The assessment by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, three years in the making and signed off by more than 150 governments, is expected to guide policymaking across multiple sectors.

WHY IT MATTERS: Construction, food, pharmaceuticals and infrastructure are among the sectors most exposed to biodiversity loss, research firm Zero Carbon Analytics said, though most companies face risks through their supply chains.

Written by 79 experts worldwide, the report pointed to “inadequate or perverse” incentives, weak institutional support and enforcement, and “significant” data gaps as key obstacles to progress.

It builds on a 2024 pledge by countries to protect 30 per cent of land and sea by 2030, followed last year by a plan to spend US$200 billion on the effort – still far short of the finance flowing into activities that damage nature.

‘Blind spot’

Despite the need for “transformative change,” US$7.3 trillion in public and private funds was going to nature-harming activities, the authors said, citing 2023 data.

“This Report draws on thousands of sources, bringing together years of research and practice into a single integrated framework that shows both the risks of nature loss to business, and the opportunities for business to help reverse this,” said Matt Jones (UK), one of three co-chairs of the assessment.

“Businesses and other key actors can either lead the way towards a more sustainable global economy or ultimately risk extinction … both of species in nature, but potentially also their own.”

The report said companies can act now by setting ambitious targets and embedding them in corporate strategy; strengthening auditing, monitoring and performance assessments; and innovating in products, processes and services.

Fewer than one per cent of public companies disclose biodiversity impacts, it added.

Construction, food, pharmaceuticals and infrastructure are among the sectors most exposed to biodiversity loss, research firm Zero Carbon Analytics said, though most companies face risks through their supply chains.

Paul Polman, the former boss of consumer goods company Unilever, said business strategy was about managing risk and building resilience, yet nature “has barely featured in that equation”.

“The IPBES assessment shows that this blind spot is now becoming one of the defining economic risks of our time.”

The post Biodiversity loss a risk to global economy, IPBES report says appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

It’s coming in the form of new “key biodiversity area” designations, denoting they’re home to species at risk in this rapidly vanishing landscape.

Key biodiversity area designations are part of an international effort to identify and contribute to protecting these natural resources. In Canada, participants include federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments and wildlife groups such as Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, Birds Canada and the Alberta Wilderness Association.

Although KBAs are relatively new and don’t infer any legal protection, they have helped focus support and funding in ways that can benefit both farmers and wildlife. Some foundations in Canada are prioritizing environmental grants to action within KBAs.

“Canada’s prairies are highly endangered and under intense pressure from agricultural, industrial and urban development,” said Ruiping Luo, a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association.

“They are also one of the least protected ecosystems in the country.”

Luo said the new biodiversity areas recognize some of the most extensive and unique remaining prairie ecosystems and help identify areas of focus for conservation and protection.

Species that benefit from these habitats include the threatened swift fox (approximate 647 remaining individuals), and the Weidemeyer’s admiral butterfly, which inhabits just 13 locations across Canada, as well as extensive habitat for grassland birds.

The new KBAs include:

• Onefour-Lost River-Sage Creek

• Prairie Pastures

• Writing-on-Stone

• Cypress Hills

• Pakowki Lake and Sandhill

• Milk River-Pinhorn

Luo said success depends on co-operation from landowners and leaseholders, and there can be a variety of responses from these stakeholders, ranging from enthusiastic endorsement to outright suspicion.

However, he said that when conservation efforts are carefully designed, they can both enhance natural habitat and bolster the bottom line of agrcultural operators.

”We have had strong allies from ranchers and producers who care about the land and want to protect the ecosystem and biodiversity,” said Luo.

Luo noted rotational grazing can increase carrying capacity for ranchers and improve pastures, while also creating variation in grass height that helps wildlife thrive.

On cropland, there have been efforts to restore unproductive portions of fields to natural habitat, creating patches that benefit native wildlife while also improving nearby soils and improving the farmer’s profitability by removing input use in places where it will never create a return on investment.

On native prairie ecosystems, efforts help with water retention, which mitigates flood and drought conditions, and also provide nutrient cycling and filtering of some toxins from water and air. They also create important habitat for pollinators and insects beneficial to crops.

There’s little doubt human activity can have a dramatic effect on wildlife populations. Passenger pigeons, at their peak, were estimated to number between three and five billion, covering a range extending from the southern Prairies to Nova Scotia and south to Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. After just a century of human contact, the last known living specimen died in 1914 at the Cincinnati Zoo.

Similar trends, albeit on a smaller scale, are emerging in prairie habitats, where grassland bird populations have dropped by 67 per cent since 1970.

The greater sage grouse is one example. It’s Canada’s most endangered bird, with only about 200 in Canada, which represents a 98 per cent decline in its population in the past 44 years.

“If we don’t act, these species could vanish from the landscape within a generation,” said Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne, a director for KBA Canada.

“Species decline can be extremely fast when habitat is lost.”

Biodiversity disruption doesn’t just hurt individual species; it can harm entire ecosystems. Pollinators can be lost, water infiltration lowered, soil health harmed and other cascading effects.

When biodiversity is disrupted, the effects cascade past individual species and into whole ecosystems.

Canada is among the countries with the highest proportion of intact ecosystems, which are mostly in Canada’s northern region. However, they are rapidly losing ground, especially in places such as the grasslands.

Producers who are interested in exploring habitat improvement can access funding and support through programs such as MultiSAR and Cows and Fish.

The post New biodiversity areas identified for western grasslands appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The data comes courtesy of a new tool in the organization’s conservation toolbox. The Prairie Biodiversity Mapping and Assessment computer program features an interactive map that displays biodiversity by area, along with a module that predicts how changes to those biodiversity levels would affect the landscape.

“By protecting a small amount of natural habitat, you have a big benefit that you can give to local species diversity,” said James Paterson, lead author of the research project.

Researchers studying the role of biodiversity in cropping systems have flagged agronomic benefits such as natural pest control and a greater variety of pollinators.

Users can input location, climate and land cover information to model the biodiversity situation. They can run scenarios, including probable results of conservation or restoration programs on specific sites, and get recommendations for improvements.

Information could include expected biodiversity gains and other benefits, given a particular shift in practices, and indicate which wildlife species would be most likely to benefit, Paterson said.

“We used both public and and private data sets of species observations, 1.2 million observations, and combined that with information on the habitat and climate of different places in the Prairies. And we built species distribution models that predict where each species occur …

“When we stack those together, each of those species models, we get a prediction of biodiversity across this big space and we can start to ask questions about how can we predict where (a) species occurs, what are the biggest threats and opportunities for biodiversity conservation.”

Ducks Unlimited Canada hopes to have the tool publicly accessible in less than a year.

Natural partnership

“Biodiversity is basically the basis of all (of) what we call ecosystem services, which are just the benefits that society receives from natural systems,” Paterson said.

Those benefits include flood mitigation, resilience against climate change and improvements to water quality.

“I think of it more like a tapestry or a wall,” Paterson said. “And so, as you take bricks out and you’re losing species, the integrity of that wall decreases and the function decreases. But the more complete that wall is, the better it can serve its function.

“And so, the loss of any individual species might not have a large effect on ecosystem services, but supporting many species we know is beneficial for the overall picture.”

It also “gives numbers to credit farmers with work they’re already doing,” he added, noting many producers have naturalized areas on their land but may not know the benefits that those areas provide.

Paterson said the numbers support the value of the often contentious conservation easement mechanism. The tool’s numbers show that land under an easement agreement has 39 per cent more species than unprotected sites nearby.

“This was really exciting because it’s showing that a conservation program that Ducks Unlimited Canada is delivering has really tangible benefits, not just for ducks, but for many other species that live in that region.”

While beneficial for wildlife, conservation easements are not as popular with farmers. Producers often argue that conservation easement payments fall far short of the opportunity costs they incur by not farming that land more intensively.

The post Biodiversity tool maps ecosystem services appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The southern Alberta farm is in its fourth generation, operated by brothers Ryland and Lyndon Nakamura. As they head into the growing season, they’re looking forward to another year of growing spuds and digging a bountiful harvest that will become potato chips and french fries.

Quality spuds recently earned them the North American Grower of the Year award from the processor, only the second time it’s been awarded to a Canadian operation and the first for a western Canadian farm. The husband and wife duo Gabriel Blouin and Marie-Josée Lepage of L’Île-d’Orléans of Quebec won in 2022.

The award recognizes potato quality and also the practices used to grow them. When the Nakamuras travelled to this year’s Frito Lay Potato Expo in Austin, Texas, they intended to meet other farmers and enjoy a few days of professional development. They ended up leaving with heavier suitcases.

As awards were handed out during the banquet evening, they sat at their table enjoying a beer. That’s when the emcee began to speak about the Grower of the Year. As a description of the farm was read, it became evident that Nakamura Farms was the subject.

“It was a pleasant surprise,” says Lyndon, adding it’s not an award solely for the brothers. The farm employs 45 people at high season who are critical to the farm’s success.

“It takes everybody, not just Ryland and myself, to plan, prepare and organize. It also comes down to the hands on deck and the boots on the ground that put it all into action. Everybody’s got a role to play at the end of the day. They play a part to make it all successful.”

The Nakamuras sell to five major processors in southern Alberta, including Frito-Lay. Their records must be precise and include everything from dates and times of field passes, crop protection applications, products and rates, even the number of times a field was scouted and what was found. It’s all logged for quality control purposes.

With huge commitments from potato and fry producers, such as regeneratively grown potatoes and sustainable metrics to market to consumers, the brothers know their farming practices are under a microscope. It doesn’t bother them one bit.

“We’ve been doing it for a long time,” says Lyndon of regenerative practices. “We’ve always cover cropped because we don’t want to lose topsoil.”

They lay down a multi-species blend of cover crops each year and focus heavily on fertility, reducing overall tillage, making space for wildlife habitats and doing what they can to improve biodiversity. They share field records with their processors, which also have high standards they must adhere to, in order to receive certain certifications.

They haul potatoes every two to three weeks year-round.

“You could just haul grain once in a while, but when you’re a potato farmer, you get to supply those plants year-round,” says Ryland. “There are spuds coming out of storage and then sometimes you’re digging fresh for a different plant at the same time.”

Having grown for Frito Lay for many years, the brothers value the relationship with the nearby processor and plan to continue doing business with them and the others indefinitely.

“There’s a lot of pride growing for Frito just based on their branding and their connection back to the farms,” says Lyndon. “There’s pride growing for all of them, but especially Frito Lay.”

He says the company keeps farmers in the loop about its production process, upcoming varieties and what next year will bring for demand and production needs.

The brothers’ biggest challenge this year will be Mother Nature. The last few years have been very dry. A mild winter and minimal snowpack have many in the region asking questions about water availability.

Their current water allocation is eight inches, half of what they’d typically require to produce quality potatoes. If they receive little or no rain, like they did in 2023, they’ll have to make tough decisions.

The priority is always potatoes. Those spuds are already under contract, unlike their other crops.

“We’re going to put grain on a lot of our pivots and then if it’s not looking that good, partway through the year we’ll just stop watering the grain and transfer all the water to potatoes,” says Ryland. “That’s the only backup plan we have as of yet. We’ll keep our head down and keep grinding and hopefully have enough water.”

With so much effort put into producing the vegetable at Nakamura Farms, the brothers have no desire to shift gears.

“We invested a pile [of money] and all our investment is in there,” says Ryland. “To start up potato farming is pretty hard. We’re just lucky to have inherited the farm which already had investments in the buildings and storage. You kind of have to stick with potatoes and it’s for the best. It’s a lot more work, but it’s worth it in the end.”

The brothers continue to seek land to purchase or rent to expand their potato acres.

The post Nakamura brothers win major potato award appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“We hear about people advocating for the need to eliminate livestock from agriculture production, basically without really understanding the negative connotations that would have,” the researcher said during a recent webinar.

“We really need to be thinking about how we’re going to integrate livestock [and] cropping systems together.”

McAllister is a principal research scientist at AAFC’s Lethbridge Research and Development Centre in Lethbridge. He has given scientific talks around the world on the sustainability of ruminant production systems and is developing guidelines for a quantitative biodiversity assessment of the livestock sector.

“Pretty well the entire grassland ecosystem of North America was occupied by between 30 and 60 million bison that were on the land,” he said. “And, of course, those were extirpated in a relatively short period of time, less than 20 years.”

The resulting lack of manure production removed a vital food source for arthropods (bugs like dung beetles), which in turn reduced food supply for birds and other predators up the food chain.

“It really had a devastating impact on the grassland ecosystem,” McAllister said.

Development of agriculture in North America then saw much of that natural grassland converted to farms and cultivated fields.

Those grasslands were a “huge store of carbon,” McAllister said.

He believes grazing cattle have a major role to play in sustaining the grasslands that remain, and those landscapes, in turn, are critical to meeting Canada’s climate change targets.

“Grazing cattle have many characteristics and behaviours in common with American bison,” he said. “They’re not absolutely identical, but identical enough that cattle can support a similar ecosystem.”

Good for one, good for the other

Biodiversity and the carbon cycle are intertwined, McAllister said, and greater biodiversity creates a more efficient carbon cycle. The type of grazing system impacts both. He pointed to a study done in Stavely, in the Porcupine Hills, to illustrate his point.

The study observed different levels of grazing over 60 years. Researchers monitored light and heavy continuous grazing, not rotational grazing. Despite that, McAllister noted, results showed how different management styles had different effects on soil carbon and emissions.

“With light continuous grazing, they end up with more emissions because the cattle are eating lower-quality forage than they would be with the heavy grazing condition,” said McAllister. “But when you look at the amount of soil carbon sequestration, it was higher with the light continuous grazing relative to the heavy continuous grazing.”

That same study showed that heavy grazing can have a negative effect on biodiversity, but McAllister linked that to lack of consideration for rotational management.

“It’s less clear what impact it would have if you had heavy grazing and then allowed the area to sit dormant or not be grazed in the following year, mimicking what the bison would have done, where they would heavily graze areas, move through, and maybe not return to that area for two or three years.”

If that aspect were studied, he would expect a more positive picture on the relationship between cattle and biodiversity.

By his measure, cattle are critically important to biodiverse grasslands. Cattle impact depends on what they eat and what comes out the back end, as well as how they trample what they don’t eat. All of this depends on management.

“At an optimal density, you have disturbance and trampling of nutrients, which alters the ecosystem as well as contributing to diverse plant communities both above ground and below ground through those root systems,” McAllister said.

“If they consume seeds, they’ll spread those seeds as well across the landscape at the same time, all helping to increase soil organic matter, which will increase that water holding capacity, fertility, and the ability to produce food from these lands.”

Manure “still plays a really important role in terms of nutrient cycling,” he added. “Taking cattle out of a grazing ecosystem will result in a reduction in biodiversity.”

Location, location, location

Continuous heavy grazing is not a recommended land management strategy, McAllister said in an interview with Glacier FarmMedia, but rotational grazing can encourage healthy biodiversity while replenishing carbon in the soil. It also delivers economic benefits through increased forage production, resilience and livestock-carrying capacity.

Rotational grazing strategies can differ depending on location.

“The key thing, if you’re going to use a rotational grazing system, is that you have to adapt it to consider the geological or geographical location you’re in,” McAllister said.

“In southern Alberta, on the southern grasslands, you might get rain in May and June, and it might not rain for the rest of the season. After you move the cattle off, there’s no sense in putting them back onto that paddock, because nothing is going to have grown.

That means rotational grazing is easier to implement in areas of higher rainfall, such as the eastern Prairies.

But it’s not impossible, according to one Manitoba farmer. Manitoba Forage and Grasslands Association board member Amber McNish also noted in recent years she hasn’t been able to rely on typical rain.

“We’ve come off some pretty dry years and drought-like conditions. So maybe that rest period is looking more like a whole season, 90 days, or you’re not going back until the next spring, when we’re getting more rainfall,” said McNish, who incorporates rotational grazing on her family’s 120-head operation in Lyleton, Man.

That compares to the more typical 60-day rest period that McNish says many rotational grazing operations have targeted in the past.

“You can go in early spring, and then you give it that 60-day rest, and you can still get in there before the snow comes in the winter.”

Making it work

McNish doesn’t discount the need to tweak rest lengths and movement frequency based on herd size and farmer goals.

“If you have a 300-head herd on a very large acreage, you’re not going to be moving them as often,” she noted.

In comparison, the prospect of moving a 20-head herd more often is more practical, and keeps cattle from constantly grazing regrowth.

Cows will opt for young, fresh growth over more mature plants, which starts a cycle in which plants have little time to recover before being chomped again.

If greater biodiversity is the goal, however, then hard, bison-emulating grazing might be a goal.

“You can graze right to the ground, essentially,” said McNish. “Then you give it that 90 days, or a full season’s rest, and when you go back the following year, you will have some really great regrowth.”

A more intensive graze also forces cattle to eat things they would normally walk past.

“There could be some quack grass that those cows have chosen never to eat for four years. But when they do that hard, heavy, intensive graze, it gives everything a fresh start to regrow,” McNish said. “So, you’ll see different plants thrive in that scenario because they’ve never been given that opportunity before.”

The holistic approach

In the end, McAllister said, it comes down to adopting a whole-system approach when balancing cattle pros and cons on the landscape. All food production systems come with trade-offs.

“If we have fewer cattle grazing land, we will have less methane, but we might have a reduction in plant biodiversity within grassland ecosystems,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared in the Manitoba Co-operator.

The post Turning back the clock with grazing appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Among several other changes, a planned new package of federal regulatory amendments will put a gradual end to a “pause” imposed in August 2021 on such proposed MRL increases, which are overseen by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

Federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos and Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault announced the planned amendments Tuesday, in what are billed as Canada’s “next steps toward a sustainable approach to pesticides management, while giving farmers the tools they need to keep providing reliable access to safe and nutritious food.”

The term “MRL” refers to the highest legally allowed amount of pesticide residue that may remain on or in food when a pesticide is used according to label directions. Different MRLs are set for different combinations of chemicals and foods, depending on how a pesticide is applied for a given crop.

Ottawa’s 2021 pause had been imposed in response to public concerns specifically regarding a boost to MRLs for glyphosate herbicide, as was proposed in May that year for certain imported commodities.

That proposal, Bibeau said Wednesday in an interview, was meant to have brought Canada’s glyphosate MRLs in line with revisions laid out by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the body which oversees standards for foods traded internationally.

But for some, she said, the concept of MRLs is “really counter-intuitive, so it’s hard to explain to the public. When you say, ‘You know, we might be increasing that,’ the first reaction is that ‘Oh my God, we will increase pesticides on our cereal,’ which is not the case, which is not how it works, but intuitively, it was not well received.”

Bibeau said the government felt at the time that a pause, to better understand the existing process, was necessary, because PMRA was “functioning under a law that is quite old.”

Health Canada said Tuesday it’s “still reviewing the significant feedback from the public” in response to the proposed increase to MRLs for glyphosate, with the last comments received in April 2022.

Bibeau said the re-evaluation process for glyphosate MRLs won’t resume before 2024, while the pause on evaluations for other, “less complex” MRL proposals will be lifted more quickly.

For glyphosate, key studies on the matter are currently underway in the European Union and elsewhere, Bibeau said, and Canada wants to have access to that information before making its decision.

READ MORE: Canadian grain is safe: Chorney

Otherwise, Health Canada said Tuesday, “lifting the pause is important to allow people in Canada to maintain a reliable access to affordable and nutritious food, provide predictability for farmers to access the required tools to fight against new pests, and facilitate trade, which is central to support food security.”

Health Canada emphasized Tuesday that an MRL will only be increased if the department’s scientists determine it’s safe to do so.

Transparency

Ottawa’s proposed new regulatory amendments stem in part from consultations conducted last year during a “targeted review” of the federal Pest Control Products Act (PCPA).

Health Canada said Tuesday it found that “opening up the PCPA wasn’t necessary, as policy and regulatory initiatives are sufficient to achieve the goals” of the department’s agenda for the PMRA.

To that end, Health Canada on Tuesday filed a notice of intent for proposed amendments to the federal Pest Control Products Regulations, opening up a 60-day public comment period.

The amendments, as proposed, would aim to “increase transparency” for MRL applications for imported food products, and to “facilitate access” by the public to confidential test data (CTD) used in such decision-making, such as for research and re-analysis.

Up until the COVID-19 pandemic, Health Canada said, anyone wanting access to CTD would have to travel in person to Ottawa and apply for access to PMRA’s physical “reading room,” in which a person could review CTD under supervision and could only take notes, subject to PMRA also taking photocopies of those notes.

The government has to acknowledge that the public has an increased interest in these sorts of decisions, Bibeau said Wednesday, adding such methods of disclosure were “not really transparent.” Since the pandemic, access to inspect CTD has been granted remotely, using an encrypted USB key.

The amendments proposed Tuesday would further provide access to CTD “in a manner that would allow an individual to conduct their own data analysis” but while “maintaining the appropriate levels of protection against unfair commercial use of the data” as required by international treaties.

New regulations proposed in Health Canada’s notice of intent would also grant a federal health minister the “explicit authority to require submission of available information on cumulative environmental effects” of a pesticide, and require the minister to consider cumulative effects on the environment during risk assessments. They would also authorize the minister to require any available information on species-at-risk to be submitted during pesticide risk assessments.

Bibeau on Tuesday noted the federal government in 2021 put up $50 million for pest management research, both by PMRA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, with support from Environment Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

That funding would go toward “independent” data-gathering on pesticide safety by PMRA, as well as research into alternative pest control products by AAFC, she said.

Cosmetic curb

The moves Ottawa announced Tuesday also stem in part from international commitments reached in Montreal last year during the Conference of Parties (COP15) on biological diversity, as per the participating countries’ adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).

Specifically, Bibeau said Wednesday, Target 7 of the GBF calls for reducing the overall risk from pesticides to biodiversity by at least half by 2030 — and by that, she emphasized, “I want to insist, the risk, not the use” of pesticides.

Target 7 calls for reducing risk by 50 per cent means such as “integrated pest management, based on science, taking into account food security and livelihoods.”

To that end, Ottawa on Tuesday also announced what Bibeau described as a more “concrete” federal move — namely, a new ban on “cosmetic” or otherwise nonessential use of pesticides on federal lands, such as national parks and around federal buildings, except where needed to protect lands against a harmful infestation.

All that said, Bibeau emphasized Wednesday, “there is absolutely no change” directly affecting pesticide use by farmers in any of the new regulatory proposals announced Tuesday.

“Pesticides are part of the toolbox agricultural producers use to protect their crops from pests and contribute to their productivity,” she said in the government’s release Tuesday. “The measures announced by our government today help to ensure responsible access, framed by reliable data, to these essential inputs, while protecting health and the environment.”

It’s given, she said Wednesday, that when it comes to pesticide use, farmers are trained professionals who are concerned for the environment, incorporate integrated pest management practices and limit their crop chem use to what’s agronomically necessary.

Canada, Bibeau said, has always advocated for trade rules based on science and will lead by example.

“If we are asking other countries, our trading partners, to do trade based on science, we will keep making decisions based on science, but we have to provide more transparency to the public, and cut the risk where it’s not essential, like for cosmetic use.”

‘Conflicting messages’

But the organization representing Canada’s crop protection companies says the government’s proposals miss the mark.

CropLife Canada, in a separate statement, hailed Bibeau’s “strong statements in support of the importance of pesticides in food production and the need for these important tools to help bolster food security in Canada and around the world.”

However, CropLife said, the government plans to “only slowly begin to increase MRLs again where required, despite acknowledging that MRLs do not pose a safety concern and that they are critical to international trade and food security.”

The government’s new plan to ban cosmetic use of pesticides on federal lands also “runs in direct contradiction to its own risk-based approach to pesticide regulation,” CropLife said, noting PMRA “thoroughly assesses all pesticides” for safety.

“For Health Canada to deem pesticides safe and then turn around and ban them for so-called cosmetic purposes on their own lands sends conflicting messages to Canadians.”

Canada Grains Council president Erin Gowriluk, in a separate release, also hailed Bibeau’s recognition of the importance of pesticides to food production and security and of “the connection between crop protection and environmental sustainability.”

However, she said, by persisting with the “pause” on certain MRL approvals, “there is an increasing risk of Canada’s trading partners perceiving it as an intrusion of ideology into policymaking, contradicting our message to other countries.”

That, combined with the ban on cosmetic pesticide use on federal lands, has “the potential to undermine the government’s explicit recognition that pesticide uses in Canada undergo rigorous testing and assessment to ensure they are safe and pose no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment,” the council said. –– Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Feds lift ‘pause’ on increases in crop chemical MRLs appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

ALUS (originally an acronym for Alternative Land Use Services) is a charitable organization that assists producers in 38 communities, nearly half of them in Alberta, in providing eco-services through “on-farm nature-based solutions that sequester carbon, filter water and enhance biodiversity.” 

In March, the organization announced it was partnering with Israeli company Albo Climate, which uses AI to analyze satellite imagery to measure the impact of initiatives such as planting trees and shrubs on marginal or uneconomic farmland. Last month, the RBC Foundation said it would donate $1.5 million to this project, which will be conducted in communities in Alberta and three other provinces. 

Under the ALUS model, local chapters composed of farmers and other community members develop projects suited for their area. The national organization assists in project development and provides funding for costs and, in some cases, ongoing per-acre payments. It says more than 1,600 farmers across the country have participated in the program.

The post Eyes in the skies to boost effort to reward eco-system services appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau on Dec. 12 announced the launch of public consultations on strategy development, running from now through March 2023. A discussion document is now available for comment.

The federal strategy “will serve as a guide to support the livelihoods of farmers while growing a sustainable sector,” the government said in a release. “By identifying goals and a way forward, Canada’s agriculture sector will be equipped to recover quickly from extreme events, thrive in a changing climate, contribute to world food security, while also contributing to Canada’s overall efforts to cut emissions.”

The government in its release emphasized that Canadian farmers “have already taken action on sustainability in a wide range of ways” and it wants to “amplify the work already underway and increase adoption of these best practices.”

Farmers’ expertise, the government said. “will be used to identify the best solutions in the development of the strategy.”

An inaugural meeting was held Dec. 12 for an advisory committee, co-chaired by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) and made up of “industry experts” including farmers and representatives of ag associations and non-governmental organizations.

Committee members, the government said, “will collaborate to identify shared challenges and solutions as we take steps towards finalizing the strategy in the next year.”

The federal strategy will look at five specific focus areas: soil health, climate adaptation and resilience, water, climate change mitigation, and biodiversity.

The strategy, Bibeau said in the government’s release, “will pave the way to help us sustain the livelihoods of farmers. Drawing from their expertise and best practices, we can ensure that the sector is more resilient in the face of climate change.”

Winnipeg MP Terry Duguid, parliamentary secretary for Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, cited Manitoba as an example of farmers on the front line of climate change, where they’ve experienced “two back-to-back droughts which have proved immensely challenging.”

Canada, he said, needs to be “strategic in how we contribute to cutting emissions, preparing for and recovering from extreme weather events.”

“This approach, which considers all facets of sustainability — environmental, economic, and social — is needed to ensure we can find pragmatic business solutions that support continued competitiveness and reduce the sector’s environmental footprint,” CFA president Mary Robinson said in the same release.

Other groups with representation on the advisory committee will include Canada Organic Growers, Egg Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, Farmers for Climate Solutions, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Fertilizer Canada, the Canadian Cattle Association, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, the Canadian Pork Council, Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, the Canola Council of Canada, Nature United, Chicken Farmers of Canada, Pulse Canada, Dairy Farmers of Canada, Soy Canada and Quebec’s Union de producteurs agricoles (UPA).

Manitoba’s Keystone Agricultural Producers “has been advocating for the inclusion of farmers when it comes to tackling the challenges affecting our sector, and today’s announcement demonstrates the federal government is listening to ensure Canadian farmers have a seat at the table,” KAP president Bill Campbell said in a separate release.

“It is also important to note that the conversation around sustainability includes not only environmental concerns, but also social and economic, something that KAP has been seeking recognition of from government.”

UPA president Martin Caron, in a separate release, pointed to the “substantial” gains made in agriculture’s ecological shifts in recent years and said further initiatives and programs adapted to “regional and sectoral realities” will help spur further gains. — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Feds open up consultations for sustainable ag strategy appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

China first proposed its “red line” scheme in 2011 to put an end to decades of “irrational development” that had encroached on forests, wetlands and other precious ecosystems.

The establishment of national parks and the restoration of ecosystems have now helped bring the total area under protection to more than 30 per cent of China’s territory, said Zhuang Shaoqin, China’s vice-national resources minister.

The figure is in line with a target recommended by the United Nations and supported by more than 100 countries to protect at least 30 per cent of the earth’s land and ocean areas by 2030. China has not yet formally agreed to the target.

The target will be discussed during talks on a new global biodiversity pact set to take place in Montreal in December, which China will lead.

Across China, authorities have been demolishing houses, workshops and hydropower plants in order to meet their own local “red line” targets, with some also cracking down on farmers for illegally expanding plantations onto protected land.

But critics say the enforcement of the scheme has remained uneven, with governments still authorised to redraw “red lines” if they interfere with major development projects.

The latest policy guidelines published in August said that some human activity would still be permitted inside the red line zones, including the cultivation and logging of commercial forests and the exploration of mineral resources.

China also acknowledged earlier this year that its marine ecosystems remained in relatively poor health, with pollution and habitat destruction still not fully under control.

— Reporting for Reuters by David Stanway in Shanghai.

The post One-third of China’s land protected under ecological ‘red line’ scheme appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The first step is to analyze all the information in the variety tables, said provincial crop specialist Harry Brook.

“The tables are structured with yield potential as the main criteria,” said Brook. “It takes into account soil conditions, moisture, as well as individual management.

“Varieties that perform well under both high and low yield categories have greater yield stability and consistency of performance, and thusly, less risk. The more station years a variety is tested, the more the information can be relied on to be accurate.”

While new varieties usually seem to yield more, the initial results can be deceiving.

“Over time, as the variety is grown under more diverse weather and soil conditions, the yield tends to drop closer to the general average,” said Brook. “Generally speaking, a cereal variety needs at least a six to eight per cent yield difference above the check variety to give a consistently better yield. In oilseeds, this difference needs to be greater than 12 to 15 per cent.”

Producers should also think about their management practices, he added.

“What is your current crop rotation? Are you putting barley on barley? If so, your risk of leaf and plant diseases increases. Look at the plant’s resistance to common root and leaf diseases. Is lodging a problem? You should also be selecting for shorter crops or stronger straw. If you are in the irrigated parts of the province, you might select a semi-dwarf variety.”

Seed size can also be a key factor.

“In peas, seed size has a very significant effect on seed costs,” said Brook. “When seeding, you are trying to get a specific plant population per square foot. Seed size will greatly affect the pounds of seed needed per acre.”

Part of the calculation is germination rate and seed vigour.

“Tests for vigour try to replicate some of the negative factors in the soil that would kill off newly germinated seeds. This helps in estimating actual seed needed to get that desired plant population in the crop.”

Maturity is an issue, especially in marginal cropping areas or when seeding is delayed.

“The maturity rating is only an approximation and can only be used within a crop and region, not between crops. It is dependent on the kind of year and the area it is grown. For example, the Peace region has a shorter growing season than southern Alberta, but that is compensated somewhat by the longer summer days in the Peace.”

Higher yields typically mean longer maturity, a factor that has been in play the last couple of years.

“The last couple of falls have been difficult for harvest, particularly if long-season varieties were grown,” said Brook.

Once a variety is registered, it usually takes a couple of years before sufficient seed is available for general farm sales, he added.

“Think of the variety tables as a good tool, not an infallible predictor of production. Experience is still the best measure of which varieties will produce best on your farm. It comes down to personal experience with a variety to see how well it works under your situation.”

The post Crop expert offers tips for a successful hunt for new varieties appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.