Farmers busy with the day-to-day business of growing food ingredients can’t afford to farm the fads.

Laura Rance-Unger

The absurdity of our civilization’s extreme relationship with food hit me like a runaway snowboard while watching the Ozempic Olympics earlier this year, in between commercials advertising pizza and French fries.

The relentless marketing, alternately promoting weight loss drugs and foods that lean toward making us fat, wasn’t aimed at the elite athletes strutting their stuff on the world stage. It’s a safe bet they didn’t achieve the peak of human fitness on a diet of pizza and french fries. It’s equally doubtful they require injections of the GLP-1 class of drugs to manage their weight.

Nope, those commercials are aimed at the couch potatoes back home, subjecting us to both temptation and a shortcut to redemption as we bear witness to these feats of human endurance.

These athletes deserve our admiration and respect, but to be fair to the rest of us, most working stiffs don’t have the time, the drive or the resources to devote full-time to the pursuit of extreme fitness.

So we’re left swinging between food-culture extremes, the effects of which filter back through the food chain to the farm.

The GLP-1 ripple effect

Consider for a moment how the food industry is twisting itself into a pretzel trying to understand how these drugs will affect consumer demand.

Firstly, these products reduce appetites, which means people eat less — so much so that it’s more difficult for them to meet their nutritional needs. It’s also now known that one of the unintended consequences of rapid weight loss is a loss of muscle.

Lately, the focus has shifted to how to support consumers in their post-GLP-1 phase as users move away from the drugs due to factors such as costs or side effects. Recent studies are indicating the weight they lost bounces back four times faster than weight lost through traditional diet and exercise.

That has shifted attention to creating low-calorie, nutrient-dense foods, with a particular emphasis on protein.

How does this affect farmers’ bottom line? Some analysts have pointed to the protein craze as one reason record-high beef prices haven’t had the same dampening effect on demand that they might have in the past.

It’s also creating some longer-term shifts in pricing and production.

When the herd can’t keep up with the headlines

A recent Farm Credit Canada analysis outlined how this plays out for dairy farmers, to cite one example. A decade ago, they were told they needed to produce milk with a higher proportion of butterfat, which led to shifts in pricing, genetics and feeding strategies to accommodate.

Now, demand is tipping back to protein, leading marketing boards to once again adjust pricing formulas to incentivise a higher ratio of protein in the milk supply. Change comes at a cost, and those costs eventually find their way into the price of food.

“Does this protein craze have staying power? It will take years and successive generations of breeding to shift the herd towards higher-protein-lower butterfat-producing animals,” FCC economist Graeme Crosbie asked in his article.

That’s a good question. Looking back over the countless extreme approaches grabbing headlines in recent generations — the Atkins Diet, keto, low-fat, high-fat, cabbage, carnivore, meatless, vegan, California, intermittent fasting, anti-ultra processed — to name a few — many have caused food-sector pivots, but ultimately, most had limited staying power.

A history of diet pivots

Remember the Atkins Diet of the early 2000s? Industry statistics show that at its peak, pasta consumption dropped eight per cent and bread by up to 40 per cent.

Meanwhile, food manufacturers responded with a major investment in hundreds of low-carb food products, many of which flourished only briefly.

The jury is still out on the plant-based protein craze, touted as healthier for people and the planet. However, many of the early plant-based products are languishing in the marketplace because of their high cost and blah taste. That industry is reportedly regrouping in a bid to up the flavour profile and rebalance costs.

Finding the common thread

There are already signs that the GLP-1 drugs are losing their shine. They no doubt still have a place but many are discovering they aren’t the panacea those advertisements make them out to be.

Farmers busy with the day-to-day business of growing food ingredients can’t afford to farm the fads. But it’s still wise to monitor these changing consumer behaviours to find the common threads — such as protein, nutrition and a move away from ultra-processed foods.

Understanding how the middle ground between the different extremes might be shifting gives farmers the upper hand when making strategic investments in their operations.

The post Producers must tread carefully when food fads come calling appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

There will be plenty of nitpicking to come, but the agreement significantly reduces the punishing tariffs China imposed on $2.6 billion in Canadian agricultural goods, while allowing Canadian consumers increased access to Chinese electric vehicles without gutting the Canadian auto sector. The question of whether pork will also see tariff relief remains unanswered.

But as details emerge, it’s clear that the mid-January discussions set a framework for ongoing engagement, increased investment and collaboration — while acknowledging that significant differences remain in how the two countries engage with the world.

It’s a calculated risk. China’s propensity for meddling in domestic politics and intelligence gathering continues to be a threat. And whenever diplomatic headwinds start to blow, it seems agriculture gets swept up in the storm.

But for now, pragmatism has prevailed.

Allowing China to export 49,000 electric vehicles into Canada at the most-favoured nation tariff rate of 6.1 per cent is a sharp drop from the 100 per cent tariff imposed by the previous Liberal government under Justin Trudeau and returns imports to pre-2023 levels.

Canada’s decision to impose those steep tariffs aligned with U.S. policy at a time when North American auto manufacturing was fully integrated. The U.S. administration under Donald Trump has since abandoned its commitment to an integrated North American auto manufacturing sector, which erodes any rationale for Canada mimicking the U.S. blockade.

Canada’s EV manufacturing sector is in its infancy. If governments are serious about encouraging consumers to embrace renewable energy, it makes little sense to block imports that offer advanced technology as a more affordable option. At the same time, by offering China only limited access, the Canadian government does not completely erode prospects for the domestic EV industry.

Farm organizations were quick to applaud the announcements of reduced tariffs on canola, peas and seafood.

They just as quickly called for “pragmatic engagement with both the United States and China to protect tariff-free access and prevent farmers from becoming collateral damage in broader geopolitical disputes,” as Grain Growers of Canada worded it.

Farmers well understand that this thawing of diplomatic relations with China after nearly a decade of tense standoffs and economic warfare is likely to heat things up with the U.S., Canada’s other significant other, on the trade front.

It’s not easy to support Canadian livelihoods while wedged between your two biggest trading partners, who are simultaneously conducting economic warfare with both each other and you.

Let’s look at the numbers. Canada does about $80 billion in total trade with China annually. Our trade with the U.S. is much larger, about $1 trillion, not to mention our shared border.

U.S. media reporting on the Canada-China deal-making used it as evidence of a significant break with the U.S. Coverage in The Wall Street Journal cited former Canadian diplomats and foreign policy analysts as predicting the move will “annoy” the Trump administration.

And we know what happens when Donald Trump gets annoyed.

Well, actually, we don’t. Which is the whole problem and why defrosting Canada’s relationship with China has become even more important.

Trump didn’t react as negatively as expected, at least initially, even though some of his administration’s officials warned the Canada will regret this move.

It raises the spectre of U.S. retaliation. Will the news further jeopardize the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement up for review this year? Possibly, and there’s no denying that losing the predictability that agreement brings to the marketplace would be a major blow to farmers.

However, as U.S. foreign and domestic policy becomes increasingly unhinged, the odds of returning to the stability of the past four decades are falling faster than Trump’s popularity ratings.

By working with China, Canada is signalling its willingness to seek common ground in trade while respecting that the world isn’t always what we would like it to be.

This country has a long history of building trading and diplomatic relationships that focus on doing the right things for the right reasons. In the 1950s and 1960s, Canadian grain sales helped spare the people of China from famine at a time when many exporters refused to do business with a communist regime.

At the same time, the events of the past year aside, Canadians have on many occasions stood by the United States in times of crisis.

If Canada has any hope of emerging from these uncertain times with its sovereignty — and dignity — intact, its trade and foreign policy must be about more than ducking and dodging blows from bigger players.

The world has changed, but quiet diplomacy in pursuit of a rules-based global order is still Canada’s trump card.

The post Pragmatism prevails for farmers in Canada-China trade talks appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Agriculture didn’t make the G7 agenda. It was pushed aside by more pressing issues like international security, economics, technology global migration and trade.

But the forum hosted by the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) was designed to ensure agriculture and food stays on world leaders’ radar.

“Agriculture has to be an instrument of peace,” IICA director general Manuel Otero said in an interview on the opening day of the Americas AgForum. “In all of these issues, agriculture is at the centre of the solutions, so implicitly or explicitly G7 leaders have to discuss the role of agriculture.”

Climate, nutritionally smart

IICA, founded in 1942, focuses on fostering rural and agricultural development among its 34 member states across the Americas. It works to increase the sector’s contributions to rural well -being, food security and economic growth through the bioeconomy and trade.

Otero told his audience of about 150 delegates in the room and 800 watching virtually that meeting the world’s food needs over the next 40 years will be a multidimensional challenge that involves grappling with production challenges brought about by climate change as well as navigating the simultaneous crises of undernutrition and obesity.

“It is not just climate smart any more, it has to be nutritionally smart too,” he said.

Otero called for policies that enable small-holder farmers to adopt new technologies such as digital agriculture to grow productivity, and which stabilize rural economies by keeping farmers on the land. That has a stabilizing effect on cities too.

“Every time a producer becomes a consumer, we face a problem,” Otero said, noting outward migration from rural areas creates unsustainable pressure on urban infrastructure and food systems.

Speakers said making it possible for people to thrive in rural communities requires major investments in rural connectivity to make productivity-enhancing digital technology more accessible.

Need for timely innovation

The food system also needs more entrepreneurs and investment capital at all levels to bring new ideas to market, said Justine Hendricks, president and CEO of Farm Credit Canada.

“We’ve been hearing more and more the need to accelerate innovation, the time to get innovation through to commercialization is certainly too long in Canada,” she said. “Whether you are early stage or all the way through to a growth stage, some of the work we’ve done shows that in the Canadian ecosystem, there were gaps all along the way.”

FCC has recently dedicated $2 billion in spending over the next five years to support Canada’s innovation pipeline.

“Canada has got really outstanding innovation hubs, our education system is second to none, we’ve got land, we’ve got water we’ve got what the world wants,” she said. “Canada has this generational opportunity. We just need to bring those things closer together.”

Plus, it requires building a foundation of trust with consumers beneath the sector’s never-ending drive to innovate.

Lisa Bishop-Spencer, executive director for the Canadian Centre for Food integrity, said public trust in the food system has been eroded in recent years, but Canada doesn’t face that trend alone.

“This is common across many countries in the Americas,” she said.

“What we know is that people trust farmers, they trust individuals. Where they start to lose that trust is when it starts to become more institutional in its setting,” she said.

“’Innovation’ is a wonderful word and it means so much to our industry, but consumers are afraid of innovation,” Bishop-Spencer said.

“When you position it terms of outcomes that’s when it becomes more resonate for people,” she said. “People understand the values behind the little red barn and little green tractor are still behind what do no matter what scale we do it at.”

The post Canadian agricultural leaders attend global food security forum in shadow of G7 summit appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

It’s no surprise that tariffs top those lists. Farm groups are calling on the federal government to do whatever it takes to maintain tariff-free access to the United States and Chinese markets for livestock and grains.

Even though Donald Trump gave Canada a temporary pass on goods that are compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on April 2 — for now — the uncertainty continues.

“Tariffs, and the potential for tariffs, from the two key markets of the U.S. and China are the largest threats facing our industry today,” said Cam Dahl, general manager of the Manitoba Pork Council.

Manitoba exports approximately 90 per cent of the eight million pigs producers raise annually, either live or after processing. In Alberta, about a fifth of ‘harvest ready’ cattle are shipped into the U.S.

The canola sector is already facing a double whammy, after canola-based biofuel was declared ineligible for the U.S. Clean Fuels Production Credit program in January and China announced tariffs on canola oil and meal imports from Canada.

Notably, seed sales, which are the biggest canola export to China by far, haven’t been tariffed, at least not yet.

However, combined, the U.S. and China account for more than half of Canadian grain and oilseed exports.

“These tariffs will push down the prices farmers receive for our crops, just as input costs and government regulations are already eating into our bottom line,” said Tara Sawyer, chair of the Grain Growers of Canada. “We’re being forced to pay the price for political decisions beyond our control.”

Even though Prime Minister Mark Carney suspended the consumer portion of the carbon tax, farmers continue to lobby for the industrial tax to be eliminated as well, fearing its cost will still be passed back to the farm.

Another wish high on their list was granted before the writ was dropped. The federal government backed off on plans to increase the amount of capital gains subject to taxation.

Farmers want more railway competition through extended interswitching. They want more transparency in grain markets, better contract provisions, more rural vets, better farm support programs, streamlined regulations, more money invested in research — the list goes on.

There’s no denying these are important issues for agriculture. The arguments these groups are making are, for the most part, well-reasoned and articulate. But they also risk being lost in the electioneering noise around building more houses and affordablity. They also miss the mark in what is billed as the most important election of our times.

Kim Campbell, who briefly served as prime minister in 1993, before the Progressive Conservatives lost to the Liberals under Jean Chrétien, was skewered for being a little too honest when she told a reporter, “Elections are no time to discuss serious issues.”

She had a point. Elections are about winning over hearts and minds. The granular details are what comes later.

This campaign is a rare opportunity for Canada’s agricultural sector to make its way onto the national agenda in a way that’s been hard to achieve in the past when food was cheap and supply chains were humming.

Concepts the electorate had the luxury of taking for granted before — such as national security — have taken on new significance this time around.

Food security is fundamental to national security, which makes supporting this country’s agriculture something every Canadian can agree on as a priority.

Farmers must walk a fine line. It’s one thing to remind voters and candidates of agriculture’s importance to the country’s security. It’s fair game to outline how farmers feel threatened by circumstances they cannot control and that the current circumstances place their livelihoods at risk.

However, it is counterproductive to suggest that they are being sacrificed for the sake of others or that farmers aren’t getting their fair share of government largesse.

For example, the decision to impose tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles to protect Canada’s fledgling electric vehicle industry, while staying aligned with American interests is questionable on several fronts, especially since the U.S. has walked away from its alliance with Canada. But it is disingenuous to suggest it was done with the intention of sacrificing Canadian canola farmers. Even if that suggestion were true, it is not an effective strategy for getting the rest of Canada on the side of the grower.

Both sectors contribute to Canada’s employment and economic wealth. Both sectors may need taxpayers to help them ride through these unexpected trade disruptions.

Whether it’s Eastern Canada versus Western Canada or canola farmers versus unionized autoworkers, there is little to gain and much to lose by arguing that one is more important than another.

Farmers need non-farmers in their corner now more than ever if they’re going to be heard.

The post Farmer election wish lists miss the mark appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

It’s widely speculated that when the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) comes up for renegotiation, one of the things the U.S. will come after is Canada’s supply management system for dairy, eggs and poultry.

More than a few have postured that if it makes for a better deal overall, our negotiators should be prepared to concede our protection for these sectors. They also argue that Canadian consumers deserve lower prices.

Only a few months ago, a private member’s bill before the Senate was the source of major debate in the agricultural community because, if passed, it would block such concessions. It seems like an eternity ago now.

Since President Trump was installed on Jan. 20, it’s become clear that this North American trade treaty is about as useful as second-hand toilet paper. There is no point renegotiating this treaty or forging any new ones with an administration that has no intention of adhering to them.

Canada’s discussions with the U.S. are no longer about striking a mutually beneficial deal. We’re now engaged in playground politics, and as any kindergartner can tell you, when you give in to a bully, they only come back wanting more.

Not only would opening our markets to more U.S. dairy, poultry and eggs be pointless as far as securing a credible deal, it would place the food security of Canadians at greater risk than it already is.

Many criticize Canada’s supply management system because average prices for these products tend to be higher in Canada than in the U.S. Truth be told, the same can be said for a lot of food products regardless of whether they fall under supply management.

U.S. food production and processing typically takes place on a much larger, more intensive scale. When things go wrong, the effects are also concentrated. Of the 157 million commercial birds killed because of the ongoing avian flu outbreak, 20 million are laying hens.

Prices for a dozen eggs across the U.S. have more than doubled. Prices are as high as US$9 per dozen in some stores — if there are any available at all. At least one major restaurant chain is charging a 50-cent surcharge on every egg served.

It remains to be seen what will happen to the U.S. dairy supply, which is facing a double whammy. Cows and dairy workers have been coming down with bird flu, which cuts into milk production. Then there are those election promises to deport undocumented workers, which make up half the dairy sector’s labour pool.

So far, there have been no cows detected with bird flu on Canadian dairy farms.

While Canadian poultry barns haven’t escaped the ravages of bird flu, because the barns in Canada are a fraction of the scale and more regionally dispersed, supply and steady prices have been maintained.

The system is working as it was designed to when it was established in the 1970s. Farmers receive a fair price and ensure Canadians have a reliable supply at a fair price in exchange for protection from external competition. Their access to export markets is likewise restricted.

Pressure on this uniquely Canadian system to conform with globalization and the dismantling of tariff and non-tariff trade barriers was relentless and intensifying until recent developments thrust nationalistic protectionism back onto the agenda.

This is not to suggest Canada can escape its reliance on exporting agricultural commodities. Non-supply managed sectors such as grains, oilseeds, beef and pork produce volumes that are far beyond the capacity of domestic markets to consume.

They are highly dependent on access to export markets, particularly in the U.S. It seems inevitable that they are about to get hammered in ways we couldn’t have imagined let alone predicted a short time ago. We can’t eat our way out of this mess, but we can stand by these producers in other ways.

And we can recognize that it would be folly to toss our supply-managed commodities onto the pyre as well.

The post Trading away Canadian dairy, poultry and eggs won’t save U.S. trade appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

It was seeping south even before the U.S. declared economic war.

There is no denying it will be difficult to pivot away from Canadian producers’ dependence on the U.S. market. Despite our rhetoric about diversifying our markets, Canada is even more reliant on the U.S. market today than it was 10 years ago.

According to statistics circulated by Grain Growers the U.S. imports over $17 billion worth of Canadian grain and grain products every year. Canola exports were valued at $8.5 billion, wheat exports at $1 billion, oats at $850 billion and barley at $200 million.

Grain and oilseeds can be rediverted or stored, albeit at a cost.

That’s not an option for our livestock sector.

Farm Credit Canada said in a recent analysis that Canada exports 22 per cent of its total hog production, with exports to the U.S. making up 99 per cent of all exports.

Sixty per cent or four million pigs annually are weanlings sold to the U.S. for fattening and slaughter. The majority, 2.6 million piglets, come from Manitoba producers.

One-quarter of Canada’s hog exports are market-ready hogs ready for slaughter and that number has been rising over the past four years due to the continued loss of processing capacity in Canada.

The story for cattle is similar, but more complicated. “A calf could be born in Alberta, sent to Montana to graze, sent back to Alberta for fattening in a feedlot, and then shipped back to the U.S. for slaughter,” the FCC report says. Imagine trying to figure out the tariff impact of that.

Live animals need to move through the supply chain until the production pipeline can be adjusted. That means the additional costs of tariffs will have to be absorbed. History suggests producers become the sponge.

News stories have already started to surface about Canadian-born food processors dependent on the U.S. market for growth making plans to move their operations south. That is exactly the intent of this tariff war.

It’s well documented that Canada’s food and beverage processing sector has been losing ground in productivity and competitiveness. Statistics Canada reported in December that the pace of the sector’s investment in product, process, organizational and marketing innovations has been declining at a time when the industry openly acknowledges it needs to increase. Investments in process innovation declined the most.

“Canada’s food and beverage manufacturers lag significantly behind some of our international peers in automation, technology adoption and operational efficiency,” Food and Beverage Canada CEO Kristina Farrell told a recent Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute webinar. “It directly impacts our ability to compete globally, especially as input costs rise and margins tighten.”

She cited key vulnerabilities such as the industry’s structure, which is dominated by small- to medium-sized enterprises that lack the scale to go global, and the sector’s over-reliance on the increasingly uncertain U.S. market.

Farrell said external factors aren’t the only ones holding Canada back. She cited internal ones such as inadequate infrastructure in housing, childcare, transportation and labour, as well an inefficient regulatory framework. “These challenges aren’t necessarily new, but the urgency to address them has never been greater. We need to shift toward a forward-looking policy framework that prioritizes enhancing productivity and competitiveness across the industry, both in primary agriculture and in food and beverage manufacturing,” Farrell said.

Countering tariffs with tariffs is a normal reaction. It may buy us time. But it isn’t a strategy.

Neither is shaking our heads and speculating on when Donald Trump will come to his senses and do sensible things.

His power comes from unpredictability and his ability to create chaos.

Canada must move quickly to break down provincial barriers to trade, which a Queen’s University analysis says adds between 7.8 and 14.5 per cent to the price of goods and services purchased within Canada. Studies suggest eliminating those barriers could grow our national per capita GDP by three to seven per cent, adding $50 billion to $130 billion to the Canadian economy. We can’t change our geography, but we can develop national consistency in regulatory and technical standards.

That can’t happen overnight. What must change now is the commitment of our political leaders to achieving it.

In the meantime, any funds collected through import tariffs should be split between keeping the agriculture and agri-food sector afloat and investing in its future.

Instead of pointing fingers and scurrying around like gophers beneath a hawk’s shadow, it’s time to focus on the things that are within our power to change.

The post Canada can’t afford to let its food sector be snatched in trade war appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Perhaps the biggest mess unfolded in 1985, when the Americans decided to go head-to-head with the European Union in a battle over who could sell grain cheapest to clear out huge stockpiles that had accumulated due to post-Second World War policies designed to restore food security.

Grain industry sources were speechless when contacted on the day the U.S. announced its Export Enhancement Program. They had no words for the economic bloodbath they knew was coming.

The EU and U.S. were subsidizing exports while simultaneously supporting their farmers, which drove global grain prices into the trenches yet incentivized their farmers to keep on producing. Smaller exporters, including Canada, which lacked the budgetary capacity to play the same game, took it on the chin.

Ridiculously low grain prices combined with high interest rates drove thousands of Canadian producers out of business and spawned black humour jokes about parents being accused of child abuse for leaving their kids the farm. It also pushed remaining industry towards the remarkable efficiency it’s noted for today.

There was eventual realization that this so-called war was costly — and produced no winners.

When the dust had settled and the grain stockpiles cleared, global market share hadn’t changed a whole lot. Grain importers took full advantage of the cheaper prices, but they didn’t buy more. After all, there’s only so much the market can eat. Economists call it “inelastic demand.”

In the end, sanity prevailed, and countries coalesced around the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, an effort to bring discipline into how exporters support their producers and manage exports. These were hard-fought gains that levelled the playing field and made it possible for export-dependent countries such as Canada to thrive in the global grain and oilseed business.

Fast forward 40 years and Canadian farmers find themselves on the cusp of an equally perilous trade war, and in an unusually awkward position. Not only are their two biggest customers — the U.S. and China — scrapping with each other, but they are both taking aim at Canada.

Sixty per cent of Canada’s agri-food exports go to the U.S. More than half of our agri-food imports originate there, making it Canada’s biggest trading partner by far. In recent times, China has been Canada’s biggest customer for wheat and canola.

The difference this time round is that these two heavyweights in the global grain business aren’t going after export markets; they are weaponizing access to their domestic consumers — the U.S. through tariffs and China potentially through anti-dumping sanctions.

It turns out that the many benefits of a more globalized economy haven’t flowed equitably, which has sparked a protectionist backlash, giving rise to rhetoric such as America-first and to leaders such as U.S. President-elect Donald Trump.

Barriers that make access to either of these key markets more expensive will depress global prices and make it harder for Canadian farmers to sell their grain.

It’s uncertain whether Trump will carry through with his highly publicized tariff threats. The highly integrated cross-border flow of agricultural commodities and processed goods means any trade disruptions will hurt U.S. producers, consumers and processors almost as much as they do Canadians, unless the U.S. government steps in like it did the last time to offer compensation or, alternatively, if Trump acts on his musings to attempt to fully integrate Canada.

China is a different story. Outside observers have long debated whether the world’s second most populous country will be able to feed its over 1.4 billion people, and its leadership has consistently proven the naysayers wrong.

UN Food and Agriculture Organization data shows China produces a quarter of the world’s grain and feeds one-fifth of the world’s population with less than 10 per cent of the world’s arable land. Late last year, it announced plans to dramatically increase domestic consumption of cereals over the next decade while investing in modernizing its agricultural sector to stabilize output.

It’s a plan that implies further withdrawal from global engagement rather than increased integration, but it will be costly and won’t happen overnight.

The global pendulum has swung decidedly into the protectionist zone. Like the last time, it’s hard to see how any of the players emerge from this a winner, but it could still take years before a new equilibrium is established. Maybe world leaders will get it right next time.

In the meantime, Canadian farmers had better brace for leaner times.

The post We’ve seen trade wars before, but this time is different appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

This year’s theme, “Caring for Soils: Measure, Monitor, Manage,” underscores the importance of accurate soil data and information in understanding soils characteristics and supporting informed decision-making on sustainable soil management for food security.

Here at Glacier FarmMedia, we appreciate the deep connection and commitment Prairie farmers have to the soil that supports their farming operations.

Watch the video below outlining some key facts about our soils.

Here at Glacier FarmMedia, our ongoing coverage acknowledges the deep connection and commitment Prairie farmers have to the soil that supports their farming operations.

To recognize this day, our editors have pulled together some of our favourite articles about soil from across the network of publications for your reading enjoyment.

For many on our team, 2024 will be remembered as the year we lost Les Henry, one of Canada’s best-known soil scientists and long-time columnist for Grainews. A farmer’s scientist, Henry’s columns were always informative and tailored to the issues important to people with boots on the ground.

In this column from 2022, he outlines the links between soil qualities and climate on the Canadian Prairies.

“If there’s a common thread through most of what’s been written about soils in Grainews, it’s the absence of a common thread,” says Editor Dave Bedard.

“Soils vary greatly across the Prairies, within provinces, regions, even within municipalities, as do the markers — and, in some ways, the definitions — of soil health. Of course, most farmers today will at least consider that serious declines in their crops or pastures may be symptoms of a longer-term problem below the surface and will consider the possible solutions accordingly. But they also tell us that their solutions didn’t just come off the rack.

“In this article different farmers in different parts of the country told our correspondent Lee Hart how they assess for soil compaction and, where a problem existed, what they’ve done to manage it,” Bedard writes.

From the Canadian Cattlemen archives, we bring you these top picks.

• Canadian Cattlemen: Grazing management and soil health (Pt. 1)
• Canadian Cattlemen: Grazing management and soil health (Pt. 2)

“In these two articles, Burke Teichert reminds us that a ranch is a system, and soil is central to the whole operation,” says Editor Lisa Guenther.

“What does that mean? It means soil health affects ecosystem functions such as the water and mineral cycles, sunlight/energy flow and the communities of different species found in the pasture. It also ties into profitability, by improving range use, water infiltration, forage growth and stocking rates,” she says. “Teichert explains these principles, and how farmers and ranchers can adapt them to fit the context of their ranch.”

Gord Gilmour, senior editor of news and national affairs, selected this article from Alberta Farmer Express.

• Alberta Farmer Express: N maybe making your soils more acidic

“Nitrogen is the most commonly used crop nutrient, but it could be having subtle effects on soil health over time,” Gilmour says. ”In this article reporter Jeff Melchior speaks to a researcher who’s trying to separate fact and fiction on this important question.

“Understanding these impacts is going to be an important part of protecting and enhancing soil microbiology while still ensuring productivity of farms.”

From The Western Producer, we bring you these stories:

This video features Afua Mante who is a soil scientist with a focus on bioengineering highlighting the fact that our Prairie soils are, at best, in a steady state. But in almost every soil health measure, they are getting worse, says Robin Booker, editor of The Western Producer.

Mante, who originally trained as an engineer, said part of the reason soils are degrading is the speed farmers work their soils, and the disconnect between the agricultural industry and the engineering community.

Meanwhile, the story below addresses ways to rebuild the fertility of knolls on a field where the topsoil has been eroded. Manure applications help, as does increased fertilizer. However, taking topsoil from field depression and adding them back to the top of hills was the best treatment in an experiment near Central Butte, Sask., conducted by Jeff Schoenau, University of Saskatchewan soil scientist. The topsoil replacement produced the highest spring wheat yield due to better soil fertility and water-holding capacity associated with thicker topsoil.

• The Western Producer: When topsoil moves uphill

Statistics Canada recently published a Census of Environment data portal that shows soil organic matter has been increasing on agricultural lands in Canada. In 2016 Canadian agricultural soils removed 11.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,” says an Agriculture Canada website on soil organic matter. The website contains a Soil Carbon Change Index, which shows that soil carbon conditions have gone from “moderate” in the 1980s to “good” in the 2000s.

• The Western Producer: Farmers make big soil health strides

From Farmtario, we selected this article encouraging farmers to not get caught up some of the popular mythology around soil testing.

• Farmtario: Nutrient and soil testing myths

Finally, from Country Guide, we selected the article below about progress, however slow, towards increased use of variable rate fertilizers.

• Country Guide: The slow evolution toward real-time variable rate fertilizer

“Variable rate fertilizer to apply the best rate for each acre has merit, but the cost and the hassle to make it work does not appeal to many farmers,” says editor Lisa Guenther. The return does not seem to justify the work required.

“Can we change that with a real-time on-the-go system? Country Guide talked to three industry leaders to find out.”

Key facts about our soils:

• 95 per cent of our food comes from soils.
• 33 per cent of soils are degraded world-wide.
• It can take up to 1000 years to produce just 2-3 cm of soil.
• Soils supply 15 of the 18 naturally occurring chemical elements essential to plants.
• There are more living organisms in a tablespoon of soil than people on Earth.
• Over the last 70 years, the level of vitamins and nutrients in food has drastically decreased.
• Two billion people worldwide suffer from lack of micronutrients, known as hidden hunger.
• Agricultural production will have to increase by 60 per cent to meet the global food demand in 2050.
• Up to 58 per cent more food could be produced through sustainable soil management.
• Up to half of household waste could be composted to nurture our soil.

Source: United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization

The post World Soil Day celebrates critical resource appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

For example, consider the official statements coming from the Glencore team related to their role in the continuing consolidation and concentration of the grain handling business in Canada.

In 2012, when Glencore announced it was acquiring Viterra, the last remnant of the once mighty Prairie co-operatives, it offered these reassuring words to farmers.

“Glencore is confident the acquisition of Viterra will deliver significant overall benefits to grain farmers,” the release states. “The transaction will give farmers access to Glencore’s unparalleled global distribution channels and increase their ability to export their product into international grain and oilseeds markets.

“Glencore’s global reach and expertise will provide farmers with strong protection from market volatility, more options to market their grain and oilseeds and more competitive pricing resulting from Glencore’s wider markets access and its more consistent demand for grains and oilseeds.”

Fast forward to June 2023 and Glencore’s announcement that Viterra is be merged with Bunge.

The wording in that press release is much more succinct and conspicuously, offers no direct assurances to farmers. “The merger of Viterra with Bunge is expected to realize significant value for Glencore,” it says.

Farm organizations were quick to flag the merger as detrimental. Their concerns have recently been corroborated by Canada’s Competition Bureau and an independent analysis by University of Saskatchewan agricultural economists Richard Gray, James Nolan and Peter Slade, who were commissioned by several Prairie commodity groups.

The economists’ analysis found that the merger would result in more than 40 per cent of the export capacity at Vancouver controlled by one firm, which would increase the export basis by an estimated 15 per cent. Further market concentration in canola crushing would increase canola crush margins by 10 per cent. Aside from the immediate economic harm, it found that the merger may also reduce incentives for Viterra to build its proposed canola crushing facility in Regina.

The combined impacts would reduce producer income by approximately $770 million per year.

These reviews highlighted the stake Bunge holds in G3 Global Holdings, which is the majority owner of G3 Canada Ltd. along with minority shareholder investor Farmers Equity Trust, established in 2015 to manage the shares held by farmers who formerly did business with the privatized Canadian Wheat Board.

The stake in G3, which includes the ability to appoint directors, is likely to affect how aggressively G3 competes for grain in areas where it competes against Viterra.

As the Competition Bureau pointed out, the proposed transaction would combine the company with the most oilseed crushing facilities in Canada (Bunge) with the company that has the most primary grain elevators in Western Canada (Viterra).

One partial solution is to require Bunge to divest its port terminal interest in G3 Ltd. to the other shareholders or external interests.

However, the economists’ report could find no easy remedy for the further consolidation of control in canola crushing, especially if the Regina plant does not go ahead.

“This creates a worst-case scenario of a concentrated industry with limited capacity,” the report says. “If there was to be a requirement for merged BV to build the Regina facility, the Regina facility would give BV a 37 per cent market share, which would in turn still increase crush margins by about 10 per cent.”

“Both outcomes are undesirable and would come at a large cost to Canadian canola producers.”

The anti-competitive tentacles of this deal reach much deeper than a consolidation that makes two competitors into one. This is about who will shape the future of grain handling and oilseed processing in Western Canada.

Farmers’ concerns have been verified. Regulators must act.

The post Grain business consolidation and concentration appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The post This week on ‘Between The Rows’ appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.