed our work from the beginning and served as a panellist in several of our public forums. Actually, we believe we had more people attending because of his star quality.
We’d also like to acknowledge the excellent cooperation we received from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. We are pleased that they intend to continue working with us as we move forward.
So where are we now? We are at the stage where we are defining specific priorities and actions and intend to have our draft completed by fall. We will then circle back to our 100-plus stakeholders because they are the ones who will have to participate and pony up to confirm that we got it right. After that, we get to work.
I will turn it over to you, Alan.
Alan Kruzel, Farmer and Board Member, Soil Conservation Council of Canada: Thank you very much, Susie.
Honourable senators, thank you so very much for allowing us to come before you today to talk about Bill S-230 as well. We really strongly support the provisions in that bill and feel that it can only enhance and complement the work that we are doing on a national soil health strategy.
Although all the provisions in that bill are important, we would like to highlight several that we feel are very critical.
First, promote the sharing of information with all Canadians on the importance of healthy soil and the direct impact it has on their lives. It is incredibly important that people understand just how important soils are to their daily lives.
The Soil Conservation Council of Canada and its partners included outreach to Canadians in our original discussion paper as work that we could all do together, but we were told by virtually all the stakeholders that while it is important, we needed to focus on agricultural soils and on activities that have direct benefits for farmers. Talking to everyone is a huge endeavour.
Without the recognition of the importance of healthy soils to food security and contribution to climate change mitigation and resilience, citizens’ support of farming and ranching can be compromised.
Second is the appointment of a national advocate for soil health. A position such as this could be very powerful and make an enormous contribution to the recognition of the benefits to all Canadians of the importance of soil health, which are on the same level that of air and water. They can effectively promote the allocation of resources to soil health within government.
We see that as a very essential role we’d love to see happen.
Third is the analysis of the status of Canada’s soils and the gathering of data and the moderating of indicators on soil health. We did not originally have a measurement component in our discussion paper, but stakeholders told us that we had to make it clear that this was a priority. We need to know the status of Canadian soils, both from a national perspective and on our own farms. And although we are including it in our deliberations regarding priorities, we do not have the mandate nor resources at this time to take action on this very important topic. We thank you very much for your time and very much look forward to this bill proceeding through to the House and getting passed. Thank you for the invitation to be here.
The Chair: Thank you both. You are ahead of time — very impressive. Next, we’ll go to Ms. Tomlinson. Thank you.
Ana-Maria Tomlinson, Director, Strategic and Cross-Sector Programs, Canadian Standards Association: Thank you, chair and honourable senators, for the opportunity to appear today before the committee.
I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Canadian Standards Association, or CSA Group. We are Canada’s largest accredited standards development organization, with a century of experience supporting public policy through the development of consensus-based standards, research and education to improve safety and health, protect the environment and support economic efficiency.
CSA Group strongly supports Bill S-230. The bill is a timely and practical response to the Senate’s Critical Ground report and its 25 recommendations.
Why do standards matter here? Despite its critical importance, the methods currently used to measure and report soil health are not consistent in Canada or around the world.
A national soil health strategy will succeed only if we can generate comparable, high-quality soil data across Canada, consistently and over time. That means agreeing on what to measure, how to measure it, how to report and share it and how to interpret it to inform decisions.
Standards are the tool for that job. They convert scientific consensus into practical, repeatable methods that producers, labs, governments and markets can use with confidence. CSA Group has developed a dedicated research and standards work program, in collaboration with producers, scientists, labs, government bodies and industry, to provide concrete solutions that are directly aligned with Bill S-230’s objectives.
In line with subclause 4(3) of Bill S-230 in respect of education and information measures, a new CSA research report, to be published in April 2026, will document current challenges and best practices in soil health data generation and will outline standards recommendations to support a more accurate and robust assessment of soil health in Canada.
In addition, in line with subclause 4(2) of the bill, in respect of knowledge improvement measures, CSA Group intends to tackle three national standards priorities. We plan to develop two new technical specifications for soil health sampling and soil health reporting methods, to standardize sampling design requirements and reduce variability introduced by labs so data sets can be meaningfully compared over time and across jurisdictions.
CSA group also plans to develop a new national standard of Canada — CSA K108: Soil health measurement and reporting framework.
The standard will establish national soil health definitions, a nationally consistent minimum data set with clear indicator definitions, minimum data/metadata reporting, quality controls and benchmarking and interpretation guidance as part of a coherent, Canada-wide framework. The standard will help to provide the technical backbone for a national soil information system, enabling aggregation and comparability.
CSA Group’s portfolio is intentionally designed to meet the exact operational needs that Bill S-230 surfaces: common indicators, common methods, transparent reporting and data networks to make those elements usable across jurisdictions and production systems.
National soil health standards can support Bill S-230 by providing greater clarity and consistency in soil health measurement and reporting; enhancing transparency and confidence in the data; enabling more meaningful comparisons, benchmarking and learning across programs and jurisdictions; facilitating interoperability and information sharing; and creating enabling conditions for innovation.
Our recommendations to the committee are centred on the implementation of Bill S-230.
First, anchor the strategy in consensus-based standards. The national strategy should reference accredited, consensus-based standards for soil health indicators, as well as sampling, analysis, reporting and metadata. This creates a uniform baseline while leaving room for regional additions and innovation. CSA Group’s planned work is a ready vehicle.
Second, build the national soil information system on a standards-based data architecture. Require a core data schema and minimum metadata aligned to the reporting standard, so data from different labs and programs can be aggregated and compared over time and space.
Third, tie federal funding to method quality. As AAFC and other partners support soil sampling, lab analysis and monitoring, condition funding on using recognized standards for sampling and reporting. This ensures federal dollars generate comparable, decision-grade data.
Fourth, leverage existing momentum. The Senate’s Critical Ground report already calls for consensus on measurement, reporting and verification; CSA Group is prepared to contribute immediately via our standards and research.
In closing, Bill S-230 sets the right direction and cadence. If we pair that framework with credible, practical standards, Canada can move quickly from aspiration to execution.
Thank you. I would be pleased to take your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Lastly, we will go, I think, to Alberta, where it looks very dark over your right shoulder, Phil. We will give the floor to you. Thanks for joining us so early.
Phil Paxton, Government Relations Vice-Chair and Research Chair, Canadian Nursery Landscape Association: Yes, I am in Alberta. Thank you very much, senators. I’ll introduce myself. I’m Phil Paxton, and I represent the Canadian Nursery Landscape Association, or CNLA. I am in Strathmore, Alberta, and I am a farmer. The crops I grow are trees, shrubs, perennials and grasses that end up in landscape and garden centres across our beautiful province of Alberta. The CNLA is a national organization, a not-for-profit federation of provinces. We represent landscape and horticultural associations and have 4,600 members. We have the sixth-largest crop in agriculture in Canada, and our industry currently represents around $14 billion of economic impact. We create the equivalent of 220,000 jobs within Canada.
We’re primary producers; we’re farmers. We grow crops. To give you the context of the crops: trees, shrubs, perennials, grasses, annuals and even food, things like tomatoes and herbs. Our crops are grown both in the farming environment and in greenhouses. Our products eventually end up in the landscape, and we are suppliers of garden centres, municipalities and golf courses.
Everything starts with soil. It is the main constant that remains through our value chain. Soil is the foundation of our ability to grow plants, and it plays a critical role in climate adaptation and mitigation. In fact, I wrote this down when I was recently in one of the COPs, something like this: “All life depends on soil, and there is no life without soil, and there is no soil without life.” Our farmers ensure the healthiest crops by investing first in the soil, and we have to ensure that our soil is strong and healthy. We are constantly doing research and testing and amending and augmenting the soil to ensure that is the case.
However, one of our concerns that our support for Bill S-230 resolves around is the fact that 80% of Canadians live in cities. They work, live and play in cities, and our cities are often not conducive to natural growth. The natural growth we need in cities involves nature-based solutions that work to make our cities liveable, so that the water and air are clean for us to drink and breathe. Our landscapes need to be healthy, and the soil needs to be healthy. It is the reason we need refuge for things like biodiversity, incorporating green spaces into our parks, cities, gardens and green corridors.
Cities provide habitats for a variety of plants and animal species. Our plants provide the various ecosystems that are vital for human well-being. Trees, lawns and vegetation in urban areas help mitigate air pollution and regulate temperatures; they reduce the heat island effect. Trees and plants prevent soil erosion, provide water filtration and help to mitigate the impact of flooding in our cities. They contribute to stormwater management and carbon sequestration and thereby mitigate the impacts of climate change. None of this is possible without healthy soil.
It is imperative for us to have the vibrant plant life of robust trees, shrubs, flowers, pollinators and grasses in urban areas. Expecting us to grow those things in depleted, dead soil is unrealistic. Urban soils, found in cities and urban areas, are primarily associated with residential, commercial and industrial land areas. They generally support built structures, such as roads, and they are often modified and compacted due to construction and urban development. Further, they could contain higher levels of subsoil materials or possibly even contaminants, such as heavy metals or pollutants.
The same dry, compacted, dead soil used to support buildings and roads cannot provide or sustain life, so it is important we increase awareness about the importance of soil health and its role in urban sustainability. If we don’t address this issue, the problems of unhealthy cities will continue.
Our efforts to combat soil degradation in urban areas include things like sustainable urban planning, soil conservation measures — including how we handle, store and reintroduce soils into the environment — and as green infrastructure development. We have developed, in consultation with the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects, best management practices for construction and landscaping, and we have named it the Canadian Landscape Standard, or CLS. Section 5, “Growing Media,” defines baseline conditions for growing media that ensure successful plant survival — and not only plant survival, but the establishment of plants so they can last for decades and even into centuries.
Our request is that this committee consider CLS section 5, “Growing Media,” when examining and assessing soil health in Canada and that you integrate this proactive industry document into your report. We also ask this committee to consider current soil protection legislation in place in Canada and to review and determine the gaps, barriers and opportunities extending to urban soils.
Cities require special care to be put into the soil that must support the growth of green infrastructure. This, in turn, will reduce carbon and mitigate the real concerns of flooding, erosion and heat islands. We ask the government to provide support for the development of nature-based solutions, thereby creating urban landscapes that have soil capable of sustaining life.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak with you about the special needs and impacts of urban soil. The CNLA is committed to working with this committee to ensure a better understanding of urban soil, as well as its impacts and implications for human life.
I will be standing by for questions. Thank you very much for your time, senators.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Paxton. We appreciate your comments. Thank you to all the witnesses for your opening remarks.
We’re now going to proceed to questions from senators. Senators, you will each have five minutes for your questions, which includes the answers. We have a list of four senators already lined up.
Senator Black: This question is for Ms. Miller and Mr. Kruzel.
The Soil Conservation Council of Canada, as you mentioned, is already undergoing an industry-led national soil health strategy. Is there concern that this is duplicating efforts and, if it passes, overstepping federal government opportunities and actions? How do you see things playing out if this bill is passed? How do you see them working together?
Ms. Miller: Thank you for your question.
In fact, when the bill first came out, we did an analysis that took a look at what we were doing and what Bill S-230 was doing, and we could see nothing but complementarity. As Alan indicated in our opening remarks, there are certain things that governments are in a position to do better than industry and vice versa. I suppose if you tried really hard, you could duplicate the work that we’re doing, but we have different preoccupations. We believe that what we have here is an opportunity to strengthen the work that the industry is doing in partnership, not undermining or overtaking it, et cetera.
So, no, we don’t see that there is overlap. We like the bill because it provides strength to do some of the things we think need to be done that we can’t do.
Senator Black: So if the bill passes, do you see government coming and sitting at a table with you to work together?
Ms. Miller: They are already there.
Senator Black: Right.
Ms. Miller: We don’t see how, in any way, the bill would be an obstruction to that continued relationship.
Senator Black: Thank you.
My next question is for Ms. Tomlinson. A few months ago, we heard about the work that CSA is doing, and during the Critical Ground report, we heard there is a lot of uncertainty regarding how soil health is measured. You’ve mentioned the work that you’re doing, but can you expand upon some of that work, knowing that, if this passes, it is a strategy, so the folks around the table will develop tactics? How will you play a role in that?
Ms. Tomlinson: Thank you for the question.
Within the soil health space, first, we are starting with research because the number one question we had in starting out is this: What are the most critical standardization gaps that we need to address to provide the industry with the tools they need to generate high-quality comparable data? That’s what everyone is looking for regarding soil health: Can we generate comparable data that is consistent across provinces and territories that can be compared and used to inform decisions?
The research is nearly complete. It is due to be published in April, and it has a number of strong recommendations for standardization.
In addition, we have identified three immediate standards priorities: sampling, reporting and a framework. The framework is kind of an umbrella standard that sets definitions and identifies a minimum set of indicators that should be measured against to give you a complete picture of soil health, so that you are not measuring everything under the sun but only exactly what you need to get the most useful information for your management practices. That’s what the standard intends to do.
In addition, we heard there is a need for benchmarking at a regional level. The standard can be national. We can have those consistent practices. However, there is a need to ensure that you are accounting for regional differences, different crop types, different farm sizes and climates, et cetera. That comparability and benchmarking need to be done at a regional level. That’s what the standard will empower, as well.
In terms of development, it is collaborative. We involve industry, governments and labs, and everyone gets a seat at the table.
Senator Black: Are you at that table?
Ms. Tomlinson: Yes, we are.
Senator Black: Thank you.
Mr. Paxton, I’m coming back to you for questions later.
Senator Sorensen: I’m going to start with Mr. Kruzel.
You mentioned the soil advocate. From your perspective, what skills, experience or background would be essential for someone in that role? How would a national soil advocate — one person — balance representing diverse regional realities and production systems while advancing a national approach?
Mr. Kruzel: Thank you so very much for the question.
I have had the distinct pleasure of meeting a national soil advocate: Penny Wensley from Australia was their National Soils Advocate for, I believe, five years. She is just an incredible lady. All the qualities that embody Penny Wensley are exactly what I’m looking for in a national soil advocate here. You couldn’t have found a better person. She was an ambassador, a communicator and a legislator. She was the Governor of Queensland. She is connected, and she is exceptionally passionate about soils.
So, when we’re looking for a national soil advocate here, I would want them to be someone with very similar qualities to Penny Wensley’s.
If I could add one thing that Penny perhaps did not have much of that I would like to see in an advocate, it would be somebody who has been on the ground and got their hands dirty — played with soil, used soil and has been a soil practitioner, even. I think that would be really handy.
Senator Sorensen: Australia is a smaller continent than Canada is a country, but it is very diverse, as well.
Mr. Kruzel: Yes.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. I’m going to ask a question of Mr. Paxton, a fellow Albertan. Hello. It is nice to see you. It is early there.
First, I’m fascinated by what you do. I’ve never really thought about where all those greenhouses get their plants from, so I will have to come down and see you sometime. I live in Banff, where we don’t do a lot of agriculture, but I’ll come down and visit at some point.
You alluded to this, but how can we ensure that a national strategy meaningfully includes sectors such as yours? If you could just elaborate a little — I think you said you have a report you hope could be somehow incorporated into the thinking of the strategy.
Mr. Paxton: Not necessarily. There is a standard that has been adopted called the Canadian Landscape Standard. Is it the same as a specification? No. We have CSA for that. A standard is quite a bit different from a specification as such.
This standard was agreed to between the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects, who do the majority of the design work across the country, and the Canadian Nursery Landscape Association. One of the sections there, section 5, is all about soil, soil health and how the soil is used in the final landscape to sustain life.
If you picture a municipality — picture Calgary, for example. We’re 1.5 million people and growing fast. When they scrape the land with those great big earth scrapers, they pick the soil up and put it in massive soil piles, which can sometimes be up there for two to five years. Then we’re expected to grow things in that soil when the soil is eventually put back on, when the roads are built, the sewers are in and the concrete and asphalt are in. Everyone wants lovely parks, boulevards, medians, playgrounds and backyards for our children, but that soil is often depleted; it’s degraded. You can’t leave soil alone in a pile for two to five years and then expect it to sustain life.
So we’ve created a standard. As an example, at our farm, we have a small laboratory, and we actually do the testing not only on the soil that goes into the pots but on the soil that we use in the fields. We test things like pH, electrical conductivity, or EC, and many other varieties, including contaminants, to ensure that things grow.
The question you’re asking regards where 80% of people live. People don’t think of cities as being urban forests or that urban agriculture actually exists, but it does exist in the city. It’s an important part of human life and human emotional health.
When I was referring to section 5 of the Canadian Landscape Standard, I was referring to a document that has been widely used across the country in every municipality from coast to coast to coast, and that is the basis of the soil standard that we use when we’re growing our plants.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Senator McBean: Ms. Miller, what specific soil health indicators or metrics would you recommend be integrated into the national strategy to ensure meaningful measurement and monitoring of soil conditions across Canada?
Ms. Miller: Thank you for your question. That is on the minds of many of us. As a matter of fact, regarding the National Index on Agri-Food Performance, which was developed two or three years ago, the first publication, we had a meeting this week of those who were interested. We probably have about 15 to 20 stakeholders on the committee, and that was the question: What should we measure?
The work that the Canadian Standards Association is undertaking can be really helpful, but when it comes down to it, there is a difference between what we would like to measure and what we can measure.
There are soil issues such as salination, compaction and microbiome that we don’t have the capacity to take a look at nationally to see what state our soils are in. That is why that particular provision of Bill S-230 received our special attention — because how can you know what needs to be fixed if you don’t know what’s broken?
There is so much anecdotal information about depleting our soils, mining our soils, et cetera. There is a lot of good work going on too and a lot of enhancements. Farmers have told us not to come in and lecture them about what they need to change without knowing and understanding what we’re doing and how we’re doing it. That is a question that is to be answered. I don’t have the answer.
Senator McBean: I suppose I would have been surprised if you could answer it at this time.
Mr. Kruzel, are you and are farmers at all concerned that this data requirement will come up? Because of the geography of Canada, if there is an ideal of what data they’re looking for, it may not fit the environment that you are working in.
Mr. Kruzel: Thank you for the question. I guess there is always a risk that happens. I would suggest that as long as we continue working down this path and working with our friends at CSA, the Soil Health Institute and others, we will be able to find the metrics we want and come up with standards that we can use across the country, then use that benchmarking that was suggested to try to deal with regional differences.
I’ve done soil health testing on our farm, and depending on which lab I go to at this time, I can’t even compare the results. That’s a huge problem. If we can figure out which metrics we want and standardize them, no matter what things we want to look at, I think that will be a real win. We will get there.
Senator McBean: Which goes to you, Ms. Tomlinson. Basically, your standards association creates how the testing is done — the mechanics of how samples are tested so that one can be compared to another. Do I have that right?
Ms. Tomlinson: Yes. There are several elements, but I want to clarify one thing. CSA doesn’t hold the pen. We work with a committee of experts around the table. We work with soil scientists, farmers, growers and government bodies. It’s a collaborative, consensus-based process to develop the content of the standards so everyone agrees with the methods.
In terms of what’s standardized or what can be standardized, it’s sampling and reporting. You’re reporting exactly what methods were used and what kind of analysis was done so that you have all the context needed to compare something that was done in one lab in one province to something that might have been done in a different lab in the same province or differences over time. Then there is interpretation: What does that data mean in your regional context?
Senator McBean: I’ll say that in your testimony, you answered four of my questions off the top, that it was consensus-based and so on, which gave me a really clear idea of what you were doing.
We had witnesses this week who were advocating for some flexibility. Is that something that the three of you would agree on, that there needs to be more flexible standards?
Ms. Miller: I think there are two aspects to that flexibility. One aspect is flexibility in the context of regional differences. That is something we heard in terms of research and extension. It has to address the needs of the farmers.
The second is flexibility on-farm. When you have a farm that’s 2,000 acres, it’s not all the same from end to end. Even on a farm of 200 acres, you have different fields, et cetera. What soil health means in the context of a particular crop, or in the context of a particular geography, climate, et cetera, can change.
Ms. Tomlinson is talking about having the process of discovering where you’re the same, but what you do with it and what it means is where the flexibility, both among the regions and also within a farm, is really important.
Senator McBean: Excellent. Thank you very much.
Senator Muggli: Good morning, and thanks for being with us today.
My first question is for the Soil Conservation Council of Canada. Can you tell me a little about what engagement you had with Indigenous stakeholders or First Nations that are involved in farming and soil management in your work to develop a report?
Ms. Miller: We have not been very effective at that.
Senator Muggli: Can you expand on what the barriers are?
Ms. Miller: Honestly, we don’t know where to start. That is going to be our goal within the next two months. What we’re looking at and what we feel we need is an ongoing relationship. This is not about going out to two or three representative groups, if you can find them, and asking, “What do you think?” This is about coming with us and helping us understand how they see soil health, how they see the soil and helping inform what we do. We want to be able to use it as a vehicle to draw on all of that Indigenous knowledge and experience. Yes, we want to ensure that what’s in it is relevant, but we also want to know, understand and learn. We aren’t there yet. It’s our intention, but our progress has been limited.
Senator Muggli: Do you have a plan?
Ms. Miller: We’re working on that plan. There are some bodies now that have been established, and we have been in contact with the one centred in Regina. We haven’t been able to connect yet, but that is our intention: to form, I would say, a partnership.
Senator Muggli: Mr. Kruzel, can you tell me a little bit about your organization in terms of representation across Canada in the provinces and territories? Is there good representation from all provinces and territories in accordance with their populations with respect to the use of soil?
Mr. Kruzel: Thank you so much for the question.
We have a fairly diverse board of directors and a fairly diverse membership. We have members from, I would suggest, most provinces across the country. I can’t say all. Our board is comprised of folks from Eastern Canada, Central Canada and Western Canada. We’re always looking to expand and get more members to help with that. We are fairly diverse.
Senator Muggli: What are your doubts at this point in terms of representation?
Mr. Kruzel: I’ve been on the board for a number of years. What is lacking now compared to maybe 20 years ago is the number of conservation associations across the country. We used to partner with many provincial conservation associations, and many of them have disappeared off the landscape. In terms of soil and crop improvement associations, we still have one in Ontario that’s pretty robust. The one in Nova Scotia is just about done. There are others across P.E.I. —
Senator Muggli: Do you know why?
Mr. Kruzel: I’m not entirely sure. They’ve moved on to different things, maybe.
Senator Muggli: We certainly know, based on the most downloaded report in the history of Parliament, that people care about soil health. That’s interesting. I appreciate your response. It sounds like maybe there’s some continuing engagement to try to get the voices heard.
Mr. Kruzel: For sure.
Senator Muggli: For the Canadian Standards Association, what type of capacity do you find First Nations have for monitoring and reporting on soil health to be able to meet the minimums to be implemented in a framework for an information system that you’re looking toward developing?
Ms. Tomlinson: In terms of the capacity for monitoring, that’s a challenge across the board for growers across the country as well as for First Nations. The important step that I think is needed is to determine what kind of guidance and tools can be provided and what kind of training is needed to support the implementation of soil health monitoring.
I cannot comment directly on what capacity currently exists, but certainly, if the intent is to secure data and to have a good data set, there must be support to enable that for Indigenous nations as well.
The Chair: My question might be one for everyone to chime in on.
We talk about the data that’s going to feed the strategy. I’m familiar with what it means to take soil samples to a lab and to own that data as an individual. I’m wondering if you can speak to how you see the collection of this data. I’m curious to know if you could speak to whom you see taking the samples, whom you see as paying to have those samples processed and who owns that data.
I’m not sure, but one of you mentioned how if you own and are managing a resource and, all of a sudden, the government wants to know about the details of that resource — what does that mean for you, if the government is going to come in and express an opinion about how you’re managing that resource? I might start with you, Mr. Kruzel, if you wouldn’t mind.
Mr. Kruzel: That’s fine. Thank you very much for the question.
Data privacy is a very tricky thing. Farmers — myself included — are notoriously private and don’t like to share all the time. However, I think there is a willingness to share some information in a very aggregated form. I’ve talked to a lot of farmers, and some are probably not as willing as others, but I think we could probably get there in an aggregated form.
Who is going to pay for all of this? That is an excellent question. That’s something we’ve been struggling with for a long time. We have had a couple of projects in Ontario that have provided free soil health testing. There was very good uptake for that. There were two projects that I am aware of, one from the Greenbelt Foundation and another from Soils at Guelph, that offered free soil health testing to farmers. There was very good uptake for that. When I asked how much those samples cost to be analyzed, they couldn’t really give me a number, but it’s in the hundreds of dollars per sample, and that starts to add up very quickly.
When we’re talking about what metrics we need to measure, it has to be affordable. If you want uptake by producers, it has to be something close to a regular soil test, in the $30 to $40 range. Once you get into hundreds of dollars for some of them, that might be a little bit too much to ask.
The Chair: Thank you. I might go to Mr. Paxton next. Before I ask you to answer the question, Phil, you mentioned that you have a lab on your farm where you’re measuring electrical conductivity, pH and a few other things.
I’m wondering what your members see as far as accessibility to accredited labs. How accessible are they for you? What’s involved if you were to send your samples to a lab?
Mr. Paxton: That is a great question. It’s quite detailed, but I would say you could easily separate what we do in our sector into two buckets. First, you have the grower, and that’s a traditional agricultural setting. For example, I’m in Strathmore, Alberta, so it’s pretty easy for us to take soil, and we do quite detailed soil testing. We’ve taken our tests and compared them to outside accredited labs, and we’re incredibly close on things like the organic content of the soil. It’s incredible how close our testing is to that of an accredited outside laboratory.
That is quite important to us. For example, you have a field, and in one row, there are 150 trees. We will actually test three times in that row. The results will tell us in many ways — and AI is quite useful on this piece as well — how we should feed those trees. That’s one set of parameters that is traditionally what you would call Canadian agricultural farming.
When you come into the city, it’s very different. Access to laboratories is easy. The problem is that there isn’t a specific standard that has been agreed to by everyone. You have developers that will be more engaged in making sure that their developments can endure. With the testing of the soil that has been put up in these piles that is then reused in the communities we live in, there is no standard that has been adopted by everyone where we can rest assured when that soil is then used.
When my colleague just said $100 for a test, yes, that’s pretty standard. We would take the soil in different profiles from that pile, and before it’s reused, we would actually get a report back from an accredited lab that would tell us what amendments we need to put in there. The problem is, there isn’t a standard that’s been adopted by everyone that you could say is contiguous across the country. That is a different issue. Most people don’t think of it as a big problem, but it is a huge problem in big cities.
As I said, 80% of Canadians live in our cities, and we need to ensure that that soil is good in its final resting spot, so we can get that testing.
The Chair: Super. You and I are out of time so we’ll go to the second round.
Mr. Paxton: Sorry for that.
Senator Black: Mr. Paxton, did I hear you say that you don’t think the landscape industry association is represented in this bill? That’s really a very short question. And then my second question, which I’ll pose to you first and then to Mr. Kruzel, is this: Will farmers have any concerns if there are further regulations laid on as a result of a strategy, or do you think that the strategy would include regulations?
Mr. Paxton: Thank you, senator. Our farmers would embrace these regulations, I believe, in the horticultural sector. I think standardization will help us in the growing area.
As it relates to Bill S-230 representing us in the urban environment, no, I don’t think there is enough thought being put into the importance of how soil in our cities, for the most part, isn’t as healthy as it should be. Regarding our green spaces, we really need to do quite a bit more work to ensure our cities are healthy and liveable with respect to air, water and soil. The soil piece is absolutely vital, and there is more work to be done in the cities. I do feel — and I’ve talked to you about this before, senator — cities are often overlooked, which is sad when 80% of us live in urban environments and how vital soil is to those environments being healthy.
Mr. Kruzel: Thank you for the question. When it comes to regulation, if it’s something like, “You should do this test and follow these parameters,” it will probably not be a big issue. But “Thou must no-till and thou must cover crop,” that will be an issue. There will be a lot more resistance to that kind of regulation.
Senator Black: Thank you.
Senator McBean: Mr. Paxton, I live in one of those urban areas. I live in downtown Toronto, and you said something about the importance of reintroducing soil into the urban environment. I see this all the time, where there is development or they want to put another tree back on a sidewalk or into the area, but the soil that they put into it, I think, is this degraded soil that you’re talking about. I was just having a lot of lightbulbs light up. How much soil is being degraded and/or wasted in urban environments? Are they recoverable, these piles of soil that we’re heaping and degrading?
Mr. Paxton: The quick answer is yes, the soil is recoverable. Soil is a resilient resource, with the right amendments — a cover crop was mentioned previously. There is so much we know around how we can take depleted and degraded soil and actually make it healthy again. It isn’t as big a job as you would think. Everybody wants a beautiful boulevard of trees where they live, and nobody wants to see a tree replaced at $1,000 or more and then see it die five years later. It nearly always dies because of one reason: the way it was planted and the soil in which it was planted and the way it was maintained. Nobody wants to see that.
Unfortunately, there aren’t enough teeth in the regulations, you could say, or the standards or the policy, to ensure that where we live, we have this guarantee of coverage of the urban canopy, you could say, so we’re all living in a healthy place. It starts with soil. So it is easy to bring the soil back.
Senator McBean: I know Senator Robinson is going to give us the goalpost in a second.
When I’m buying your products at the garden centre and I’m buying soil by the bag, is this a good thing or a bad thing? Is this great soil getting wasted, and is it also degrading? It seems people are buying bags of soil every year. Should we not be having our own soil and keeping it?
Mr. Paxton: You can buy bulk soil, but the reason it’s in bags is it’s easy to put it into the trunk of your car and buy two or three at a time. Bags of soil are just fine, but you can also buy bulk soil.
Senator McBean: I’ve done that, and my neighbours tell me I’m crazy because I’m out there with my Blundstones and shovel. Is it wasted soil? Are urban environments just taking soil from good farm areas, and is it good soil constantly going to bad every year?
Mr. Paxton: No. The resource is being wasted sometimes. I’ll give you an example of how important clay is. Sometimes, when wetlands are dug out in urban areas, they take the clay out and then put the soil back at the bottom of the wetlands and — Sorry. The quick answer is we can look after our soil, and this is why we support this bill.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: Thank you, Senator Black, for asking the regulatory question. That was one of mine as well. Thank you for that response. It sounds like that could be a challenging thing to do.
Ms. Miller, could you share one or two innovative soil conservation measures and how this strategy could promote more innovation? Maybe the role of the advocate could also be promoting innovation, but do you have a couple of examples, maybe, of how this strategy could move us even further?
Ms. Miller: Actually, it’s all of them, but what we provide to the farmers is lacking. What we have heard from our consultations is that there isn’t sufficient integration of economics and social factors into research on soil health. So there are a lot of innovative practices out there — whether that be intercropping, or we’ve heard about cover cropping — but they don’t come with a price tag attached. And if you don’t have the price tag, there is a lot of reluctance to undertake the risk, et cetera.
So what we’re promoting is looking at a more holistic analysis from the farmers’ perspective, so not only is the science there in terms of innovation, but that innovation includes what it means for costs. What does that mean for someone’s crops? What does that mean for what someone’s neighbours will say? Because if the neighbours think those are weeds you’re growing, they’re not happy.
So it’s no one innovation; it’s how we use innovations and how we provide that information to those who are making decisions on adoption.
Senator Muggli: I kind of think of a national advocate as a team, an advocate’s office that maybe has a team of champions that could go across the country and advocate for or spread innovations. Does that sound like a reasonable approach?
Ms. Miller: I absolutely think so because it’s about communication and knowledge. And the knowledge starts with the researchers. That’s why one of our pillars is research. So this is the right research.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Ms. Miller: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to all our witnesses. I want to go back to something that Mr. Paxton said. I think the level of engagement in this committee has certainly made this statement quite impactful: “All life depends on soil, and there is no life without soil, and there is no soil without life.” So Senator McBean can keep buying her bags of soil because that is a good thing. I appreciate everyone’s time today, your preparation and your coming here. Thank you so much.
For our second panel, we welcome Ms. Cristine L.S. Morgan, Chief Scientific Officer at the Soil Health Institute.
Cristine L.S. Morgan, Chief Scientific Officer, Soil Health Institute: Good morning, and thank you all for the opportunity to speak about soil. It’s my favourite subject.
Today, I want to share with you what we’ve learned about measuring and assessing soil health and how that can work on a continental scale while still being locally meaningful, practical and scientifically credible.
I’m a soil scientist. I grew up on a conservation-minded cow‑calf operation in Texas. There, I learned early that agriculture and ecosystem regeneration can go hand in hand. I later spent 15 years as a professor of soil science at Texas A&M University, and I now serve as Chief Scientific Officer of the Soil Health Institute, or SHI.
The institute is a global nonprofit research organization consisting of scientists and outreach specialists, working with farmers, scientists and partners to make soil health science usable and credible. At SHI, we’ve spent years studying which soil measurements are scientifically meaningful and practical to use. We’ve worked across North America, including in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, to understand which indicators respond to management, can run through commercial labs and be usefully interpreted.
Today, I want to focus on the portion of Bill S-230 related to knowledge improvement measures, understanding the status of soils and gathering data and monitoring. I call this section of the bill, “If you treasure it, you measure it.” The first thing we’ve learned at SHI about improving our knowledge of soil health is simple but foundational: Soil health assessment is contextual. You heard that earlier. You can stand in one field and have two different soil types. Both can be functioning well, supporting crops, water movement and biodiversity, and not be under threat: not eroding or being contaminated.
However, both soils can still look very different in lab measurements. That difference often reflects how those soils formed, not how they’re managed. If we don’t account for that, we can mislabel healthy soils as “poor” just because they’re naturally different.
Our solution to the contextual nature of soil is what we call soil health benchmarking. We compare working agricultural soils to similar soils in the same region under different management practices, with the best conditions we can find. We call that a reference. That gives farmers and decision makers a realistic picture: How healthy is this soil today, how healthy is this soil compared to what’s possible here and how much room for improvement is realistic?
We’ve applied this approach across more than 20 million acres in North America, including in Ontario.
Benchmarking allows soil health to be evaluated in a way that respects regional soils and climate rather than using one national threshold.
When we share this work, the next question is always this: How do I get this information for my field?
That brings me to the second principle: To make soil health assessment accessible, we must build up the systems farmers and ranchers already use. Producers already send soil samples to commercial labs every year. That represents an enormous investment. Rather than building entirely new systems, we focus on connecting what already exists. Through our Soil Health Portal and lab partnership program, we work with commercial labs and university scientists to make soil health data interoperable and shareable, so that information can be combined, interpreted using regional benchmarks and returned to farmers in a meaningful way.
We are developing this now in the Prairie provinces with partners in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. These efforts are grounded in local soils, local partners and real-world management.
The approach matters, especially at a time when budgets matter. Leveraging existing commercial labs, provincial efforts, university science and farmer investment stretches public resources and avoids duplicating infrastructure.
So the big takeaway from our experience is this: Soil health measurement works best when it is locally meaningful and built on systems that are accessible. Benchmarking provides interpretation that fits regional soils. Interoperable lab data provides scale. Partners allow us to leverage resources rather than rebuild from scratch. That combination makes soil health assessment not just scientifically sound, but doable.
Thank you all today for your leadership and for the opportunity to share what we have learned in the field.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. That was fantastic.
Senators, you will have five minutes for your question, and that includes the answer as well.
Senator Black: Thank you very much, Ms. Morgan. The Soil Health Institute is located in the United States. You have done, as you shared with us, work in Canada — in Ontario and the Western provinces. Is there a national soil strategy in the U.S.?
Ms. Morgan: That’s a good question. There are bits and pieces of one, yes.
Senator Black: Thank you. You have done work here in Canada. Do you see this bill and its possible implementation after passing as a good thing? Will it support the work that you are doing? Will you be able to integrate with the work that could be done?
Ms. Morgan: I see the bill as a very good thing. That’s why I’m here today. I think there is a lot of potential to integrate. This is legislation that embodies our efforts over the past seven years at the institute. We have put a lot of time and resources into figuring out what that national strategy is. When I started the institute, the first thing we did was say, “Okay, what are the measurements that matter?” We have published about them in the peer-reviewed literature. We have put out white papers. We have a basic suite of soil measurements. We call them our essential soil health measurements or soil health indicators, and they are supported by the USDA in Conservation Evaluation and Monitoring Activity 216, or CEMA 216, which is the standard for soil health measurement in the U.S.
Senator Black: Thank you. My final comment — and I should have mentioned it when you answered the first question — Canada and the provinces could lead the way in the development of a national soil strategy in North America.
Ms. Morgan: Yes.
Senator Black: I rest my case.
The Chair: Thank you, Ben Matlock. Fantastic.
Senator McBean: Thank you for not only the sticker but the interesting presentation. What best practices or management systems from your work could easily be scaled nationally to support producers in adopting soil-health-enhancing practices, and how would the policy support that scaling up?
Ms. Morgan: The most popular strategies that are scientifically proven are cover cropping and reduced tillage. But, as Alan said earlier, being prescriptive is not helpful. When we talk about cover cropping, we’re talking about a principle, and the principle is living roots and more photosynthesis. You want plants living in the soil. It is more important to promote principles than practice, and the principles are reduced physical disturbance, having living roots as many days out of the year as you can — it is a cold climate here — armouring the surface of the soil and promoting biodiversity.
If those principles are promoted — soil managers are innovative and clever, and innovation will happen. We see it all the time. Maybe cover cropping doesn’t work for a particular farmer, but they change the rotation and that improves the days of living roots. There are a lot of different machinations through which we can achieve these principles.
Senator McBean: It seems to me that is almost a page to very easily print and put on a wall, like an educational piece.
In your view, how should Bill S-230’s education and outreach provisions prioritize engagement, training and technical assistance for different land users, including farmers, Indigenous communities and managers?
Ms. Morgan: First, management is local. If I were to prioritize outreach, it would be local. What we do at the Soil Health Institute works very well. We find local farmer exemplars — we call them farmer mentors — who have done the work, have made the mistakes and have had the successes, and they share that with others. We also pay technical specialists, folks who may be in the United States and are associated with extension or a soil and water conservation district. They come in and translate the science.
Producers listen to other producers. The keystone of practice is finding practitioners who have been successful and getting them to share their wins and losses. You have to have locals who have put in the work. And that work costs them. One farmer in Texas called it “the cost of tuition.” I want to find another producer who has already paid their tuition so I can learn from them.
Senator McBean: Thank you very much.
Senator Muggli: Thank you for being with us today and sharing your knowledge. I’m learning a lot.
I am interested in hearing whether you think our strategy should support some kind of national data repository and if so, what that would look like. What kind of body should be responsible for holding a national data repository?
Ms. Morgan: Data privacy is very important. We are also working on trying to pull all the data together because one of the things you need to have is a place where the data exists, but it has to be usable. There will certainly be policies around protecting personally identifiable information and looking at the data in an aggregated manner. I think it could work. It is just about ensuring that there is access. There is a lot of work that goes into the quality assurance of the data. A repository does not work if the data coming in are from different labs and those data don’t align.
Senator Muggli: Right. That makes sense.
Do you think a strategy should include comprehensive drought- and flood-mapping data?
Ms. Morgan: Yes. I think I understand the question. Climate, weather, management and soil properties all go together. The important thing is the data is collected at the correct scale. The scale of management in row crop agriculture and rangeland agriculture is the field. So you need to ensure that the data are the right scale and support the geography of the management unit.
Senator Muggli: I’m thinking about being able to forecast what you will be able to grow.
Ms. Morgan: We are in such a volatile weather situation right now. That’s tough. I think that there is some forecasting that is useful, and we definitely need to invest in the best forecasts that we have. The cool thing about improving soil function is it really gives you that resilience against these more extreme weather situations. At the end of the day, there is not a lot you can do about the weather, and it is really about creating that robust system that can respond to it.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: I don’t have a question, but I want to thank you for your testimony. There was a lot of interesting information, but also a sense of real authenticity about how much you deeply care about soil.
I have a comment for the committee for when we’re working on this — and I welcome you to comment on my comment: I’m not sure how we would incorporate into legislation some of the things that Ms. Morgan had to say, but in terms of observations around measurements, measurements that matter, I love that you said they should be meaningful, pertinent and accessible to the farmer.
I’m following up on some conversations I’ve had with agricultural people in Alberta. When government steps in and says, “We need this,” and they don’t have it, or government creates a policy that is difficult for the farmer to implement, I guess it’s a suggestion that somehow government knows what the farmer needs more than the farmer does.
I’ve heard stories around situations like that, and I think that’s a recipe for disaster. I really appreciate your comments about how if you are going to do measurements, you should consider what the farmers already do and enhance or elaborate on that. And I will definitely take away, for many aspects of my life, “If you treasure it, you measure it.” I don’t know if you want to comment further.
Ms. Morgan: I’m very much a tactician. I think about the big strategy, and a lot of my work regards how to get it done. So I think some legislative principles would be to focus on principles rather than practice, per se. So, the living roots and the cover, those are the things that we want. We don’t want to just say, “Go plant this seed.”
And the measurement is really important. There are a lot of people who have put a lot of work into that. I would want to be careful about overprescribing what is measured as well. You can tell I’m very passionate about measurement. I think it’s important to get that balance so only the information you need is collected.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question. I wanted to go back a little bit to Senator Black’s question to you about whether the U.S. has a national soil strategy, and your answer, I think, was it has bits and pieces, after a bit of thought.
I was wondering if you could expand on that a bit and tell us what it looks like, what the barriers or resistance have been and what you would suggest to a country like Canada looking to potentially adopt a strategy?
Ms. Morgan: I don’t represent the U.S. government. I only observe what I see. I’m not an expert in legislation. What I see in the United States is most of the soil health work is within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS. Then there’s soil contamination within the EPA. There’s also some soil management work within the Department of Energy around biofuel production. Those are three entirely different areas where soil is impacted by decisions.
Particularly at the USDA, there are some nice things, such as CEMA 216, which is the standard. I think Ana talked a bit about that earlier. And then there’s the promotion of practice.
I think one of the interesting things from earlier, when there was the question about who pays, is that in the U.S., many different folks pay. There is pay from NRCS. If you take money for practice, then you can take some of that money and use it to measure your soil, and that’s what CEMA 216 covers.
There are also buyers and brands that are paying. They want to know what their supply shed looks like. And we really focus on how we report on supply sheds.
Then there’s the individual who pays. Farmers are passionate about their soil. When they can put in those resources, they do.
Those principles that I spoke of are USDA/NRCS principles, and they are very widely shared in the United States.
The Chair: Thank you. Building on that, I’m wondering if you’re familiar with what we call the On-Farm Climate Action Fund, or OFCAF, in Canada.
Ms. Morgan: No.
The Chair: Okay. There is, I think, $700 million given to producers who are looking to adopt better, more climate-friendly activities — best management practices, or BMPs. Is there something similar in the U.S.?
Ms. Morgan: Yes. It is generally around soil conservation. There are a couple of programs. I am blanking on all the acronyms, but yes. We call it “pay for practice.”
So a farmer can. It is called Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, money. If you own land, you can work with someone and put in an application. It is very regional. There are small zones within a county-type area where local leaders decide what their soil conservation priorities are, and then there are practices associated with those priorities. You can ask for assistance for those practices. There is a substantial amount of money that goes to that.
The Chair: I’m asking questions that are possibly outside your area of expertise. Do you know generally if those are oversubscribed or undersubscribed? Are producers keen to access those programs?
Ms. Morgan: I think it depends on the producer. Larger producers, I think, access them well. Generally, there is some need to get help to fill out the paperwork. I hear there is a lot of paperwork, and different folks make different decisions on whether it’s worth it.
Regarding it being oversubscribed or undersubscribed, I think most of the money is generally spent. Most of my information about that is as a landowner who does conservation.
The Chair: In North Carolina?
Ms. Morgan: Yes, ma’am. And Texas.
The Chair: Oh, good. Okay.
When we look at a soil strategy, I think it is important for us to be paying attention to how the data is collected, who owns the data, who pays for the data and so on. I’m wondering if you could give us a sense of where you see the success. I understand soil zones and mapping and how we see such variation — I come from a potato production area, so we map fairly intensely, where two and a half acres per soil sample would certainly not be unheard of.
And then when you look at a field that might take 40 samples and you bump that up to at least $100 a sample, and you consider the labour and the data handling and all that, it gets fairly onerous. So we have all that. It does exist.
You’re right. I love it too, Senator Sorensen, “If you treasure it, you measure it.” And certainly producers treasure it because it is the foundation for everything they do.
Could you speak to how the granular data is taken to a more aggregate form and still remains informative? You spoke a little bit about how you benchmark. How I kind of look at it is, if you have soil type A, the potential for that soil is 100 and you’re measuring 73. Is it kind of like that? If you looked at a potato farm in Maine, it might be similar to what happens in my area, as far as variations of soil type go. What would it look like?
Ms. Morgan: So I cut my teeth in soil variability. I went to graduate school at the beginning of precision agriculture, so I’m very familiar with what you’re speaking of.
Generally, that kind of high-intensity sampling is for fertility and to reduce inputs in precision agriculture. In soil health, we don’t see the need for that intense level of sampling. We are aggregating at the region, so in the U.S. we call it — I think in Canada they call them ecosystem regions. The name escapes me. In the U.S., we call them Major Land Resource Areas, or MLRAs.
At SHI, we took the soils map of the United States and aggregated it based on certain soil properties. These properties are the ones that are going to affect soil health assessment. So instead of tens of thousands of soil series, we’re down to fewer than 2,000 soil types.
We look at the texture and the drainage class, to be very specific. Generally, a Major Land Resource Area is fairly large in the U.S. — think of the Southern High Plains in Texas or the Texas Panhandle.
There are three main soil health groups that are primarily ag‑producing soils. For many of the MLRAs we go into, we have identified three to five primarily ag-producing soils for which we think their indicators will be different. Then, we go out and measure those under different managements, and we model. When we measure soil health, the expensive part is actually not the measurement of the soil health indicators; it’s the measurement of the soil’s inherent properties, like the texture and the pH. Those are the pieces that we need so that we can appropriately classify those indicator values. However, we only need them once, which is one way to bring down the cost of monitoring. You just need to know you have sampled an area and know the soil texture for that soil sample. When you come back later, you don’t need to take that measurement again. You can focus on the indicator measures.
Maybe that answered your question. I always fear I get too technical, so I was trying to hold back. We could have a soil science lecture for hours if you let me, so I have to behave.
The Chair: I have a quick follow-up question. When you talk about soil texture, is that expressed in soil electrical conductivity?
Ms. Morgan: That is how much clay and sand are in the soil, so its stickiness and grittiness. That is a property that is genetic; it’s inherited from the landscape.
The Chair: Okay.
When we look at the variability of soil health, you’re saying it is a lot less variable than fertility. So when we look to samples to measure soil health, is that a test that would be piggybacked onto a soil fertility sample?
Ms. Morgan: Yes. I can get very specific. If you have a grid sample of your field, you know your management zones. So, you would take some composite samples of those management zones. Rather than 15 samples, you would maybe take 2 or 3 composite samples, and those are what you would use for your soil health testing. It is far less sampling than you would use in a precision agriculture perspective.
The Chair: That’s really good to know. Thank you very much.
Ms. Morgan: We separate fertility and soil health. Regarding fertility, you can save a lot of money if you know very spatially where your nutrients are. With soil health — earlier, when we talked about the database, you pull back a little more and look at the management unit on top of the soil variability, so maybe there is a little bit of smoothing.
The Chair: I wonder if there would be less reluctance to share soil data that does not include fertility.
Ms. Morgan: You hit the nail on the head.
The Chair: We look at different jurisdictions globally that have decided to get involved in the management of nutrients within a soil and how alarming that can be in some situations. That’s wonderful to have cleared up in my mind. Thank you so much.
On behalf of all the members of the committee, thank you so much for being here today, and thank you for the stickers — “I dig soil” — fantastic. We are now going to wrap up for the day.
Thank you to the interpreters, pages, support staff, technicians and all those who ensure that we senators can conduct our work in the committee setting in a timely fashion.
(The committee adjourned.)