If so, you’re not alone.

WHY IT MATTERS: Nitrogen is considered one of the most challenging nutrients for corn production.

Daniel Quinn, associate professor of corn production and agronomy at Indiana’s Purdue University, said the interaction between corn yields and nitrogen levels is perennially confusing.

Indeed, Quinn considers nitrogen to be “one of the most challenging nutrients” to manage in corn production, in part because of how it responds to environmental conditions.

Dependent on the weather

Weather conditions determine how nitrogen moves and transforms, as well as its availability to the crop.

Too much rain, for example, leads to leaching and denitrification. Too much heat and little moisture, conversely, increase volatilization to the atmosphere. Less mineralization under the same conditions also means it’s less available to crops. High residue levels can immobilize nitrogen for growing crops, often necessitating the application of higher nitrogen rates.

Soil productivity can have a significant impact as well. In corn trials conducted across different growing regions in Indiana, check plots receiving no nitrogen fertilizer brought yields ranging from 20 bushels to more than 200 bu./acre.

Such a range, says Quinn, is clearly “a function of the productivity of these soils,” but understanding exactly how nitrogen is more available in higher quality soils is difficult.

What we can control

While environmental variations are a “big frustration, headache, and challenge,” Quinn emphasizes corn growers can exert some control by mitigating nitrogen losses and ensuring it’s maintained in sufficient levels for when the crop needs it. Regarding the latter, he says modern hybrids do not require more nitrogen overall compared to older genetics, but they do take up more of the nutrient post-silking — anywhere from 30 to 40 per cent more, according to Purdue’s research.

Inhibitor additives can be an effective tool for both reducing losses and ensuring fertility levels at critical growth periods. But, when possible, it’s important to match the type of inhibitor being used with risk.

For example, using a volatilization inhibitor in sandy soil with subsoil-applied liquid UAN — a growing environment where leaching might be of greater concern — may not be ideal.

With so many inhibitor products on the market, Quinn also stresses growers should “pay attention to the active ingredient and what type of inhibitors” a product is using. Some products are proven effective, others less so. Even in products that have proven effective at increasing corn yields growers should not expect to see better results when environmental conditions are good.

“If we don’t have leaching, we don’t have nitrogen loss conditions, we don’t expect nitrification occurring, so we’re not going to expect a response,” says Quinn.

“Inhibitors do what they are supposed to do. But environmental conditions and application methods often dictate the magnitude of response.”

The post The fickleness of nitrogen appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

WHY IT MATTERS: Winter cereals other than wheat could provide better yield and rotation options for growers.

Ensuring there’s an accessible market for such alternative cereals, however, is critical.

New varieties – better yields

Winter barley yields have been improving significantly in recent years with the importation of genetics from Europe and elsewhere abroad, said Julia Kimber, sales and marketing manager for Cribit Seeds in West Montrose.

She and her colleagues have partnered with SeCan to import and trial more varieties of the crop, and, as of October 2025, are maintaining 150 replicated performance trials. Currently, only two winter barley varieties — Ruzena and Calypso — are available to growers, although another variety is expected to be released in autumn 2026.

“There are two new varieties that SeCan has put forth that’s being bulked up now,” says Kimber.

She also says yields of the existing varieties are impressive, regularly garnering between three and 3.5 metric tonnes per acre on average. Some growers have managed to achieve four metric tonnes. This puts winter barley well past spring barley yields. A slightly earlier grain fill period also makes winter barley an attractive alternative winter cereal for those interested in double-cropping.

“We’re excited about that. Right now, our biggest push is to expand uses and opportunities for these new varieties,” Kimber says noting that interest among farmers in their operational area is increasing.

“We probably sold 1.5 times as much winter barley this fall as we did last year. … We actually completely sold out, which we’ve never done before.”

The livestock connection

Joanna Follings, cereals specialist with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Agribusiness, agrees new winter barley varieties bring much better yields and winter survivability compared to the common barley grown in bygone days.

An earlier grain fill period provides security against high temperature events in early summer, too, and good genetic packages have thus far meant Ontario growers are “seeing pretty low levels of disease in the crop.”

Other winter cereals like triticale and hybrid rye provide additional cropping options. Follings stresses an important step in growing alternative winter cereals, however, is knowing where the crop will go post harvest as not every elevator will handle such crops.

Having contracts in place prior to planting is thus recommended “more often than not.”

Livestock offer significant opportunity for growers, too. Indeed, Kimber says helping winter barley gain traction as livestock feed is one of the main goals of the Cribit Seeds team.

Follings adds she regularly hears from livestock nutritionists and farmers that the crop offers a good main source in feed rations.

“There’s a number of growers in Lambton where this is becoming their system. There’s a bit of a mix in terms of where that barley is going,” she says, highlighting its feasibility in the province’s southwest.

A similar story is unfolding for hybrid rye, with regard to both higher yields and feed quality.

“But again, the challenge is the market. … Most of the hybrid rye that’s grown goes to Hiram Walker,” says Follings.

“If there were more opportunities for marketing and using that hybrid rye, we would probably see more acres.”

The post Winter cereals beyond wheat gaining traction appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

With Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Houthis taking potshots at shipping vessels in the Red Sea, and China increasingly aggressive in the Indo-Pacific, war and near-kinetic levels of conflict have thrown several wrenches into the mechanisms of world trade.

China is a large purchaser of Canadian commodities like pork, beef, and soybeans. Finding alternative markets if the Chinese market is no longer accessible could be a challenge for some sectors.

What would happen to markets for Canadian commodities if China launched an invasion of Taiwan, as the Chinese government has long promised to do? More generally, could sectors like pork, beef and soybeans find alternative markets if politically-motivated trade restrictions become more frequent or severe?

Awful for offal

According to Mike Von Massow, associate professor in the Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics Department at the University of Guelph,” says the loss of the Chinese market because of war (or any significant geopolitical reason) “would hurt, without a doubt.”

While many assumptions have to be made to reach a situation where Canada has been completely cut off, such a scenario would be particularly hard for beef and pork producers considering a significant proportion of both commodities are exported to China.

The Chinese market also absorbs a lot of what Von Massow calls the “less popular” part of the carcass – feet and offal. There are few, if any alternative markets where these products can go.

“Without finding a home for these things the larger proportion of carcasses would have less value because it’s harder to get rid of,” he says. “It’s also harder to divert that product to other markets because of the nature of that product, and specific tastes.”

While outright war has not occurred, being cut off from some Chinese markets is itself not an unheard-of problem. Previous market access restrictions on canola, enacted by the Chinese government in response to Canada’s arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, for example, have been a problem. But again, Von Massow says the challenge in livestock is the product is made of many parts each requiring a market, rather than a single, whole product.

China has threatened to limit pork imports from Europe if tariffs are imposed on Chinese electric vehicle imports to the EU. Canada is also pondering tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles.

“When we had the issue with canola a few years ago, it was a big deal, but we found other homes, adjusted our markets…If this happened with pork it would be a bigger deal. The degree to which it’s a big deal depends on the proportion of exports that go to that market.”

Capacity building

The future is uncertain, as The Doors frontman Jim Morrison once opined. For Von Massow, though, uncertainty about the future of Chinese market access isn’t something he loses sleep over.

While Canada exports significant amounts of pork, beef, and grains to the Asian state, Canada’s percentage of the Chinese market share is small. Canadian frozen pork, for example, comprises just six per cent of the Chinese market. Beef is less than one per cent, and whole soybeans are less than half a per cent. China cutting Canada off and switching to another supplier is possible, but that might open other markets for Canadian goods too. The question is whether Canadian production could adapt.

Fundamentally, though, Von Massow reiterates China has a large population and is reliant on imports to feed that population.

“China is using trade and trade blockages for political goals. There is little doubt. It’s much easier to send a message to a country that represents a small percentage of your imports,” he says. “They’re going to still need the food. If they put a block on iron exports or aluminum, that would affect construction and manufacturing, but not their ability to eat.”

A generally volatile history in Chinese market access is familiar to Canadian exporters says Al Mussel, director of research for the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute.

Like Von Massow, he says the country has a history of making decisions seemingly out of nowhere – some politically motivated, others less so – to either limit imports of specific products from specific places, or open the floodgates before once again closing them.

What does concern Mussel, however, is what he perceives as a lack of market pragmatism regarding Chinese buyers.

Canadian exporters, he says, must reiterate to China that sudden politically motivated restrictions – a ban on beef imports originating from a processing plant with a coronavirus outbreak, for example – make it much harder for the seller to incorporate efficiencies into the supply chain. This keeps costs higher, and in turn, becomes a disadvantage for the importing country. One of the best things Canada could do, then, is continue hammering home the long-term value afforded to commodity purchasers through market continuity.

Mussel adds it’s also important not to let political dogma dominate what ought to be largely economic decisions.

“We sell lots to them, but given that relationship, we need to treat the customer well. It’s a hard discussion given the politics in the United States, and Canada, where we have serious concerns about Chinese political activities. It’s easy to fall into the trap where they’re just seen as adversaries,” says Mussel.

“At the end of the day, we have things they want to buy. It’s not necessarily on us to take on the politics in our economic relationship. They’re customers. That’s how we have to approach this.”

The post Gauging China’s market risk to agriculture exports appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

That’s according to a joint report from the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI) and the University of Saskatchewan’s Global Institute for Food Security on risk in Canada’s agri-food system. The report provides results from the first phase of research the groups are gathering to help provide policy recommendations to solve issues in the agriculture sector. This first phase included a survey of more than 500 farmers, food processors, government personnel, and other agricultural stakeholders on what they’re most concerned about, and what issues should be given priority.

Already a problem

Respondents largely indicated policy, extreme weather, and trade problems were already a reality, and that such problems are perceived to be both chronic in nature and complex. As the report summary details, fewer than 15 per cent of respondents “have confidence in government to solve any of the three, while fewer than 22 per cent say they have confidence in private sector solutions. Thus, the uphill battle will evidently persist for years to come.”

Tyler McCann, CAPI’s managing director, says the survey informing the report gathered perspectives from a good cross-section of farmers, civil society, government and other industry professionals. While the top identified concerns were not themselves a surprise, McCann was intrigued by what appears to be widespread resignation.

“We see policy, extreme weather, and trade as already being a problem, even a difficult or extreme problem, but we seem to think there’s little we can do about it,” he says. “It’s hard to wrap your mind around that. It’s one thing to say were not sure what we’re gong to do about extreme weather…but on the domestic policy front, that is within our control.”

McCann adds that while people generally think Canada is ahead of many other countries on social and environmental issues, only about 30 per cent think we are ahead economically. This suggests governments must re-focus some attention to economics, and better communicate with the agricultural industry about Canada’s economic position.

Optimism and priorities

Despite some resignation, 62 per cent of respondents expressed general optimism about the direction of Canadian agriculture. The report describes that optimism stems in part from the perspective that Canada is well-positioned, or at least fairly well-positioned, to “take advantage of burgeoning markets.”

By comparison, 21 per cent of respondents said they are pessimistic. Higher levels of pessimism were identified in respondents from rural or remote areas, suggesting farmers themselves comprised much of the category.

Another take-away for McCann, however, was overlap between what respondents thought governments and private industry should focus on to improve the sector.

While research and development were rated as a higher priority for the private sector, for example, it was still identified as a priority for government. This, says McCann highlights the opportunity for greater investment and cooperation across the industry – something which is much needed, given the sector’s general habit of operating in silos. The report itself says “the preference for a focus on innovation and productivity is evident across different facets of the agriculture sector. Notably, farmers show the least preference for any one aspect of this, suggesting a wide diversity of opinion.”

Moving forward, McCann says both his organization and Canadian the Global Institute for Food Security intend to produce a “second-phase” report further analyzing these issues, and recommending “what to do about it.”

“The core belief is we need a more ambitious strategic policy solution in this country,” says McCann. “We want to develop how we take these concerns, and bring them to life. We see the risks the sector faces as a space where we need more focused action, and need to work together more.”

Key Findings from the report:

• Asked what the top priorities should be for government, trade policy, climate change adaptation, and research and development take the first three spots. For the private sector, research and development, productivity growth, and business investment are the top three.
• The markets most chosen as “massive” opportunities for the agriculture sector are India (41 per cent) and the rest of Asia outside of China and India (41 per cent). One-in-five say both the domestic Canadian market (21 per cent) and the US/Mexico (20 per cent) are massive opportunities.
• Beyond the top three threats to the sector already mentioned, input affordability, farm income and debt, human resources, and climate change were all chosen by at least one-in-three survey participants, making up a secondary tier of risks.
• Opinions among famers, government workers, civil society, and others in the farming industry diverge in some areas. While no group is overly confident that solutions to the top three challenges will be easily discovered, those in government are more confident in government problem solving and less confident in the private sector.

The post Report highlights optimism, resignation in agriculture sector appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Aside from the environment, there are practical political and economic reasons to support hypothetical restrictions on the removal of woodlots, fencerows, tallgrass prairie and the like. And if we are proactive, there is opportunity to lobby for frameworks that support our bottom lines as well as nature.

Not doing so means that one day, we face a higher chance of regulations that burden more than they reward.

There is discrepancy between how farmers and commercial developers can transform land where I am in Ontario.

Let’s say a commercial developer wants to clear a 15-acre woodlot for houses. Before clearing and construction can begin, that developer is required to carry out an environmental investigation to determine if removing the woodlot will negatively affect particular animal or plant species, increase flooding risk, and so on.

The requirements that must be addressed in the investigation will change based on the landscape’s characteristics.

Whether such requirements are actually effective at preventing ecological damage is another question, but commercial developers have to at least try to prove their intentions will not cause excessive environmental harm.

Farm businesses are also obliged to not cause harm to Ontario’s natural spaces and species. However, they are under little or no obligation to provide environmental assessments before starting the chainsaw. Generally, they can transform any landscape to suit production needs.

Proving their actions did, in fact, hurt species at risk would have to be done after the fact, when the evidence has been all but destroyed.

Flexibility to manage our land as we see fit is the charitable, positive way one might view this state of affairs. But time and again, the agriculture community seems incapable of re-prioritizing land use.

When the price of corn, soybeans or vegetables is good, natural spaces are cleared in an effort to maximize profits. When prices are poor, natural spaces are cleared to maximize profits. Continued farmland consolidation only exacerbates the process.

From a regulatory perspective, we in Canadian agriculture often look to Europe to see where we might be in five, 10 or 20 years’ time. Animal welfare requirements for housing and transportation offer a prime example.

I’d argue that environmental protection is another, and one of particular note in recent months as farmers across multiple European Union countries take to the streets in protest of what they perceive to be ever-tighter environmental regulations.

How happy would you be if trimming a fencerow was no longer permitted because it was found to house a rare lichen species? This is reality on some farms in the United Kingdom.

We ignore such examples at our peril.

Conversely, proactively identifying the problem could bring opportunities to identify solutions.

In Ireland, for example, the ACRES program offers farmers payments to increase the number and length of hedgerows, plant trees, build riparian areas, conserve archeological monuments and a range of other ecologically minded actions. Similar frameworks are being rolled out in England.

While they are likely far from perfect, both cases could act as a model in Canada and support existing, but comparatively limited, initiatives like the new Resilient Agricultural Landscape Program.

I often hear the argument that Canadian taxpayers would never be willing to fund programs like ACRES. I disagree.

With a little momentum and creativity in design, I’m optimistic that significant investments in environmental incentives for the agricultural landscape would be much more tangible for the taxpayer, and thus easier to stomach.

Our national and provincial governments are already spending enormous amounts of cash on perceived environmental initiatives.

We as farmers and landowners need to do a much better job of highlighting the ecological problems we helped create and what we can do to fix them.

Failing to protect biodiversity, prevent deterioration in water quality and such will likely come back to bite us politically.

Why not get ahead? Why not identify more practical ways of farming for nature, and diversify income streams in the process?

The post Comment: Time to farm with nature appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Though many within the agriculture industry praised the decision as a win for crop breeders, and Canadians more generally, some academic researchers question whether individuals in the public sector will be able to seize the opportunity.

At issue for researchers is the fact that many end markets have taken a different regulatory stance than Canada on gene editing, and there is an ever-shrinking pool of research dollars.

Stuart Smyth, associate professor and chair of Agri-Food Innovation and Sustainability Enhancement at the University of Saskatchewan, is a long-time advocate of gene editing and other biotechnologies in agriculture.

For Smyth, the decisions made by Health Canada and AAFC bring a number of benefits, including support of Canadian farmers’ competitiveness compared to other countries that had previously adopted a similar regulatory classification – specifically Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and the United States. It also reduces the time it takes to develop new crop varieties from a decade or more to as little as three years.

With such potential in mind, Smyth expresses frustration over a steady decline in how much researchers have been able to squeeze from every government dollar.

“The biggest challenge is there is less funding year over year. There has been no real increase over the last couple decades, as budgets are held constant while inflation happens. There’s less to go around,” he says.

“It doesn’t matter who is applying … that ratchets up the competition. Either fewer projects get selected or the same number of projects get funded and projects need to scale back.”

Smyth’s overarching concern is, as the value of current research investment diminishes, Canadian farmers and businesses will face an increasing disadvantage internationally.

He considers commodity groups and other stakeholders within the agriculture sector to be in a better position when it comes to supporting crop breeders. Continued efforts to make the public aware of and interested in gene editing technologies, and how it could benefit them, would provide more incentive and opportunity for all stakeholders to invest in gene editing projects.

“The days of expecting the federal government to fund everything are gone. We need public-private and producer partnerships,” says Smyth.

“Everybody is at the table, but I think the federal government needs to signal that movement. If the feds are not providing any new grant opportunities, there’s less incentive there for others to make commitments.”

Challenging policies

Funding shortfalls aside, Smyth says some crop breeders are also hesitant to adopt gene editing for practical reasons, such as the costs and complexities incurred from retrofitting old labs. Not every breeder wants to deal with that, particularly those who might be closer to retirement.

Those working on crops destined for markets where gene editing is regulated differently than in Canada is another concern.

Indeed, it’s one Istvan Rajcan, professor of soybean breeding and genetics at the University of Guelph, knows well. He focuses entirely on food grade soybeans in his research program, and soybeans are commonly exported to markets in Europe, Japan, China and elsewhere. The classification of gene edited crops as genetically modified organisms in those markets is a persistent barrier.

“It boils down to where the markets are for the crops each individual plant breeder develops. That’s the main reason for me not using gene editing. It’s simply a practical decision,” says Rajcan, adding he does appreciate and see value in the technology.

“It just wouldn’t make sense. What’s the point of me developing a cultivar that Ontario farmers can grow, but has an issue exporting? I’ve never applied for funding for gene editing for this reason.”

Rajcan says he would consider projects involving gene editing if the regulatory environments in main export countries were to change. In Europe, at least, they might. How gene edited crops are classified is again being debated in the political block, after the European Commission submitted a proposal this summer to align legislation with new developments in biotechnology. The proposal reads as follows:

“New Genomic Techniques (NGT) are innovative tools that help increase the sustainability and resilience of our food system. They allow developing improved plant varieties that are climate resilient, pest resistant, that require less fertilisers and pesticides and can ensure higher yields, helping to cut the use and risk of chemical pesticides in half, and reducing the EU’s dependency on agricultural imports.

“In most cases, these new techniques lead to more targeted, precise, and faster changes than conventional techniques, while growing a crop that is the same as what could have been achieved with classic techniques like seed selection and crossbreeding.

“Our proposal will establish two categories of plants obtained by NGTs: NGT plants comparable to naturally occurring or conventional plants, and NGT plants with more complex modifications;

both categories will be subject to different requirements to reach the market, taking into account their different characteristics and risk profiles. The plants from the first category will need to be notified. The plants from the second category will go through the more extensive process of the GMO directive.”

Both Rajcan and Smyth find such developments encouraging. But for the time being, any gene edited crops and potential royalties from gene edited varieties will be limited to markets in Canada, the United States and other countries with similar gene editing regulations.

“I’m always a bit more of an optimist. Over the next few years we may see more gene editing being used as the European Union opens up to these technologies,” says Smyth.

“That might give some leverage for gene editing research in Canada.”

– Matt McIntosh is a contributor to Glacier FarmMedia.

The post Where are public sector gene editing projects? appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

While food retailers are viewed unfavourably, according to the latest consumer trust survey results from the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity, farmers remain one of the most trusted demographics in the food system.

That trust is at risk.

Canadians are increasingly concerned about lack of transparency at all levels. Combined with an increasingly volatile world, the perception of opaque food systems could eventually have negative repercussions for farmers.

Most of the current concern Canadians have about food involves its cost. Out of more than 20 “life issues” provided in the CCFI survey, cost of food has reached an all-time high.

That concern is echoed in current discourse around inflation and food affordability.

Inflation has slowed in recent months. Statistics Canada put September grocery prices at 5.8 per cent higher, year over year, compared to the start of the year, when monthly grocery inflation topped 10 per cent.

However, the cumulative impact has been significant. Canada’s Food Price Report, an annual joint report from Dalhousie University, the University of Guelph, University of Saskatchewan and University of British Columbia, put last year’s food inflation at 10.3 per cent as of September 2022.

Earlier this year, a report from Food Banks Canada cited over 1.9 million visits to Canadian food banks during March. That report, titled “HungerCount 2023,” noted those numbers were a 32 per cent increase over March 2022 and 78.5 per cent higher than in 2019. Food Banks Canada said they were, “the highest year-over-year increase in usage ever reported.”

Financial strain in other areas, such as housing, interest rates and general inflation, has made the issue of food cost more acute.

Pointing fingers

When the CCFI asked respondents why they thought the cost of food has increased, farmers were not mentioned. Supply chain issues were the top perceived cause, which is generally in line with previous CCFI surveys, although this year’s results suggest that is being displaced by concerns over food company profiteering.

“As of this summer we saw trust is steady for farmers, but that affordability piece is really a risk,” said Ashley Bruner, CCFI interim chief executive officer and research manager.

“People don’t seem to understand the impact of severe weather events, labour issues, global conflict. There are some pieces where we’re not communicating or getting the story out well. Farmers would be a really good mouthpiece.”

Fewer people are blaming system-wide issues, Bruner said. Instead, the CCFI notes “an increase in pinpointing profit-driven actions.”

Bruner also said perceptions of transparency have dropped across the board. She called the trend a “canary in the coal mine” for any trusted food system stakeholder.

“One surprising thing we’ve seen the last couple years is the environment piece is off people’s radar as cost of food goes up. There’s a general feeling there is no public incentive or will to tackle climate change. That’s one big back burner issue.”

It’s also an issue where farmers are on the cutting edge, she noted.

“It’s very much on our shoulders … We need to keep trying to bring food prices down by being more efficient and sustainable.”

The reality of retail

Some primary producers have taken action in the face of grocery prices, notably a delayed 1.77 per cent per litre farmgate milk price increase from the Canadian Dairy Commission. This increase will occur in May 2024 rather than February as originally announced, in response to a Dairy Farmers of Canada recommendation to acknowledge food price inflation.

Retailers have also been under significant pressure to reduce prices.

They are dealing with the public relations aftermath of bread price fixing, a scandal that reappeared in June with the announcement of a $50-million fine levied against Canada Bread.

Other issues, such as a federal push for a grocery code of conduct and major grocers called to Ottawa to explain high food prices, kept retailers in the public eye.

John F. T. Scott, a veteran economist specializing in food distribution and former head of Canada’s largest retail grocery association, said the “number of scoundrels” who try to take advantage of Canadian consumers is small.

The reality is that Canadian grocers face fierce competition to offer the best quality and safest food for the lowest price, he said. Each company is competing to acquire product for less cost. From labour issues to fuel costs, many factors contribute to higher prices, which are passed on to the consumer.

Looking ahead, this trend will be hard to buck beyond a handful of seasonal items. Some retailers are “going hard on value discount,” which indicates the industry knows long-term management strategies are needed, said Scott.

The simple answer to rebuild trust in a complex system is “for retailers to provide consistency and value,” he added. “If you’re consistent in values, you’re ultimately known and trusted for that.”

Politics

Scott said political opportunism has played into the schism between retailer and consumer. He believes the federal government’s demand earlier this fall that retailers stand before a committee and reveal their merchandising plans was a ludicrous and unnecessary action based partly on a lack of understanding about the industry.

Other people in the agriculture sector are more critical.

Stewart Wells, a Saskatchewan farmer and vice-president of operations for the National Farmers Union, says his organization has long been fighting for greater transparency on where food dollars go and on long-term trends in farm gate returns.

A research brief published by the NFU earlier this year argues three main points:

The gap between farmgate and retail prices has steadily widened in recent decades. Thus, while the current period of food price inflation is particularly stark, the underlying problem is a chronic trend that started long before the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine and other recent supply chain disruptions.

Supply management is not the cause of food price inflation. Price increases are occurring in both Canada and the United States for both supply-managed and non-supply-managed goods. In fact, supply management is functioning as designed to avoid drastic changes in food prices.

The real causes of food price increases are retailers and processors taking ever-larger portions of Canadians’ food dollars. The NFU says that trend is made worse by increasing corporate concentration, where a handful of large companies exert their power over markets.

“Proportionally, over time, the price to consumers is continually going up and the share of the food dollar going back to farmers has been continually going down. It’s a long-term trend,” Wells said.

Regarding public perceptions of farmers specifically, he doesn’t believe there has been a palpable change or increase in frustration or mistrust, “but there certainly is a lot more interest in where the food dollar is going. How is it shared throughout the system?

“We are completely in favour of that. We are in favour of transparency. I’m not sure the average consumer would know the NFU has been advocating for this transparency for decades.”

What is trust, really?

From a more macro level, Scott says food inflation sits well below the general rate of inflation, although this fact can get lost in the political uproar.

Mike von Massow, associate professor in the department of food, agricultural and resource economics at the University of Guelph, agrees. He cited reduction in some food costs, although he admitted Canada’s current affordability issues are hard to ignore.

“Even if we get inflation down to zero, which we are unlikely to do, everything is much more expensive than it used to be,” he said.

“That struggle many people are having will continue. It just won’t necessarily continue to get worse. I think that’s an important distinction.”

He expects to see more disruption and many more peaks and valleys over both long-term food cost and general inflation than what would previously have been considered normal.

“We don’t have a diversified supply chain,” he said.

“That affects resilience. For example, if 90 per cent of lettuce in October and November comes from California and the West Coast, if there’s a virus outbreak – which we are anticipating this year – prices will go through the roof as people compete for what’s left and don’t have another supply.”

A more volatile supply environment could have significant impacts on primary producers when combined with general lack of understanding about how food is produced and how it reaches store shelves.

Where knowledge is lacking, Canadians will fill the gaps with what they do know – that land values are very high, for example, and that farmers complaining about low commodity prices are simultaneously sitting on a lot of potential cash.

Pleading poverty when food prices are already high, or not being upfront about practices that some might find hard to stomach, could induce a sense of betrayal, says von Massow.

Should that happen, the lofty position farmers currently occupy in the minds of Canadians will quickly crumble.

“Where we have risk is consumers feel pretty good about what farmers (are) doing, but have no real idea what you’re doing. To me, we need to get into a conversation with consumers to say, ‘here’s what we’re doing and why,’ and be willing to change it if they’re uncomfortable with that,” he said.

There are challenges. Von Massow used the example of a particularly effective and humane industry-standard method of euthanizing piglets. Anyone getting on a stage in downtown Toronto to champion that cause would be faced with a tough audience, even if it’s the best way of going about the task, he said.

Thinking everyone in such an environment would be OK with such practices, even if they are humane and effective, is “dreaming in technicolour.”

Wells also thinks some commo industry practices could eventually come back to bite primary producers if left unaddressed.

“My experience in farm country, in small communities, is there is growing angst about the number of large operations … Where is this money coming from? This money is not coming from the productive value of the land,” he said.

He criticized lenders and successive governments for maintaining insurance and other farm sector policies which, from his perspective, disproportionally benefit large landholding businesses.

“I am very unhappy about taxpayer dollars going to programs which increase consolidation and hollow out the small communities.”

– This article was originally published at Farmtario.

The post Is the foundation cracking on public trust? appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Now living in Calgary, she develops media, news content and marketing strategies for a range of clients in both primary agriculture and the food and beverage industry, such as FCL and Canada’s Outstanding Young Farmers program.

Putintseva came to the agriculture sector after working in a variety of other fields, including hospitality and education technologies. While she enjoys the field, there were initial challenges.

“My background in Ukraine was very general. Understanding agriculture equipment was a big barrier for me. Attending events this year (has) really helped,” she says, noting the International Federation of Agriculture Journalists conference, and Ag In Motion, are two particularly interesting events.

“Agriculture is an industry I like to say has soul, because data and information actually serves a purpose. It’s very direct. It’s feeding the population… Agriculture is an incredible sector, and it’s also a necessity. It’s our job to show it in the best light as marketers.”

Putintseva has friends and family in Ukraine and misses her native Kharkiv, a northeastern city that continues to be targeted by Russian artillery and missiles. She, her husband, and now five-year-old daughter have not seen home since Feb. 29, 2022.

Their journey to Canada started with a 40-hour train ride to western Ukraine, then a car ride to the Polish border.

“We didn’t have any food. All the stores were closed because of the full-scale invasion. We found a private guy to drive us and crossed the border by foot, which was another 12 hours. Then we met a volunteer driver who took us to Krakow.

“We paid for everything because we didn’t want to take away from those who needed the free [transportation] programs,” she says.

From there the family flew to Jordan, her husband’s home country, and then to Canada after securing visas offered by the federal government for Ukrainian refugees.

Putintseva has lost several friends and family to the war, including her childhood best friend who was killed during the battle Bakhmut, an eastern Ukrainian city once famous for sparkling wine and now infamous for intense fighting, death and destruction.

She’s lost others, too, albeit in a different way.

“Kharkiv is right on the border. It’s not uncommon for people there to have Russian DNA. I have family living in Russia too, but no longer have contact with them… The war revealed to us why it was time to really draw that border.”

It has been heartening for Putintseva to see so much support for Ukrainians in Canada.

However, it’s not uncommon for her to hear people question why Canada is spending money and resources on Ukraine when domestic problems remain unsolved.

She hopes more people will realize that what happens in Ukraine, and other parts of the world, does affect Canadians’ lives.

“Sometimes we don’t see further than our nose. The food inflation we see in Canada right now is a big part of the war,” she says.

Like so many Ukrainians living abroad, Putintseva tries to support her home country by raising awareness about the war and donating money to grassroots organizations that support civilians and soldiers on the frontline. She encourages others to do their homework, find legitimate and effective organizations, and do the same.

“It’s incredible how Ukrainians donate… We collectively as a nation bought four Bayraktar [combat drones] in 48 hours. We can unite like crazy when we know we have to.”

– This article was originally published at Farmtario.

The post From Ukraine to Calgary appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

With long-term planning, the pressures affecting agricultural productivity and farmland loss in Canada can be navigated, bringing greater prosperity and environmental improvement at home, as well as food security for other countries, the report says

Protecting farmland and natural landscapes, and thus Canada’s ability to produce food in an unstable world, requires cooperation and long-term thinking.

The problem? Long-term thinking in Canada is lacking. Planning experts and the report’s authors say a reversal of many development and environmental policies is required to avoid catastrophe.

The CAPI report identifies a myriad of competing pressures that threaten sustainable land use in Canada and abroad.

Margaret Zafiriou, research associate with the organization and one of the report authors, says each pressure is occurring in a global environment where food insecurity, geopolitical turmoil, climate change and other factors have replaced abundance with scarcity.

As a major producer and net exporter of high-quality, sustainable agriculture and agri-food products, Canada will face pressures to produce more to meet the demands of countries experiencing population growth, urbanization and increased food demand.

As the report details, commodity shortages and price spikes due to food scarcity will affect prices, costs, farm income and land values, putting pressure on land conversion. Biofuel mandates and current agriculture support measures are also exerting pressure on prices and land use, and need to be reassessed to preserve land and food security for future generations.

Policies that promote land zoning and protection of sensitive ecosystems must become an important part of the toolbox, say the report authors, who drew from international examples in Europe, the United States, and traditional Indigenous knowledge.

Climate change and extreme weather events are affecting productivity growth as well. Investments in research and development, infrastructure, better data and knowledge and technology transfer are key to future sustainable productivity growth, which can help achieve food security while minimizing environmental impacts and protecting land use.

Of the many conclusions within the report, a critical recommendation is that Canada should focus on intensification rather than extensification – producing more on less land while trying to save or revitalize natural spaces, as opposed to allowing more land to be converted to farmland.

This is in contrast to what is happening in many parts of the world. Examples include ongoing deforestation in Africa and in some European Union countries where environment and food policies discourage localized intensification.

“It’s the long-term issues that we can’t get on people’s radar because they’re so preoccupied with short term things,” says Zafiriou, citing one reason she and her colleagues decided to compile the 27-page research document.

“If we’re not careful and we don’t take measures now, we’re going to lose out. At some point we have to protect our capacity to produce.”

Short-term thinking

While the report reiterates that Canadians and policymakers must think long-term to ensure farmland and ecologically sensitive areas are protected, the opposite is occurring, particularly in Ontario.

The report argues that it is difficult to return agricultural lands to nature once they have been plowed, but nearly impossible to return urban concrete jungles to agricultural land once they are paved.

Without accompanying improvements in yields and land intensification, it says, the world “will become a more crowded and hungrier place.”

Similarly, it points to how a rising population will exacerbate ecological challenges. Canada’s population is expected to be 45 million to 74 million by 2068, which will put more pressure on land. Thus, more thought must be given to prevention of urban sprawl and land use conversion and protect valuable agricultural land for Canada’s future food production capacity.

Wayne Caldwell, recently retired professor of development and rural planning at the University of Guelph, agrees the CAPI report highlights how far afield current development policies have gone.

“There are different perspectives about the role and importance of agriculture. The report values agriculture in the way I do, in that it has the potential to help us face challenges in the decades ahead,” said Caldwell.

“I think the idea we can produce our way out of it, and don’t worry about farmland, is misguided and short sighted.

“What we have in this province is second to none. You see it just by looking at farm productivity and gross farm sales per acre. It really is something special and it needs to be protected and respected,” he said.

“There is changing productivity across the planet, but we live in an area where we might be fortunate enough to see increases in productivity whereas [other areas] it’s a decrease in productivity. We have a moral responsibility. It speaks to me of the importance of reminding people what we have and not taking it for granted. Once it’s gone, it will never come back.”

A version of this article first appeared in Farmtario.

The post Pressure increases on farmland appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Instead of cash, the attackers demanded the hog business owners publicly admit to what they alleged to be livestock mistreatment.

The occurrence was unique and alarming, says Ali Dehghantanha, Canada research chair in cybersecurity and threat intelligence at the University of Guelph’s Cyber Science Lab.

The lab offers a for-fee support service for those managing cyberattacks and cybersecurity.

NEW AUDIO SERIES: Cyber-Savvy Farmer

While the number of cybersecurity incidents across Ontario’s agriculture industry has been rapidly increasing overall, he says the cashless ransomware attack against the family hog business — an incident he and his colleagues helped the family resolve — highlights what could become a wider trend in the tactics used by special interest actors.

Why it matters: Ransomware and other criminal cyber activities usually come with demands for payment. Malicious actors focused on disrupting food production rather than money pose another, potentially harder-to-solve threat.

According to Dehghantanha, the attack perpetrators claimed to have a variety of incriminating evidence showing animal abuse on the farm. This included camera footage taken from what the perpetrators claimed was a now-compromised farm surveillance system. The attacker’s prerequisite for releasing their hold on the farm’s network was a public statement, from the business owners, admitting to animal abuse.

In Dehghantanha’s view, this would have been financially devastating for the business.

In reality, no such footage existed. Indeed, claims of comprised cameras were false. Barring the demand for self-incrimination, the attack proved to be a standard, easily manageable ransomware attack.

“This was the first time working in this specific industry we have seen ransomware not asking for money. That would make our job much more difficult as we are dealing with adversaries whose motivation is not money,” Dehghantanha says, adding the transfer of cash is often the riskiest part for those committing ransomware attacks, because the movement of funds can be tracked.

“Prior to this we were not concerned with these small family food businesses…There was not a playbook for these kinds of situations.”

More accessible ransomware

Dehghantanha says his lab has been engaged with 20 cybersecurity issues reported from southern Ontario in the first half of 2023 alone — up from a mere handful in the entirety of 2019. Awareness of cyber risk has likely played a role in higher reporting, but it’s also getting easier for bad actors to acquire harmful attack tools like ransomware.

Simultaneously, the agriculture and food sector are underprepared for such threats. Dehghantanha considers agriculture and food to lag other sectors, notably energy and health, by approximately five years. Remedying the problem would begin by establishing a committee or another body of industry representatives, technology experts, and others to design cybersecurity standards “rooted in the reality of the industry.”

“We must identify steps for farmers and businesses that can be gradually achieved to get to the same level. This has happened in energy and health sector so there’s no reason it can’t happen in agriculture sector,” says Dehghantanha.

“We need to identify a body responsible for receiving these standard reports from farmers trying to evaluate them and give feedback and work with them…If a farmer knows they are level two, level three, or whatever level they are, it would make it much easier for them to understand and improve.”

Awareness and practice

Stakeholders in the agriculture sector, such as Ontario Pork, say they are raising awareness about the ever-growing need for better cybersecurity.

In an email statement received July 12, Ken Ovington, general manager for Ontario Pork, says the commodity group “routinely meets with cybersecurity experts and researchers to gather knowledge that can be used to create awareness and provide informational tools that are valuable to pork producers and the provincial pork industry.

“These types of cyberattacks are undeniably on the rise. As technology usage increases, so does the methods and sophistication of cyber criminals so it’s crucial that producers, agricultural organizations and government continue to prioritize cybersecurity measures, stay vigilant, and collaborate to prevent future cyberattacks,” says Ovington.

Strategies used to prevent issues within the organization itself were listed as well, including cybersecurity training for employees. No comment on specific incidents, such as the ransomware attack on the family hog operation, was provided.

Dehghantanha himself encourages greater proactivity. While establishing standards would help the agriculture sector improve overall security – and, potentially, bring spinoff benefits like lower insurance rates for higher cybersecurity scores – he stresses individuals and organizations need to pay attention to the threat posed by cyber criminals focused on industry disruption over money.

“We don’t need to wait for a standard to work on awareness. If you have livestock, you could be on a target list.”

— Matt McIntosh is a southwestern Ontario freelance writer. This article previously appeared at Farmtario.com.

The post Activists target Ontario hog farm with ransomware appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.