Granted, if they had the forethought and storage capacity to buy fertilizer in the fall or top up their farm fuel reserves, they’re not taking mortal financial blows right before seeding — but with every new gas field struck, fertilizer plant shuttered or country shutting down fertilizer exports to protect their slice of the global pie, it seems less likely that supply chains will get back to status quo anytime soon.

According to an FCC web post, released in early March and recently cited by our reporter Miranda Leybourne, a 2022 study suggested about half of Prairie farmers have their fertilizer by late March. That’s more than in Eastern Canada (only 10 per cent of Ontario farmers had done the same), but it still leaves a lot of producers potentially eating big bills this spring.

Cycle of uncertainty for farmers

As our executive editor Laura Rance noted a few weeks ago, this kind of chaos has become all too familiar.

COVID-19 threw international supply chains into a blender. Inflation has ballooned far more for farmers than even other Canadians. Manitoba Agriculture staff puts the farm inflation rate in the last five years at up to 50 per cent. Canada picked another fight with China, and canola took the brunt. Then there’s the second era of Donald Trump, whose policies have helped throw more uncertainty and market volatility into the mix than the world has seen in decades.

Farmers have become unfortunately used to waking up one morning to find their market gone or input prices spiking due to events impossible to anticipate and which often have nothing to do with them.

A system can only take so much before people start looking for alternatives. If farmers are shopping for innovations though, they’re going to have to wrestle with the reality that many of those technologies have the word “sustainable” associated with them.

That’s the tone of society; and it’s often the buzzword that attracts either public or private investment enough to get those ag tech concepts over the finish line.

Many farmers resent the “green” mandates being imposed upon them by government and public pressure. The federal goal to reduce fertilizer emissions by 30 per cent under 2020 levels by the end of the decade is a prime example.

Farmers’ were first and foremost worried that it would turn into a hard limit on nitrogen fertilizer use. The federal government has always denied that, saying that it’s going to be more about encouraging efficiencies.

If urea futures are going to start spiking 30 per cent though (as they did within two days of the intensified conflict in Iran), maybe less natural gas derived fertilizer isn’t a bad thing.

A case for self-sufficiency

Most of the farms that I’ve seen who have bought into regenerative or “sustainable” practices have a financial reason, rather than just an ideological one. They want long-term viability and to be able to absorb shocks they’ve observed in the field or have suffered in the bank account.

Such was the case with R&L Acres near Sperling, home to Manitoba’s first on-farm green ammonia plant.

Yes, government and researchers had an environmental interest in the initiative. It uses hydro power and electrolysis to get hydrogen from water, rather than natural gas. Combined with nitrogen from the atmosphere, it becomes on-farm manufactured ammonia.

Researchers have even suggested that green ammonia could one day become an alternate fuel source for machinery.

Farm owner Curtis Hiebert, though, also talked about a desire for self-sufficiency, to decouple from the whims of the fertilizer market and save money, especially when regular ammonia prices were up. The numbers presented in 2024 put final cost of a 500 tonne per year system at $948 per tonne for the farmer.

That may not always offer huge savings, but it will be consistent, and that certainty is also worth something. At the time the system was being installed, the fertilizer market was in turmoil because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Today, there’s a whole new set of world affairs mucking things up.

One plant doesn’t mean green ammonia is about to roll over conventional ways of farming, nor is it clear how much our renewable energy infrastructure would be able to support. Manitoba Hydro has already warned about its looming capacity limits. The up-front cost of the system is also big: an estimated $4.5 million in 2024.

Green ammonia is, though, an example of the kind of farm-focused innovation that could offer legitimate solutions and resiliency in an increasingly uncertain world.

We shouldn’t get so caught on the word “green,” and any complicated feelings that word comes with, that we dismiss the equally real impacts for self-sufficiency, sovereignty, stability and, in the best of cases, cost savings.

The post OPINION: Global chaos raises stakes for green farm technology appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The first 15 are already out. From tariff tensions to invasive wild pigs to weather, here’s a taste of what farmers wanted to read most over the last year:

No. 25 — Port of Churchill searches for year-round trade: In November, KAP hosted Arctic Gateway Group’s CEO to talk future plans for Manitoba’s northern port. Part of the big expansion planned is a goal to keeping the ice open, and trade flowing, all year long.

No. 24 — Weather school: It’s all about the clouds: Do you know your cumulus from your nimbostratus? This piece from way back in 2020 re-emerged on our most-read list for 2025.

No.23 — Fishing the deep water of Manitoba: Want fishing success farther from shore? Our outdoors columnist Tim Sopuck ran readers down some tips and tricks for catching deep water fish in Manitoba.

No. 22 — Manitoba’s wild pigs not headed for population boom, expert says: The co-ordinator for Manitoba’s Squeal on Pigs program says our cold climate situation isn’t comparable to U.S.

No. 21 — We’ve seen trade wars before, but this time is different: Throwing back all the way to January for this one. This early 2025 editorial looked down the barrel of changing U.S. trade policy and what it could mean for Canadian agriculture.

Nov. 20 — Riverside Hutterite Colony gets top honours: It was a western Manitoba sweep at this year’s Royal Manitoba Winter Fair Pork Quality Competition back in spring.

Other highlights so far include beekeepers battling for survival, more trade and tariff stories and Manitoba’s first bovine tuberculosis case in years.

Want to see the full list? Check out our top stories landing page in the top-left corner of our website. Keep checking back until Jan. 31 as we unveil our top 10.

The post Manitoba Co-operator top 25 of 2025 appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

We watched as the miniaturized, fictional mammals scampered across night-time kitchens in the televised public service announcements of our youth, left peanut butter footprints on plates and had confrontations with house cats.

“That looked really real, but you knew it couldn’t be true, didn’t you?” the narrator would break in as the background faded to an African landscape.

It was a message we got from our teachers, parents, cartoons and, yes, the now nostalgia-laced clip from Concerned Children’s Advertisers: Ask questions. Don’t believe everything you see on a screen.

Given how adept artificial intelligence has become at generating text, photos and video, the message is arguably more relevant today than when it was running between BopIt! ads and the Kool-Aid Man.

Sources who spoke to our reporter Jeff Melchior for his recent cover story on misinformation and disinformation would likely agree.

“There’s so much information available, but what is right and applicable? That’s very difficult to decide, given that so much information is there,” University of Guelph researcher Ataharul Chowdhury said.

The very same day as we were preparing that article for publication, major news outlets reported a police raid on the compound of “Queen” Romana Didulo and her faithful — a movement so successful in QAnon-style misinformation and disinformation they’ve convinced followers that Didulo is sovereign of the “Kingdom of Canada.”

Just days prior, a CBC report noted the growing problem of AI-generated or altered severe weather images, leading to Environment and Climate Change Canada getting erroneous reports. Storm chasers cited in that article noted that the phenomenon was impacting their credibility.

Anyone who has dipped a toe into social media has likely seen the proliferation of fake content floating around online. It ranges from blatantly AI photos with too many fingers to online classifieds listings that are actually scams, to “screenshots” of sensational (and very fake) headlines edited with what appears to be the header and format of major news outlets .

A Google search and 20 seconds of due diligence quickly uncovers that no such article exists. On social media though, many keyboards get tapping and share buttons get clicked for every digital literate who takes the extra effort to verify. Each one of those keyboard warriors can spread the proverbial misinformation infection alarmingly fast.

Social media, by its nature, is prone to echo chambers. It feeds you content similar to what you’ve already engaged with and lets you talk to the people you’ve decided you want to talk to.

It also tends to aggregate people with similar interests or worldviews. That’s great when connecting with other people who like hiking, not so much when the common interest in question is an extremist view or a conspiracy theory.

Cami Ryan, who, in her off hours away from her role with Bayer Global, is an advocate warning against misinformation and disinformation was clear: The people seeding disinformation have something to gain from it.

It’s often rooted in ideology, she noted, but it’s also business looking for recruits to exploit.

“People are making money or getting value from disinformation,” she told Melchior. “That’s 100 per cent how it is.”

It’s her view that farmers’ generally pragmatic approach to life might help them sort fact from fiction, but they still live in the online world, she cautioned.

The unfortunate truth is that some groups that thrive on mis/disinformation dangle hooks in the same spheres that farmers, who may have legitimate criticism and frustrations with the federal government, populate. It’s easy to poke holes in something we’re already inclined to disagree with. It’s much harder if the premise broadly aligns with a political, religious or social perspective that we subscribe to. Disinformation creators are well aware of that vulnerability.

Chowdhury, meanwhile, also pointed to a growing lack of trust in science, which he says leaves more room for misinformation to take root.

In agriculture, he linked that to growing corporate interest in things like agricultural research and extension hitting the perceived neutrality of scientific work.

It’s true that farmers may have some cynicism in that regard, although it’s not just corporate interests. Farmers are also miffed at what they see is a politically driven hyperfocus on climate change in publicly funded research.

He’s also right that farmers have seen a contraction in public or farm-group extension. Only weeks ago, the Canola Council of Canada disbanded its field agronomy team, saying that farmers could seek those services with private agronomists, companies or provincial extension staff (roles that have also been rolled back in certain provinces in recent years).

So what are farmers to do?

Technology is always adapting, and we are adapting in our interactions with it. Many of us have changed our cell phone behaviour, for instance, to protect ourselves from scams.

It is no longer uncommon for someone to say that they don’t answer calls from numbers they don’t know. They screen their text messages. They don’t click unsolicited links or give out personal information and, if they want to check if a message about a bill or account is valid, they contact their provider independently.

In the same way, as Melchior’s sources argue, we need to develop defences against misinformation and disinformation. That includes digital literacy (there are already farmer-facing programs for that on offer in Manitoba). It also involves a conscious decision to pay attention to what we’re seeing rather than taking it at face value.

Does it make sense? Where did it come from? Can you confirm that it came from there? Are there any details that seem out of place? Does a little independent research (from reputable sources) back up or contradict it?

Just like putting on a seat belt or deleting suspicious emails unread, these defences must be automatic, consistent and something you encourage in those around you as well.

The post Guarding against misinformation: Do you believe in house hippos? appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

On June 16, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) said they were investigating a bovine tuberculosis infection in a dairy cow, which had come from a farm in the Pembina Valley region of south-central Manitoba.

Why it matters: Canada has had brushes with bovine tuberculosis in recent years, but not in Manitoba.

According to a CFIA notice to industry, samples had been taken from the seven-year-old animal at the abattoir. Labs found the bacteria responsible for bovine tuberculosis June 9, 2025. The finding was later confirmed June 13.

Officials tracked down the originating farm through the DairyTrace traceability program. The CFIA says the herd has been quarantined, pending further testing and depopulation.

“The timing of testing will be determined after discussions with the producer to manage the operational impact of the process,” the agency said.

“The CFIA is continuing to work closely with producers, industry associations, and provincial and federal agricultural and health authorities throughout the investigation.”

The investigation is still in its early days, the CFIA said.

Canada’s bovine TB record

Until this point, the only bovine tuberculosis cases confirmed in Canada since 2018 have originated in Saskatchewan. In February 2023, U.S. officials found the disease in a heifer that had come from Canada. After tracking that animal back to its originating farm, 32 animals in the herd were also found infected. Traceability did not find infection in any potential contact herds

Another case was confirmed in November 2024. Samples from a six-year-old cow, collected at an an abattoir in Alberta came back positive for infection. That cow was tracked back to a farm in Saskatchewan and the birth herd was quarantined. As of June 5, the CFIA had found 25 cases in the one infected herd, which has been depopulated.

Traceability efforts flagged 39 potentially linked herds, 12 of which have been released from quarantine.

In May, Saskatchewan beef producers took the government to task on bovine tuberculosis. They argued that farmers of infected farms should get better compensation, wildlife testing should be bolstered and that more work should be done on vaccines.

The post Bovine tuberculosis found in Manitoba appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Looking at their website, the animal rights group highlights animal transport under its list of causes. The page reads that federal laws and regulations applying to farmed livestock are “notoriously weak,” prioritize outcomes rather than prescriptions and, thus, do not account for animal suffering while being shipped, just that they arrive at their destination without “noticeable injury or illness.”

Of bigger issue to one Manitoba horse farm, as Glacier FarmMedia recently reported, the group is staunchly against air export of horses for the slaughter market, which their website calls a “national shame.”

The group points to federal rules around how long livestock can be in transit before getting a break for food, rest and water. That’s 24 hours without water for broiler chickens (28 hours between rest and food), 28 hours for horses and pigs and 36 hours for cattle old enough to no longer be nursing.

Animal Justice is in the process of taking that horse farm to court over a 2022 shipment they say went over those limits.

But their latest release criticized the same farm for apparently shipping the horses close to Winnipeg, offloading them at a feedlot overnight and then completing the journey to the airport. The group characterized it as a “workaround” in the rules to “reset the clock.”

Industry might bemusedly describe it as just plain following the rules. As well as maximum transport times without a break, regulations also set out how long those breaks must be. The clock can only restart after a mimimum eight consecutive hours of rest, according to Canada’s Health of Animals Regulations.

Moira Harris, an animal welfare consultant quoted by Animal Justice, noted that that loading and unloading is “the most stressful and disruptive parts of transport” whether that transport is by road or by air, and would increase “… stress and reduce their welfare, compared to an uninterrupted trip.”

That’s weirdly similar to arguments Canada’s beef sector was shouting from the rooftops five years ago, when more restrictive federal rules around food, rest and water breaks were introduced.

Prior to that, cattle could be on the road for a maximum 48 hours before a break, and those breaks only had to be five hours long.

The post Horns aren’t unlocking anytime soon on livestock transport standards appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

In a notice to industry Feb. 25, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said they have found three more cases while testing the birth herd of an animal confirmed positive for bovine TB late last year.

The herd in question will be euthanized, the producer compensated as per CFIA regulations and tests will be done on all animals over a year old to determine how significantly infection had spread in the herd, the agency said.

Where were the cases found?

On Nov. 29, 2024, the CFIA confirmed bovine tuberculosis in samples from a six-year-old cow after the animal had been sent for slaughter in Alberta. The animal had been raised in Saskatchewan, the agency said. The birth herd was put in quarantine as tests were done and contact tracing began for other possibly exposed herds.

It was Saskatchewan’s second brush with bovine TB in recent years. In February 2023, Canadian officials got word from the United States Department of Agriculture that tests from an animal shipped from Saskatchewan the previous fall had come back positive. In June 2023, the CFIA confirmed two further cases in the Saskatchewan herd where the flagged animal had originated.

More herds to be tested

All of the three recently identified cases were born outside of their current herd, the agency said. The investigation and “applicable movement controls” has expanded to include the originating herds of those animals.

Any herds that have been in contact with the infected herd are up for testing, the CFIA said. Contact tracing will also cover any animals that left the herd in the last five years, as well as any herds that provided animals to the farm in the last five years. Testing will be done as needed.

The strain of bovine TB has also garnered attention. Lab testing of the case found in November 2024 “found a strain that has never been identified in animals or humans in Canada, and the origin of the strain is unknown. It is not closely related to any of the recent strains in Western Canada,” the Feb. 25 notice read.

The post Bovine tuberculosis cases found in Saskatchewan appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

On Sept. 17, Bayer announced that its Buteo start seed treatment has been registered for mustard in Western Canada.

“The damage caused by flea beetles at the start of the season impacts crop development long-term and can lead to significant yield loss,” Bryan Bryson, Bayer marketing portfolio lead for traits and licensing, said in a release.

The Group 4D, flupyradifurone-based product reached the Canadian market in 2020. Its label now covers early season control of flea beetles in canola, as well as soybean aphid and bean leaf beetle in soybeans, although promotional materials from the company heavily market the insecticide for its canola applications.

The company pitches the product for control of striped and crucifer flea beetles. Fact sheets published by the company cite canola trials done in 2019 in flea beetle-infested areas. Those trials found that a combination of Buteo start and the seed treatment ProsperEverGol (which is also registered for mustard), showed significantly less leaf damage from three to 17 days post-emergence, quicker crop progression and a thicker stand.

The insecticide “delivers rapid uptake and systemic translocation from cotyledon to leaf margins, enabling a quicker-growing canopy and uniform flowering, even in dry conditions where flea beetles thrive,” the Sept. 17 release said.

Mustard growers face many of the same agronomic challenges as canola growers do, the company noted, and that includes flea beetles.

The insects have been a perennial problem for canola growers. Several years of difficult spring conditions led to stalled stands while plants were vulnerable. Significant and sometimes repeated applications of foliar spray were needed once seed treatments wore off.

According to the Canola Council of Canada, heavy flea beetle infestation can cause a 10 per cent yield reduction even when insecticides are applied.

“A yield reduction of one per cent per acre results in a total crop loss of about 25 million to 35 million dollars,” the council’s website states. “Annual crop losses in North America from flea beetles potentially exceed 300 million dollars.”

According to the manual put out by the Saskatchewan Mustard Development Commission, “damage is most severe when the beetles attack the growing point of the plant. In cool moist conditions, scouting should include observing the underside of cotyledons for pitting and the stem for notching or girdling. Feeding on pods can result in premature shattering and grade loss.”

The post Western mustard growers get new flea beetle seed treatment option appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The sector was already braced by the time China announced its anti-dumping probe into Canadian canola. Our government had set a 100 per cent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles and a further 25 per cent tariff on Chinese steel and aluminum in late August, both effective in October. Many figured retaliation was imminent.

As John Greig, Glacier FarmMedia’s senior editor for Ontario, livestock and technology posted on X, China’s sudden scrutiny of Canadian products wasn’t surprising. “The only question was whether it would be canola or pork.”

China has massive market power. It has a consumer base of more than 1.4 billion people, the second most populous country in the world, and a 2022 gross domestic product of almost US$18 trillion, according to the World Bank.

Over and over again, China has proven its willingness to use that economic weight through strong-arm tactics in diplomacy and trade.

Ripples from the last Canada-China canola debacle, in which China cut canola seed shipments from Richardson and Viterra in 2019, have barely had time to dissipate. Restrictions only lifted in May 2022. Analysis from the Canola Council of Canada put lost sales from March 2019 to August 2020 between $1.54 billion and $2.35 billion.

China said the move was due to phytosanitary concerns. Most people on this side of the ocean maintain it was retaliation against the detention of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou on a U.S. warrant.

Another analog includes China’s three years of anti-dumping tariffs against Australian barley. In that case, China took exception to a call from Canberra for an international investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. China announced trade barriers on a long list of Australian products, including a whopping 80.5 per cent anti-dumping tariff on barley.

Not until a new Australian government made overtures to China did that the relationship start to thaw. The dispute was dropped last year.

Today, the barley is flowing, but if you were an Australian barley grower in 2020, you woke up one day to find that your greatest market had evaporated overnight.

A February 2021 article, industry group Grain Trade Australia noted that about 70 per cent of Australian barley at the time was exported, and about 58 per cent went to China.

“There is no ‘silver bullet’ solution to replace the lost barley demand from China,” wrote author Pat O’Shannassy. “The China barley market was based on the development of strong customer relationships, specific varieties marketed for certain products and the premium prices paid by customers.”

But as media outlets reported after tariffs were lifted, Australian did diversify its market. Farm groups noted the rise of customers in Mexico and Saudi Arabia to help staunch the bleeding.

China’s latest move against Canadian canola stings. It’ll sting more if the investigation results in real trade barriers. But some of the current pain is likely more a commentary on the fickleness of markets than real issues with canola demand. Canadian canola has other markets —analysts are pointing to places like Japan, Mexico and Europe — and other robust opportunities are likely to develop.

In February, Co-operator reporter Don Norman noted the excitement the canola sector had around biofuels. An executive from the Canadian Oilseed Processors Association at the time expected “unprecedented” growth in canola demand from that avenue. He expected domestic crush could jump from 11.3 million tonnes to 18 million in the next few years.

In a recent interview with the Western Producer’s Sean Pratt, Chuck Penner, analyst with LeftField Commodity Research, said Canadian canola is far less of an export game than it used to be, and the market might have more solid footing than the sudden drop in canola prices implies.

That’s cold comfort to farmers watching prices plummet as they harvest their new crop, and it doesn’t excuse a federal government that is propping up the vehicle industry at the expense of Canadian farmers. But necessity is the mother of invention, and if this latest blow lights a fire under efforts to develop emerging markets, all the better.

We were headed there anyway, and the result may be a more resilient canola industry.

The post China gets huffy; time for canola to build markets elsewhere appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

On Aug. 30, the government announced a formal request for proposals from interested providers.

“The successful bidder(s) would provide concentrated FMD (foot and mouth disease) vaccines that could be rapidly transformed into usable vaccines,” the agency said in a release.

Livestock producers were promised a vaccine bank in the 2023 federal budget. It had been a long-time ask from industry, which was wary of Canada’s reliance on U.S. vaccine sources in the case of a outbreak occur on the continent.

The budget laid out $57.5 million over five years for the establishment of the resource and to develop foot and mouth disease response plans. The government has also said they would provide an ongoing $5.6 million for the project.

“It’s vitally important that we continue to take steps to protect livestock, and the livelihood of our hardworking farmers, against the threat of animal disease,” Agriculture minister Lawrence MacAulay said in the August release.

“By creating a dedicated foot and mouth disease vaccine bank, we’re working to reduce the spread of the disease and the impact that a potential outbreak would have on market access for Canadian producers.”

The Canadian Cattle Association welcomed the Aug. 30 announcement.

“We hope to never need to use it, but having a vaccine bank in place is critical to protect Canada’s beef producers,” president Nathan Finney said. “If FMD occurred in Canada, having a vaccine would minimize spread and expedite a return to normal trade. Today’s news is positive on the progress on preparedness and is the first step of many to follow.”

The post Federal government opens bids for foot and mouth vaccine bank providers appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Mid-August, in particular, saw louder cries for either a deal between Canada’s two major railways and the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, or a referral for binding arbitration to force a deal and keep the Canadian economy on the literal tracks.

The latter option got loud support from too many provincial and federal farm groups to name.

Ultimately, those crying for 11th-hour federal intervention didn’t get it. Instead, the government swooped in at three in the metaphorical morning — just in the nick of too late — and too late to avoid some damage.

The stoppage had already begun by the time Labour and Seniors Minister Steven MacKinnon announced he was punting the matter to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The railways had already been winding down shipment of certain hazardous materials, fertilizer being one of them, in anticipation of the halt.

It is worth noting that focusing only on the word “strike” ignores the dual sides of the dispute. Employees at one company hit the picket lines (a notice against the other came later, and was dropped before it started when the CIRB ordered everyone back to work). The other half of the situation is the lockout. Both railways locked out employees.

It’s an important distinction. While it’s never good for agriculture when rail cars don’t move, the scope of this potential work stoppage and its unfortunate timing made it a crisis. For the first time, the two major railways, the effective duopoly of rail ownership in Canada, were going to be stalled at the same time, right at harvest.

Keeping the companies’ actions in the narrative helps underline the way lack of competition in Canada’s rail ownership played into the whole fiasco. It boils down to the fact that a labour dispute impacting only two companies was able to threaten total shutdown of one of Canada’s key economic arteries.

If your dispute is big enough that you can hold the Canadian economy hostage, all parties then get to deal with the government getting in your face to make sure you don’t, in fact, hold the economy hostage.

The same lack of competition means that these labour talks, which have such economically devastating implications when they fail, involve much higher stakes. Little competition among companies means little competition among employers. If employees are getting a deal they don’t like, they have little ability to vote with their feet while still staying in the industry they’ve built careers in.

Lack of competition in agriculture is not a new issue. Addressing the problem, however, is a much deeper challenge.

In mid-August, Canada got a new political party. The Canadian Future Party, which is marketing itself as a centrist option for those disillusioned with Liberals and Conservatives, included increased agricultural competition in its platform.

That’s a tall order. It would mean confronting the fact that Canada’s competition law needs more muscle and much sharper teeth. It would require political willingness to tick off big businesses.

Large corporations always give reasons why moves to bolster competition are a bad idea. Look at the railway response to a piloted interswitching radius jump last year. Grain shippers said it increased competitive tension; railways argued that, among other things, it would put them at a competitive disadvantage with U.S. companies and be expensive.

“That means fewer available carloads for Canadian railroaders to move across Canada. It may also mean less available work for port workers if shipments end up in Seattle rather than Vancouver,” Railway Association of Canada president Marc Brazeau told a Senate committee in May 2023.

Canadian agriculture, and Canada in general, need to foster more competition. But if you’re already a long way down a bad road, the way back is going to be equally long and bumpy.

The post Lack of competition exacerbated rail labour dispute appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.