In the last calendar year, Canada exported 3.5 million tonnes of canola oil. Of that, 15,352 tonnes — 0.4 per cent — went to China. As of this crop year to the end of January, total oil exports were 1.8 million tonnes, of which only 50,965 tonnes — 2.8 per cent — went to China. In other words, there is no reason for Chinese tariffs on oil to affect the price of canola seed.

Meal is more significant — China took just over two million tonnes in the last calendar year. But at the end of January, after six months of this crop year, China had already imported 1.1 million tonnes. Official figures aren’t available yet, but had it maintained the same average monthly import pace to March 20, the date tariffs were (supposedly) imposed, total purchases would be almost 1.5 million tonnes with four months left in the crop year.

China may not need to import meal anyway. It’s apparently making plenty of its own.

Could it be that, as of early March, China had its needs covered, so announced tariffs on oil and meal that it had no intention of buying? If so, it did a nice job of driving down prices for its purchases of raw seed. Maybe it even made a profit on a short futures position.

Remember that Chinese purchases are influenced, if not completely controlled, by state-owned companies such as Sinograin. Is the Chinese government really going to collect import tariffs on itself, or is this a meaningless threat?

Bullish fundamentals, bearish news

It still did the trick. The bearish tone from the news was possibly amplified by the flurry of farm organization statements declaring the move as a disaster for farmers. No one took the time to analyze the situation and point out that underlying supply and demand tone of the market is, if anything, bullish.

Meanwhile, farmers hearing nothing but bearish news continue to sell their canola for less than it’s worth.

This is the second time this stunt has worked. In 2019, the industry — and the media — went ballistic over a Chinese “embargo” on canola. There was none. It was only suspension of import licences on two companies. Are we to believe that canola these companies handled didn’t find its way to export under another name?

More fundamentally, are we to believe that the Chinese government has decided that food supplies to its citizens and livestock should be reduced as a punishment to Canada for buying fewer electric cars?

Chinese buyers (maybe it’s just one) are speaking with one voice. But farmers are represented by various organizations making statements designed to put the situation in the worst possible light in order to get government support. Rather than firing off press releases carrying needlessly bearish news, maybe they should have gotten together for a more strategic response and called the Chinese bluff.

The post Are China’s tariffs on Canadian canola oil and meal a ruse? appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

That started in the 1970s after wheat prices skyrocketed to the $6 per bushel range after the “Great Grain Robbery,” when wily Soviet grain buyers cleaned the Americans out of wheat. Keep in mind that $6 in 1974 meant that prices had almost tripled and would equal $23.80 today, so consumers would have been entitled to ask questions.

If you were around then, you’ll remember that food prices had risen to the point where the government appointed a Food Prices Review Board.

But farmers rose to their own defence. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture developed a “Farmers’ Share” table on how many loaves could be made from a bushel of wheat. At that time it was about 10 cents for a 16-ounce loaf. The table also had stats such as the cost of durum in pasta and the milk in cheese.

Farmers were so successful in making their case that the federal government introduced a two-price wheat policy that guaranteed a minimum price for wheat sold in Canada, regardless of the export price.

The domestic price reached as high as $7 per bushel but the policy died with the Mulroney government and the free trade agreement with the U.S., perhaps helped by opposition from the Palliser Wheat Growers Association, later the Western Canadian Wheat Growers and now the Wheat Growers Association. It argued that the higher price of $7 per bushel would encourage Ontario wheat growers to grow more spring wheat and steal the market from Prairie growers.

Some would call this cutting off your nose to spite your face, which could also be said of its current campaign against what it says is the federal government’s plan for a “mandatory” 30 per cent reduction in nitrogen fertilizer use.

There is no such plan. There is only a goal of reducing nitrogen emissions by 30 per cent, one which many in the industry say is achievable by practices such as 4R fertility. The federal government is even paying farmers to use them.

There’s no mention of that on the Wheat Growers website, much of which is devoted to an appeal to consumers to support the alleged cut in nitrogen.

“We Are Facing a Food Crisis,” says a headline. “Your staple foods are under threat. That’s no exaggeration. If bread, pasta, cereals and even the occasional beer are on your tables, there’s federal public policy that could make those even more expensive for your family.”

Let’s think that through. Even if Canadian nitrogen use were cut 30 per cent — again, that’s not what’s suggested — would world wheat prices (which determine ours) rise so much that it would make any difference to bread prices?

Statistics Canada reports the average cost of a 1.5-pound loaf as $3.58, which at 46 loaves per bushel means 19.5 cents of wheat per loaf at the current price of about $9. We didn’t hear any Wheat Grower concerns about high bread prices last year when wheat prices pushed $15 per bushel.

The suggestion that beer prices will climb because of lower nitrogen use on barley is just embarrassing, given that you can get almost 500 bottles from a bushel.

Even more embarrassing is that the Wheat Growers website asks for donations from the public to “do our job,” which it says is “We fight for the food supply, for low prices and for exceptional quality food… Help us. Please consider a one time donation of whatever you can afford. Or sign up for a monthly contribution.”

This marks a first in Canadian agriculture history — an organization asking for consumers’ dollars to fight for low grain prices. But do the Wheat Growers need the money? Potential donors might hesitate if they click on the website’s “Our sponsors” page, which lists the logos of 33 seed, fertilizer, chemical, grain and machinery companies.

The Wheat Growers also want consumers to sign a petition to “halt the proposed 30% fertilizer reduction and that carbon taxes on agricultural inputs be lifted.“ This implies the tax applies to all “inputs,” which it doesn’t. And while it may apply to fuel for grain drying (which may change), farmers don’t pay carbon tax on gasoline and diesel. Other farmers and their organizations should tell the Wheat Growers that it might not be good public relations to ask for donations from those who do. That could backfire.

They could also mention that it might not be a good idea to claim that the price of barley has anything to do with the price of beer.

The post Opinion: Fighting for low grain prices appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Except in the Peace, most of Alberta started out pretty dry
But the crop got a break from those rains in June and July
By the end of September harvest was just about done
Wheat averaged 55.6 bushels with good grades, and canola 38.1
The latter surprised me; from those early reports I was readin’
I expected flea beetles would have had the entire crop eaten
Though I hear some folks down south have a bit of a shortage
Most regions went into the winter with a good supply of forage

I have a vested interest in farm newspapers, so maybe I’m just bitter
But I think some farmers are getting too much news from Twitter
Some tweets claim the government’s plans for the crop-growing sector
Are to restrict application of ammonia to three grams per hectare
But there doesn’t seem to be any reason for the furore
In fact the feds are even offering money to practice fertility 4R
Just about every agronomist says that’s what farmers should be doin’
So maybe it’s time to calm down and do a little less stewin’

Though some say it’s a bit hard to define it precisely
A trend called “regenerative agriculture” seems to be catching on nicely
It’s based on the theory that whether conditions are drier or wetter
If you’ve stored more soil carbon, things will always work out better
But it seems that over the long term if you want carbon storage
Sooner or later your rotation will have to include forage
That’s not just good for the soil, it helps stem the persistence
Of the weeds that are showing multiple-herbicide resistance
But if more forage means less annual crop with herbicide to weed, it
Also means we’ll need more cows, steers and heifers to eat it
Based on last year’s ag census, and what I hear in the coffee shop
The number of those who want to chase cattle continues to drop
Now age 55 seems younger each year, at least as I see it
But the ag census reported that 60 per cent of farmers exceed it
Who’s going to take over from them? Many farm kids must be guessin’
The census said only 12 per cent of farms have a plan for succession

For a while the decision to buy land made you look like a hero
But that was while interest rates were almost at zero
They may be trying to hide it, but I think on sellers’ faces I sees
A bit of a smile now they’ve invested their returns in five per cent GICs
And whether you’re a buyer or seller, you’re getting an education
In the problems of having to deal with inflation
Whether it was lettuce at the grocery store or a new tractor tire
The prices last year were going nowhere but higher
And even if you decide to make a deposit and sign with a hand quivery
Because of supply chain disruption it will take two years for delivery

So much for the past — knowing the future for prices is critical
So I took an online course on how to sound grain market analytical
“Sell into a rising market,” it suggested, though I’m still trying to seek
Whether that means selling after it’s risen for a day or a week
“Don’t be afraid to take a profit,” was another, but what they don’t say
Is how to stop kicking yourself when the market’s up again the next day
“Watch what the futures market is telling you” is another suggestion
Except don’t futures just indicate a 50-50 chance of changing direction?
Then there’s “Sell in increments,” which might be sensible advice
But it’s just a fancy way of saying “Just shoot for an average price”
So I guess I can’t say for sure what the future for prices has in store
Except it would be nice to have them stay high without having a war

But after examining the turkey’s innards, and the moss on the tree
The future of weather I’m more able to see
There will be no more big blizzards this winter, but enough snow for skiing
It will be gone by mid-April, having left enough moisture for seeding
After that, I’m sure what the gizzard is saying
Is regular rainfall, but with short breaks for spraying and haying
Around the beginning of August the moisture will stop
Giving you a few weeks to harvest your biggest-ever crop

That’s it till next year, so from all of us here
We wish you good crops and good prices, and a Happy New Year!

The post From the best to the worst, it’s the year told in verse appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Now I’ve heard all the stories while sitting on Grandpa’s knee
About drought in the ’30s and dogs being chased by the trees
“Yes Grandpa, I know it was ‘sooo… dry,’ — I’m not saying you’re a liar
“But I’m afraid the ’80s were worse, and now the ’20s look drier”
Children ask today’s grandpas, “What seems to be stopping
“You from using those areas by the road? They look good for cropping”
Says Grandpa, “Why, those are called ditches; they’re connected to drains
“They’re for taking away all the water soon after it rains”
“But Grandpa,” says the child, “That doesn’t seem comprehendible
“Wouldn’t holding some water back be a little more sensible?”

Now most creatures need water to keep on surviving
But there’s two that with less moisture are even more thriving
I’ve heard all Grandpa’s stories about grasshoppers perfidious
But these days there’s a dry-weather critter that’s just as insidious
Those flea beetles are the devil (another name is Lucifer)
And now there’s two types you know — spotted and crucifer
I hear that spraying them with chemical was often defective
So I think a method that would be much more effective
Would be to suck, not spray, those cursed little dickens
Vacuum them up and turn them into good feed for chickens

Despite a moisture total that was anything but seasonable
Many farmers had grain yields that were actually quite reasonable
So thanks to those who’ve designed better cultivators and seeders
And to better varieties that have come from plant breeders
But I’m afraid you can’t say the same for hay crops and forage
In a drought like last summer’s they don’t grow much foliage
Instead of staying on pasture where they could put on some pounds
A lot of good cattle had to be shipped off to town
Many farmers were miffed that their prices were quite stationary
Meanwhile the beef price at retail became somewhat inflationary
I just paid 25 bucks for a rib steak, but I’m not being hasty
To complain, because it was grass fed, and really quite tasty

Speaking of inflation, if you don’t want to be teary
Ya had better not check prices for ammonia and urea
Is it more economical to broadcast, or to band with a drill?
Neither — this year you’ll need tweezers to place every prill

A few years back it was common to hear at farm meetings
Skeptics who questioned whether there’s in fact global heating
On the safety of chemicals farmers were told to place their reliance
On advice from most of the experts who agree on the science
But while on climate change theory, most scientists were for it
Farmers were told they were wrong, and advised to ignore it
Since Health Canada approves ag chemicals based on science and facts
If you use them then don’t say it’s wrong about getting vaxxed

Ag Minister Dreeshen resigned, so the premier some thought had to give it
On how to replace him, which way would he pivot?
When I first heard who he picked, I had a déjà vu feeling peculiar
Ag Minister Horner? Now, that name sounds familyiar
But it seems it’s not Jack, Hugh or Doug, this latest one’s called Nate
I guess if you’re stuck with that last name, ag minister’s your fate

The editor says last year’s doggerel was too long, so he had to cut plenty
Including my prediction of wheat going to 10 bucks, and canola over 20
Can these prices continue? Well, the way that I figger
It would be OK to have them a bit lower, but the crop a lot bigger

Which crops to grow? Well, I think that we’re likely to sees
More acres of those that make their own N, like soybeans and peas
How about barley? To plant a few acres, I wouldn’t be halting
Especially if you choose the kind that goes malting

As for weather, I think for Feb. and March we’ll be having
Temperatures around normal, and not too bad for calving
What about snowfall, will this winter’s be thick?
Maybe, but even so, it will soak in real quick
So after an early start to seeding, I’m sure what I sees is
Weekly rain in June and July, but not so much as to cause diseases
Scattered showers in August and September are what I’m seein’
But not on cereals and oilseeds — only on fields of hay and soybean

That’s all the space for predictions, so from all of us here
Best wishes for good crops and good prices, and Happy New Year!

The post A look back at the year that was — from bad to verse appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

For many years, that question often came up when a group of farm writers got together over a drink. Though it has many readers across the Prairies, the Western Producer had its roots in Saskatchewan and had proven successful. The Manitoba Co-operator, with a strong local focus, was also stable and profitable, despite the smaller farm population in that province.

So for Alberta, a province with more farmers and some distinct types of farming (and distinct farmer thinking), most of us agreed (over a drink) that its own farm paper would be a great idea.

But there are times when you’re challenged to put your cocktail party ideas into practice.

At Farm Business Communications (now Glacier FarmMedia), that challenge came in early 2007 when I joined as part of a new management group, and we did a review of all the publications.

The groundwork had already been laid in the late 1990s with a monthly publication called Alberta Crops and Beef, which was later renamed The Alberta Express. But it so far had limited editorial and sales resources, which limited its attraction to advertisers and therefore the bottom line.

We decided we had two choices — kill the publication, or put more resources into it and make it better.

We gambled and took the latter choice. We hired more editorial staff, increased the freelance budget, changed the frequency to every two weeks and changed the name to Alberta Farmer Express so that it was clear about the audience we were serving.

The increased frequency allowed us to use timely national and international stories from other staff at other publications and news services, meaning the Alberta staff could concentrate on the local and provincial stories that give the paper its unique flavour.

Eleven years later, Alberta Farmer is still arriving in 44,500 mailboxes every second week, so it seems the gamble paid off. I’m semi-retired and no longer involved in the day-to-day operations, but I still contribute occasionally and go through the paper to keep track of what’s going on.

It’s interesting to go back through earlier issues to see what’s changed and what hasn’t. The front page of the first edition on Oct. 15, 2007 had a story on BSE and the prospect of the U.S. border opening to over-30-month cattle. It’s nice to see that issue behind us. The wheat board was still a hot issue and while some disagree on how it turned out, it’s nice that the divisive battle over it is also behind us.

Some things will never change — the other front-page story on that issue was on how Alberta yields had been reduced by a dry summer that year. Sounds familiar, and no doubt there will be more stories like that in future years (hopefully not too many). But in a story in the next issue, some farmers may have learned for the first time about a disease called clubroot. Let’s hope we can look forward to a time when we don’t have to do any more stories on that problem.

Looking through recent issues it’s nice to see another thing that hasn’t changed, which is that the regular columnists who joined early in the paper’s life are still contributing — Carol Shwetz, Brenda Schoepp, Roy Lewis and Daniel Bezte.

Covering agriculture in Alberta is a challenge — it’s a big province with a lot of farms producing a wide variety of crops and livestock, and no two farms are the same. But farmers love to learn about what other farmers are doing and thinking, and helping them do that is one of the main jobs of a farm publication. Congratulations to Alexis Kienlen, Jennifer Blair, Glenn Cheater, and all the columnists, contributors and production staff for doing that job so well.

And let’s not forget the advertisers — another big job for farm publications is to let farmers know about the products and services they need to run their operations. Thanks to the advertisers for their support in helping this paper arrive in your mailbox every two weeks.

John Morriss is the former editorial director of Glacier FarmMedia.

The post Giving Alberta its own farm paper wasn’t a slam dunk — but it worked appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

If the board got less, it must have screwed up, said the critics.

In fact, the DNS price tends to be at a premium for several reasons, not least of which was that it was a price for Japan, which pays a premium for high-quality spring wheat. It also used to pay a premium for Canadian CWRS over DNS.

Apparently not anymore. Again, not all spring wheat trades at the PNW price. But why is Canadian CWRS being offered at almost $70 under DNS? On Oct. 24, CWRS 13.5 per cent f.o.b. Vancouver was quoted at $331.26. On the same day DNS 13.5 per cent f.o.b. Portland was quoted at $399.73.

Though the price spread is not as dramatic, the numbers from a recent Iraq grain board tender for 50,000 tonnes of hard wheat are even more disturbing. Here are the “ciffo” (landed in Iraq) offers: (the Canadian one was for 100,000 tonnes; apparently the seller was eager).

• Canada: $323.40;
• Australia: $331.22;
• Russia: $336.50;
• U.S.: $352.70.

That’s right, Canadian wheat is being offered at $13 under Russian wheat, and almost $30 under the U.S. We already knew the system was in a mess, but these numbers emphasize that it’s not just a mess — it’s a great big mess.What’s to be done?

Let’s start by emphasizing to supporters of the old wheat board that it’s never coming back, so let’s forget about fighting that battle.

By the same token, opponents of the old board need to acknowledge the problems arising from ending its monopoly. That may or may not have been a good idea, but it’s now apparent that doing it so abruptly has had major implications for co-ordination of the system. Having the biggest player in place for 77 years and then eliminating it overnight was akin to putting a stick of dynamite under the system and hoping that all the parts would fall back in the right place. They didn’t.

The theory behind ending the monopoly was that it would create competition for the farmers’ grain — that is, the companies would sharpen their pencils and lower their handling costs, therefore leading to a higher price on the driveway.

There are a couple of things wrong with that theory. One is that it’s clear that competition is working all right — the companies are now so eager to compete with each other that they’re even undercutting Russian wheat.

But even if they weren’t, there’s another problem. The companies only need to sharpen their pencils and compete on the driveway if there is unrestricted access to the marketplace, which means the railways supplying every car requested and delivering it on time. It seems the only time we have that happy situation is when there is the unhappy one of a small crop.

Otherwise, competition works — the farmers compete with each other to deliver, which means the companies can lower their price.

Currently, that means a nice margin for the grain companies (although it would be even nicer if they sold at Russian prices) because the railways can only charge as much as the legislated revenue cap allows. The solution, say some, is to get rid of the revenue cap — if farmers paid more to the railways, they’d supply more cars. That would be like the U.S. system, where grain companies currently have to bid premiums of up to $6,000 a car.

So even if you really believe that the railways would supply more cars, what we’re really talking about is keeping the basis the same, but giving more to the railways and less to the grain company.

There are disturbing rumblings that the federal government thinks that’s part of the U.S. system that we should copy. Unfortunately, it hasn’t seen fit to put in place any of the other framework that makes the open-market system work. Unlike in the U.S., there is no mandatory reporting of export sales. There is no routine collection and reporting of export quotes, local cash market prices, prices received at country elevators or vessels arriving in port.

An open-market system only works properly if all the players have equal access to information. So far, the grain companies and railways hold all the cards, though if we look at export sales prices, it doesn’t look like the companies are playing them particularly well.

What’s needed now is not an argument on the merits or otherwise of the old wheat board, but concerted pressure on the federal government to establish a regulatory framework for the open market to work properly.

Right now, it sure doesn’t.

The post New wheat-marketing system isn’t just a mess — it’s a great big mess appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

All that bad publicity doesn’t seem to affect consumers. They continue to pay record prices for beef, and life for producers is pretty good these days. If it ain’t broke…

On the other hand, one recent study suggested that consumers worried about climate change should eat pork and chicken instead. That suggests that beef producers have some work to do.

Let’s be clear about this. Obesity is a serious problem, and North Americans eat too much of everything, meat included. And as a recent paper (written in part by Canadian beef industry representatives) suggests, processed red meat isn’t good for you. It isn’t the meat, it’s the other stuff they put into it.

• From the Manitoba Co-operator: Food manufacturers hooked on salt, fat, sugar

However, the science now suggests that unprocessed beef is not the artery-clogging menace once thought, and its forms of natural trans fats may in fact be good for you.

Beef producers will be happy to embrace that science, as they should the science of climate change. It’s for real, and everyone should do their part to reduce it.

On the other hand, climate change is not the only threat to the environment. Soil erosion is at least as great a threat, along with its accompanying nutrient run-off. It’s a partial contributor to the serious algae problem in Lake Winnipeg and an even larger contributor to the even more serious “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. Steps must be taken to solve these problems. Cultivating more land to grow corn and other annual crops is not one of them. In fact, some erodible land that should never have been cultivated should be returned to… forage, of course. Meanwhile, much of the land remaining in crops is facing a growing problem with herbicide resistance. One of the solutions to that, as well as the other problems of soil erosion and nutrient run-off, is to introduce a forage into the rotation.

What’s going to happen to all this extra forage? The answer is obvious to a cattle producer.

Or is it? If you check out cattle industry organization websites and their material directed to the consumer, you’ll find they are saying all the right things about how cattle turn grass, that people can’t consume, into beef that they can. While that may be true for the first few hundred pounds of gain, it isn’t about the last few hundred in a feedlot. Most of those pounds come from that agronomically questionable continuous corn or corn/soy rotation. That is even partly the case in Canada, where feedlots use plenty of corn or corn byproducts from U.S. ethanol plants when the price is right.

The beef industry is a little quieter when it comes to talking about that source of the last few hundred pounds of gain, but its critics aren’t. Again, times are pretty good these days, so maybe the best plan is to say nothing. But if the industry wants to defend itself if chicken and pork are said to be a better environmental alternative, then it has some thinking to do.

• More from the Alberta Farmer Express: Stay calm, stick to the facts, and tell your story

That includes recognizing that grass fed versus grain fed is not just an issue for consumers, but something of an “elephant in the room” one within the industry. A&W’s promotion of antibiotic- and hormone-free beef is an example. It ruffled some feathers in the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and the feedlot industry, but let’s be honest — there were quite a few grass and grazing advocates quietly cheering. Unwillingness to address the grass-versus-grain question is one of the reasons for the fractured state of the Canadian cattle industry, which was highlighted by the recent report of the “straw men” review.

This may be about more than promotion and public relations. Again, there is a growing number of reasons to start putting forage into North American crop rotations — herbicide resistance, soil health, control of nutrient run-off, disease management and the ability to capture free nitrogen instead of making it from fossil fuel. What if it actually happens? Is the cattle industry ready to use the extra production? Or does it want to get out in front of the issue and actively promote beef cattle as a better environmental option than continuous cropping?

Once the Canadian industry addresses these questions, it may see an opportunity instead of a menace in the ongoing dispute with the U.S. over how meat from animals born in Canada is labelled.

Perhaps a Canadian brand, differentiated by environmentally sustainable production practices producing meat that offers enhanced nutrition, isn’t such a bad thing.

The post Doing a better job of turning grass into grain — and saying so appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

It was encouraging to hear discussion of the real issue in maintaining and increasing world food production. In the end, it isn’t varieties or pesticides or even fertility, at least the simple NPK type. Doing those things right helps, but if the plant doesn’t have healthy soil to deliver water and nutrients, they’re just wasted.

While every conference participant would agree with that, there were some unnecessary diversions from the common theme. Some proponents of what we’ll call “conventional” conservation agriculture were a bit too trigger happy in criticizing organic farming. While there is no question that technology such as pesticides and GM crops is often the subject of over-the-top statements, they mainly come from consumers or unscrupulous marketers, not from organic farmers themselves.

• From the Manitoba Co-operator: Conservation agriculture gaining ground

In fact, the growing success of the conservation agriculture concept worldwide is partly based on collaboration between conventional and organic farmers. One of the main themes of the conservation conference was the use of cover crops, now being widely adopted in the U.S. Organic farmers get much of the credit for developing the idea.

Keynote speaker Howard Buffett helped put things into perspective. While a member of one of the world’s wealthiest families, Buffett brings a lot of “street cred” to the discussion of farming and the environment — he works the land on his Illinois farm and operates research farms in the U.S. and Africa.

While Buffett said he wouldn’t try it himself, “I’m all for organic farming,” he said, emphasizing the need for diversity. “We can’t look at things that are different and think they threaten us … we have to have a dialogue.”

• More from the Manitoba Co-operator: Biotech has role in conservation

He also criticized U.S. agriculture’s adoption of new practices, saying that if U.S. smartphone technology was as advanced as farming technology, the phones would be the size of a truck. As for the Gulf of Mexico’s “dead zone” caused by excess agricultural nutrient run-off, “If you did this in any other business you wouldn’t get away with it,” Buffett said.

What farmers are getting away with was a recurring theme. One speaker said agriculture is the main source of water pollution in the UK, and another said that in France, conservation agriculture practices have been adopted on only one per cent of the acreage even though authorities often issue warnings not to use well water because of nitrate contamination.

Another recurring theme was the importance of crop rotation as a component of conservation agriculture. Prairie canola growers pushing their rotations are familiar with the dilemma, but they are paragons of virtue compared to farmers on one- or two-crop rotations elsewhere. This raises some interesting questions. If farmers are in subsidy programs, should there be requirements to do rotations better? If that happened, what would be the market implications for Canadian farmers if more Americans add canola or pulses into their rotations? Should rotations include forages, and how would that affect the livestock industry?

Perhaps the most encouraging theme from the conference is that conservation agriculture is now seen as applying to farms of all sizes in all countries.

Implementing conservation agriculture techniques can’t depend on having large machinery on large acreages created by driving smallholder farmers off the farm and into the city. On the other hand something needs to be done to stop the excess oxen-driven tillage that causes the annual loss of billions of tonnes of topsoil in Africa. Accordingly, there are now projects to develop one- or two-row zero-till planters that can be pulled with oxen or inexpensive two-wheel tractors that look like a large rototiller.

We’ve been hearing a lot about the need to double food production to feed nine billion by 2050, but most of the discussion has been about doing things above the soil surface. It’s refreshing to see some focus on the more important tasks below.

The post Looking below the surface for sustainable agriculture appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

But more of the releases relate to the Harper government’s steady dribbing and drabbing of funding announcements, which are intended not only to gain publicity but maintain the divide-and-conquer strategy for farm organizations.

We don’t want to embarrass any particular organization by using an example because they all play the game. You can visit the AAFC news release page yourself to see the pattern, which goes something like this:

“Canada’s ruby red rutabaga industry is poised to make new inroads into the export market thanks to an investment of $100,000 announced today by Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Gerry Ritz at the annual meeting of the Ruby Red Rutabaga Association…”

The release will continue with a few manufactured quotes from Mr. Ritz, some (probably also manufactured) statistics about the importance of ruby red rutabagas to the Canadian economy, the name of the program under which the “investment” (it’s never a grant) was made, and of course a reference to that program being part of Growing Forward 2.

The release will also contain manufactured (with the help of the minister’s staff) complimentary quotes from the president of the association, which can be as blatant as, “This is another example of the results Minister Ritz has obtained for the Canadian ruby red rutabaga industry.”

As of early December there had been eight such releases since the beginning of November, with announcements totalling more than $4 million. This of course was money that was already budgeted, and which may have been announced before.

On one hand you can’t fault the red rutabaga president for taking part in this charade, because what choice does he or she have? AAFC has probably slashed if not eliminated red rutabaga research and the association has had to get a checkoff to do some itself. If it wants to get AAFC to kick in some matching money (though less than it spent before), it has to play ball, including saying nice things in the government press release.

When money isn’t involved, this process is a bit more unseemly. For example, when the Canada-EU trade agreement was announced, there was a volley of releases from farm organizations praising the deal to the rooftops. The facts that the details hadn’t been finalized and that negotiations would take another two years somehow weren’t mentioned.

Speaking of unseemly, the relationship between the minister’s office and the Grain Growers of Canada is getting a little too obviously close, though in this case we’re not sure who’s controlling whom. Late on Friday, Dec. 6 the minister’s office announced he would hold a press conference on Monday in Winnipeg, which was obviously to announce Canada signing the UPOV ’91 international seed treaty. On Sunday morning, the Grain Growers issued a release with a letter to the minister calling for him to sign UPOV ’91. What a coincidence.

The message is clear. Farm organizations know that if they don’t support the government with rapid-fire compliments, they’re not going to be allowed in the game.

This process of the government pulling the farm organization’s PR strings has been ongoing for some time, but last week things were ratcheted up to a new level.

As we noted last issue, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz doesn’t accept grain company claims that the railways aren’t performing. Mr. Ritz is entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to enlist a supposedly independent Crown agency to express it for him. Every week for decades, the Canadian Grain Commission has issued a publication with statistics on grain movement. Never in our memory has the CGC issued a press release commenting on its contents — until earlier this month.

“This year, producers in Western Canada saw record yields. So while our data shows that grain is moving to export at a faster pace, this year, it feels like it’s taking a lot longer to empty the bins,” CGC chief commissioner Elwin Hermanson said in the release.

It’s embarrassingly obvious that either Mr. Ritz or someone in his office phoned Mr. Hermanson and strongly suggested if not ordered the commission to issue this release. This is highly inappropriate. The CGC is supposed to operate independently in the interests of producers and the industry, not defend politicians.

The post Keeping the farm organizations in line appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

This follows the speech from the throne, in which we were told the government would defend citizens against those evil cable providers. Isn’t it nice to know that a “conservative” government that preaches the virtues of free markets and staying out of citizens’ business will pass an act of Parliament to let you subscribe to the Space channel without having to pay the full three bucks a month to get Spike, History and Bravo as well? And then use your tax money to tell you about it?

If you were a grain farmer watching the Grey Cup, it might have occurred to you that it seems odd that the Harper government has one attitude toward competition in the cellphone business, but another toward the railways.

Speaking to the Grain Industry Symposium in Ottawa last month, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said he hasn’t seen any evidence that the railways aren’t performing. Apparently the grain companies reporting a weekly shortfall of between 1,000 to 2,000 cars isn’t evidence.

However, “I’ve asked (the grain companies) to keep me up to speed on what’s working, what’s not working, so I can flow it through to Transport Canada and directly to the railways to make sure they understand that we are watching.”

The reference to flowing through Transport Canada directly to the railways is particularly telling. Mr. Ritz may not be aware that in certain quarters, the joke is that Transport Canada is otherwise known as the railways’ unofficial lobbying office in Ottawa.

The minister is also a fan of removing the revenue cap on grain shipments, which would be the railways’ final victory in a long-running campaign to get absolutely everything their way. Perhaps it’s ancient history now, but some of us remember when the railways hinted if not outright promised that if the government got rid of the Crow rate, they might be able to afford to improve service. The railways also said they could improve efficiency by getting rid of all those old wooden elevators and all those branch lines.

So let’s go back to 1983-84, when there were 3,000 elevators, not 300, and most of the cars were boxes, not hoppers. In the final week of that year, Thunder Bay took off 9,672 cars, and Vancouver unloaded 3,000-plus. Back then, 5,000 unloads would have been a disaster. Today it’s considered a good week.

So the railways got what they wanted. The Crow is gone. The boxcars are gone. The branch lines are gone. The wooden elevators are gone. The wheat board is gone. But the railways are shipping half as many cars as they did 30 years ago. Their solution to improve things — and one apparently shared by Minister Ritz — is to get rid of the revenue cap so they can charge even more.

Did we mention that the revenue cap is set at a level to guarantee a profit, and is adjusted for inflation?

The theory behind this, by the way, is that by allowing the railways to charge more in total, they could raise rates at some points to encourage more efficiency in the system. When there are four elevators in Western Canada — one per railway at the foothills of the Rockies and at the Manitoba-Ontario border — perhaps the system will be sufficiently efficient from the railways’ point of view.

The wholesale deregulation of the system over the past 30 years was marked by a number of reports, many prepared with helpful support from the railways’ lobby office in Ottawa… er, Transport Canada. One of the last, by retired Supreme Court Justice Willard Estey, supported continued deregulation. However it’s somehow been forgotten that he also made another recommendation to encourage competition, which was that the rail system be deregulated in the same way as telecommunications, and that there be joint running rights. In other words, anyone could start a railway and run it on CN and CP tracks.

Well, that didn’t happen, but the current government ad campaign tells us that it wants at least four cellphone companies competing in every region of the country — and sharing cell towers.

In kowtowing to the railways, the Harper government is only carrying a tradition followed by previous Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments. But never have we seen such a stark ideological contrast. You must have the choice of four cell companies, but two railways are enough.

The post We need at least four cell providers, but two railways are OK appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.