It plans to invest “substantial capital” to bring the mine back into production, the company said in a statement.

The acquisition includes a processing plant in Matheson, Ontario, and various other mineral properties in the province. Infracon chief executive officer Geoff Hampson will head the operation through a subsidiary company called KAP Minerals.

Agrium closed the open-pit mine around 2013, according to a report in Northern Ontario Business. At the time, Agrium said the mine would be nearing depletion.

Infracon Construction said KAP Minerals plans to commercialize the Apatite deposit, a high-quality phosphate deposit in the Cargill Township Carbonatite Complex.

The company said it plans to work with Taykwa Tagamou Nation to establish a benefits agreement to provide employment and contracting opportunities for First Nation-owned businesses in the region.

Earlier this year, Fox River Resources Corp proposed the Martison Phosphate Project northeast of Hearst, Ontario.

Canada depends on imports of phosphorus to meet domestic need. Western Canada consumes about 892,000 tonnes of actual phosphorus per year, while Eastern Canada consumes about 202,000 tones of actual phosphorus, according to a 2022 report from the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI).

In that report, CAPI said the limited supplies and suppliers of phosphate fertilizers are “increasingly perceived as a source of vulnerability in a more volatile world.”

The post Construction firm to reopen Kapuskasing, Ont. phosphate mine appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The current system, where it’s unknown if products work or not, is a cost and a risk for Canadian growers, the NFU says in a report published Oct. 21.

“’Farmer buy-and-try’ should no longer be the norm for non-fertilizer supplements,” said James Hannay, an NFU policy analyst.

“Farmers should not bear the costs of testing non-fertilizer supplements, nor can farmers deliver statistically significant results to prove that they work.”

The NFU report comes at a time when hundreds of novel supplements are now available to Canadian producers.

There are bio-stimulants, bio-fertilizers, seaweed extracts, humic acids and many other products on the market, with more being introduced every month.

Along with the hundreds of products, there are dozens of claims on the benefits of fertilizer supplements.

“Biologicals like nitrogen-fixing bacteria can … reduce the need for applied N fertilizer without reducing yields, a solution that can help farmers with their productivity and sustainability goals,” says the website of one firm, promoting its bio-fertilizer.

It’s difficult for farmers to make sense of these claims and all the noise.

Prior to 2013, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency tested fertilizer supplements to check their efficacy, and the NFU is calling on the feds to restore those regulations.

“Given that supplements can have multiple active ingredients and modes of action, they are best defined based on their claimed benefits to agriculture; it is therefore essential that these claims be tested and the data be made publicly available so that farmers can make informed choices,” the NFU says in a summary of its report.

There is testing and publicly available data on the efficacy of fertilizer supplements, but producers do have to search for the results.

For instance, the Western Applied Research Corporation (WARC), a non-profit in Saskatchewan, has tested nitrogen-fixing biological products and their efficacy on spring wheat. The results are available on the WARC website.

Manitoba Pulse & Soybean Growers has also looked at the efficacy of biological products as part of its on-farm research network. Those results have been presented publicly and can be found on the MPSG website.

So, efficacy testing of fertilizer supplements is happening in Canada, but the CFIA isn’t leading the charge.

The NFU argues that handing this responsibility back to the CFIA will actually be helpful for the supplements industry.

“Farmers will have independent validation and quantification of claimed benefits, enabling them to … purchase products with confidence,” the NFU says.

“Non-performing products will be removed from the marketplace, increasing trust in the entire supplements sector.”

The NFU is hoping other farm groups will join the effort to restore efficacy testing in Canada. It is hoping that the program will be included in the 2025 federal budget.

The post NFU calls for efficacy testing of non-fertilizer supplements  appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

So, while dry conditions are not ideal circumstances, the agronomist lead of Alberta Grains’ Plot2Farm program says testing enhanced efficiency fertilizers, PGRs and nitrogen rates has value.

“I’d say overall (2023) was a relatively successful year,” said Jeremy Boychyn, agronomist with Alberta Grains.

“We didn’t see too many significant differences between treatments and a lot of that comes down to the environmental conditions we were dealing with, but that’s all part of it.

“Not every year is going to pose a value to every management practice and it’s important to know when things do work and when things don’t work.”

Plot2Farm is a yearly field-scale research program in which farmers conduct trials of their choosing with the assistance of Alberta Grains staff, who ensure proper research protocols are employed. Around 10 producers participated in the 2023 program.

Although the trials covered a range of topics, the central theme was research on the yield and quality effects of a number of enhanced efficiency fertilizers (EEFs).

“With the growing discussion around enhanced efficiency fertilizer use and reduced emissions, producers were curious about what the potential value of EEFs could be on their farms,” said Boychyn.

The four EEFs included Environmentally Smart Nitrogen (ESN, tested near Stony Plain on 5700 spring wheat), Neon Air (Onoway, AC Brandon spring wheat), Nitrain 2.0 (Carstairs, CDC Hodge VB spring wheat) and SuperU (Barons, AAC Stronghold durum).

Each product was placed under three treatments: 100 per cent of nitrogen from urea; 25 per cent of nitrogen from urea and 75 per cent nitrogen from EEF; and 50 per cent of nitrogen from urea and 50 per cent from EEF.

Each EEF received four treatment repetitions. Rainfall ranged from 4.9 inches from May until August at the Barons site to 26 inches in Onoway. (The Barons site also received 7.5 inches in irrigation).

No yield boost

No statistically significant yield rate increases were observed from the four tested EEFs.

Quality metrics were more noticeable in two cases. A 75/25 ratio of urea to Neon Air showed a statistically significant difference of 0.3 per cent more hard vitreous kernels than a treatment of 100 per cent urea.

The SuperU test saw a 0.3 per cent increase in protein in a 75/25 urea-to-SuperU ratio treatment compared to 100 per cent urea.

The Plot2Farm report said it’s possible some nitrogen loss mitigation from SuperU may have increased the amount of late season N available for uptake, causing a higher level of grain protein.

Although that small protein increase was considered statistically significant, Boychyn said it was more a measure of dependability than economic gain.

“In terms of economical significance to a farmer, if they’re not getting any additional value selling their grain at the elevator with a 0.3 per cent increase from 14.2 to 14.5, then economically it’s not significant,” he said.

“But when we’re talking about statistical differences in numbers, it means that based on the data coming in, there’s a 95 per cent confidence those treatments would create that difference every (time). 

“So the difference we can be confident in but the actual economic impact to producers is slim to nothing.”

Boychyn said lack of difference among treatments in the EEF trials comes down to a couple of factors.

“One, all of the trials had the urea or enhanced efficiency fertilizer banded relatively deep so the risk of volatilization in those situations goes down,” said Boychyn. Three of the products — Neon Air, Nitrogen 2.0 and SuperU — are marketed for decreasing nitrogen volatilization using various techniques.

“There’s a physical soil barrier between the product and the air so that mitigates a large portion of the potential risk of volatilization, at least to where it may be impacting yield or quality.

“The other factor which would impact potential denitrification and leaching is that we had a dry spring. Those types of denitrification and leaching come when we’re in saturated soils.”

Regulator

Another project tested the plant growth regulator (PGR) Manipulator 620 application on AAC Wheatland VB spring wheat. The goal was to measure the yield and quality impacts of Manipulator on spring wheat production.

The trial included five repetitions under 10.2 inches of rain from May to October and was a repeat of the same project conducted in 2022 on the same Willingdon producer’s farm, said Boychyn.

The trial design compared a check treatment to one featuring Manipulator 620.

Manipulator had little impact on yield and quality. Lodging was another factor the project focused on, but no lodging was seen throughout the field.

These results differ from the same project completed in 2022, said Boychyn.

“(In 2022) when we did this trial, we took drone imagery of the lodging and then found that there was a significant difference in the amount of lodging that occurred in the field when we applied a PGR,” he said.

“(In 2023) we did not see any visual lodging across the entire field for either the treated or untreated parts of the field, which is interesting because we had greater rainfall (in 2023) than (2022).

“But when talking to the farmer, the time when it rained and the amount of wind that came with the rain was less than it was (in 2022), so less lodging or no lodging occurred and we didn’t see a significant difference in yield with an application of the PGR Manipulator.”

There was a small bump in yield, from 95.4 bushels per acre with no PGR to 99 bu./ac. with Manipulator.

“Although it’s not significant, there’s about a five-bushel difference we’re seeing in the values,” said Boychyn. “It’s not something we can rely on happening, but there seems to be a little bit of a trend there.” 

The variety may have skewed results. According to the Alberta Seed Guide, AAC Wheatland VB has a lodging rating of “very good”, meaning its lack of lodging may have been due to genetic resistance rather than rainfall deficiency alone.

Rates

A trial near Carstairs focused on increasing nitrogen rates in barley. It employed four repetitions with three treatments of N on Sirish barley: 60, 70 and 80 pounds of nitrogen per acre. The location received 9.7 inches of rain.

The nitrogen treatments did not drive significant changes in plant stand, yield, protein or bushel weight.

“Again, with this trial, we didn’t see any significant difference between any of those treatments,” said Boychyn.

“The additional nitrogen wasn’t paying back for these trials and the most economic direction for that producer to go with was sticking with that 60 pounds.

“The feedback there is that based on those strip trials, there really isn’t a need to increase nitrogen above typical recommendation he’s (following).” 

Boychyn said this trial was important when considering modern breeding trends.

“With these new varieties we’re seeing on the feed barley side that can really push yields, this is an important question. Are we making the most of the new variety and genetics we’re implementing? Based on this farmer in this situation, we very much are.”

Alberta grain producers interested in submitting an application for Plot2Farm 2024 should do so fairly quickly, said Boychyn. Alberta Grains was still accepting applications when contacted March 7.

“We have kind of a soft deadline of mid-March,” he said.

The post Plot2Farm wraps up another (dry) year appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

In 2023, there was research at eight sites on increased wheat seeding rates, increased N on barley, plant growth regulators on wheat, wheat variety trials and enhanced-efficiency fertilizers. Alberta Grains is seeking producers interested in on-farm trials in 2024. It will work one-on-one with each farm to develop a trial specific to their interests.

To get involved or to see results from 2023, visit Plot2Farm.com.

The post Producers sought for wheat, barley trials appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“We aren’t really exaggerating,” said Wheat Growers president Gunter Jochum. “I felt they were not exaggerating because of the government’s track record.”

In the emailed newsletter, which Jochum said was meant to build public awareness, the Wheat Growers said, “the target of an absolute reduction in the nutrients used to produce our food was done without the consultation of the fertilizer industry or Canadian grain farmers.”

It also took aim at the carbon tax, saying it hurts farmers at every stage of production and makes food more expensive.

“If fertilizer is reduced while input costs are rising, farmers will produce less. Much less. That will increase the cost of food,” it says.

The newsletter urged respondents to sign a petition or contribute financially to the organization.

Emission reduction targets

The federal government has not announced a mandated reduction in use of nitrogen fertilizer.

“You could make the case, well, that’s not really what the government said,” Jochum acknowledged. “However, they also said … a few years ago that they would not raise the carbon tax but here we are.”

In late 2020, the government announced a national target to reduce emissions from fertilizer by 30 per cent below 2020 levels by 2030. The announcement caused consternation among many in the ag sector who considered it a de facto limit on fertilizer or worried that it would eventually become mandatory.

The government emphasized the voluntary nature of the target. Then-agriculture minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said it would rely on incentives rather than punitive measures.

“We need to ensure that our efforts to reduce emissions do not undermine [farmer] competitiveness or their vital work, especially at a time when food insecurity has reached unprecedented levels worldwide and the fertilizer supply chain is increasingly strained,” she said as part of a report published by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada earlier this year.

“I would like to be clear; there is no mandatory reduction in fertilizer use on Canadian farms,” she also said at the time. “Instead, we want to support measures that producers can take voluntarily to reduce their emissions over the long term without curtailing growth in crop yields.”

Skeptical

Jochum is unconvinced.

“We want to hit home what potentially could happen,” he said.

He said the government is listening to special interest groups who can’t prove what emissions come from nitrogen fertilizer, and the result is a burden on farmers. He said his organization felt that perspective should be told to consumers.

Will farmers be forced to cut?

A mandated cut in fertilizer use doesn’t seem likely, said Mario Tenuta, senior industrial research chair in 4R nutrient management at the University of Manitoba.

“I don’t see a mandated 30 per cent reduction in fertilizer nitrogen use to be anything that is going to be of benefit,” he said, while emphasizing that he’s a researcher, not a policy maker.

Grain exports are critical to the Canadian economy and rural communities and the government knows this, said Tenuta. It also knows that forcing farmers to reduce fertilizer use would cause further alienation and that is a poor political strategy.

Tactics like financial incentives, extension, demonstration and research are more likely, he added.

The On-Farm Climate Action Fund (OFCAF), which subsidizes farmers to try new management practices to reduce emissions, may evolve to include new practices and clarify current ones, said Tenuta. The federal government pledged $200 million to the fund, which is administered by producer groups and local governments.

That said, he understands the need for agriculture groups to keep pressure on governments to move in the direction they want.

Challenges

Whether a 30 per cent reduction in emissions can be achieved without cutting application has been hotly debated. In 2022, Fertilizer Canada said emissions could be reduced 14 per cent by 2030 without jeopardizing food security if “aggressive, but attainable” best management practices were implemented.

In 2018, the industry group released research indicating that “while nitrous oxide emission reduction is based on climate and soil, the flexibility of the 4R Nutrient Stewardship framework allows growers from any region to maximize the results of their nutrient management practices, thus achieving a reduction rate of up to 35 per cent.”

That’s according to David Burton, a nitrous oxide researcher from Dalhousie University, quoted in a 2018 news release.

Tenuta has said 30 per cent could be conservative.

“Our research shows we could easily do way more than that in terms of reduction without reducing productivity,” he told Glacier FarmMedia in 2022.

However, significant cash on the table is necessary, said Manish Raizada, a researcher from the University of Guelph. He said the Liberal government hasn’t equipped farmers to reduce emissions and now expects a quick turnaround.

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

The post Wheat Growers take new shot at federal fertilizer policy appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

But that attitude can lead to complacency and inertia as the world passes by.

This is the delicate balance that farmers are being asked to strike, with little evidence that it’s going to pay them dividends of any kind.

The issue is emissions reductions, and the challenge is how to do it without leaving the agriculture sector in a hole of its own government’s making while addressing a very real issue.

A recent field day at the Grosse Ilse, Manitoba Innovation Farms highlighted some of these challenges and opportunities.

The event delved into the “4R” fertility management philosophy. That relies on delivering fertilizer from the right source at the right rate, right time and right place.

Most farmers would likely look at that and wonder what the big deal is.

After all, nitrogen is one of the biggest input bills any crop producer pays in a given season, and likely they’re all attempting to hit exactly those targets.

But things get interesting when a few new techniques are thrown into the mix.

Rick Rutherford, the farmer who hosts Innovation Farms, says he was able to cut his inputs by roughly nine per cent by using an advanced John Deere planter that allows him to apply up to five products simultaneously at variable rates.

That change came at a cost. The seeder wasn’t cheap, and he and agronomist Dave Ives appear to have spent a fair bit of mental energy getting things right.

But so far at least, neither seems discouraged. In fact, they were both excited about the possibilities that lay ahead, such as incorporating a protein map to further refine their wheat inputs.

Another promising technology involves polymer-treated products — urea prills that are either coated or have a product incorporated to delay release and avoid early-season losses.

Here Rutherford and Ives are delving into another question: what’s the right rate of anhydrous blended with coated urea? They’re banding in anhydrous deep enough to prevent environmental losses for early season growth, and adding a portion of coated urea in varying degrees to meet plant needs later in the season.

It’s a large-scale field trial that aims to find the sweet spot that will avoid excess costs, make nitrogen applications most efficient and deliver the desired environmental and agronomic results.

That desired result is a 30 per cent reduction in nitrous dioxide emissions, in line with the much-talked-about federal goal – which is not the same as a 30 per cent reduction in nitrogen use.

Can the target be met? Yes, according to another tour participant.

Mario Tenuta, who holds a post as 4R research chair at the University of Manitoba, says the studies to date say this isn’t a particularly daunting target.

What’s less clear, he concedes, is the economic case for it. Polymer urea products, for example, can carry a stiff premium. Before the recent spike in fertilizer prices, it could run as much as 14 per cent more than conventional sources of N.

It hasn’t increased at the same rate as N prices, so that difference has shrunk proportionally, but still hovers around five or six per cent.

While it shows some productivity gains in other production areas, such as southern Ontario, there’s no comparable yield bump seen here on the Prairies. In most cases it’s near zero, and over many fields it is still well under a bushel an acre.

That’s why Tenuta advocates for farmers to take subsidies offered by the federal government to help offset some of the risk and cost associated with trying the new product, even if there’s not a business case.

Ultimately, Prairie grain producers are in a tough spot. They’re producing much-needed food products, but they’re exporting into a world market that isn’t interested in compensating them for environmental niceties.

Were every other country headed down a similar path, it would be a no-brainer to get on board. But that’s clearly not the case.

This is where the federal government must step in. It has signed the treaties and it is the only voice other national governments will listen to.

Until the global community is on the same page, the federal government must be prepared to pay the costs of meeting its environmental vision.

The post Emissions reduction needs a lifeline appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Moscow suggested that if demands to improve exports of its own grain and fertilizer were met it would consider resurrecting the Black Sea agreement. However, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that a U.N. pact that helped Russia to make shipments over the past year was also terminated.

“Only upon receipt of concrete results, and not promises and assurances, will Russia be ready to consider restoring the deal,” said Russia’s foreign ministry.

Russia told the U.N. shipping agency – the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – that its “guarantees for the safety of navigation” had been revoked and that “proactive necessary actions and response measures to neutralize threats posed by the Kiev regime in the area will be taken.”

Insurers on Monday were reviewing whether to freeze cover for any ships willing to sail to Ukraine. The reaction on the grains market was modest, with U.S. wheat futures Wv1 up about 3% while U.S. corn futures Cv1 rose nearly 1%.

“I think there is market belief that Russia and the EU have large supplies of wheat which can meet world demand in the coming months, with harvests arriving,” one German trader said.

The Black Sea deal was brokered by the U.N. and Turkey in July last year to combat a global food crisis worsened by Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are among the world’s top grain exporters.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Monday everything must be done so that the Black Sea grain export corridor continues to be used, his spokesperson said.

“Today’s decision by the Russian Federation will strike a blow to people in need everywhere,” U.N. chief Guterres told reporters.

The U.N. would continue trying to ensure unimpeded access to global markets for food products and fertilizers from Ukraine and Russia, Guterres said.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, described Moscow’s move as an “act of cruelty.”

Last ship has sailed

Nearly 33 million metric tons of corn, wheat and other grains have been exported by Ukraine under the arrangement. The last ship left Ukraine under the deal on Sunday.

To convince Russia to agree to the Black Sea deal, a three-year memorandum of understanding was struck in July 2022 under which U.N. officials agreed to help Russia get its food and fertilizer exports to foreign markets.

Russia’s main demands were the resumption of its ammonia exports through a pipeline to the Ukrainian port of Odesa and the reconnection of its state agricultural bank Rosselkhozbank to the SWIFT international payments system. It was cut off by the European Union in June last year after the invasion.

Guterres said on Monday that the U.N. had managed to create a “bespoke payments mechanism” for the Russian Agricultural Bank through U.S. bank JPMorgan Chase & CoJPM.N and “recently brokered a concrete proposal” with the European Commission to enable a Rosselkhozbank subsidiary to regain access to SWIFT.

But he signalled that all those efforts would end because Russia’s withdrawal from the Black Sea deal also terminated its pact with the U.N. on its own exports, under which Moscow had committed to “facilitate the unimpeded export of food, sunflower oil, and fertilizers from Ukrainian-controlled Black Sea Ports.”

Global hunger

Guterres had made a final attempt to save the Black Sea grain deal by writing to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday last week to ask him to extend it in exchange for the cooperation of the European Commission on Rosselkhozbank.

In a letter to Guterres on Monday, Russia said the options presented “are not feasible and will not ensure uninterrupted cross-border financial transactions,” Russia’s deputy U.N. envoy Dmitry Polyanskiy posted on Twitter. He said the letter informed Guterres that Moscow was terminating the Black Sea grain deal.

European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called Russia’s decision a “cynical move”, adding that the EU would continue to work towards ensuring food security for poor countries.

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said he believed Putin wants the continuation of the deal, adding that he will discuss it when they meet in person in August.

Russia had agreed three times in the past year to extend the Black Sea deal, but also briefly suspended its participation at the end of October in response to a drone attack on its fleet in Crimea.

There was concern about the impact the expiry of the pact would have on feeding the hungry worldwide.

Under the deal, the U.N. said its World Food Program (WFP) has procured 80% of its wheat so far in 2023 from Ukraine – up from 50% in 2021 and 2022. The WFP has shipped about 725,000 metric tons of Ukrainian wheat to Afghanistan, Sudan, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and Yemen to fight hunger.

“Rations are being cut to children every day now across the world – it is utterly dramatic and this (deal) was one of the few glimmers of hope in this age of Biblical starvation,” said Jan Egeland, Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council.

— Reporting by Reuters reporters; writing by Guy Faulconbridge and Michelle Nichols.

The post Black Sea grain deal expires after Russia quits appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

With 13 days remaining until the expiry of the deal, which has allowed Ukraine to export grain from its Black Sea ports despite Russia’s invasion, Moscow said there had been no progress on any of its key demands, including the banking issue.

The Financial Times reported on Monday that the European Union was considering a proposal to allow Russia’s Rosselkhozbank to set up a subsidiary that could connect to SWIFT.

But Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova dismissed the idea as “deliberately unworkable,” saying it would take many months to set up such a unit and another three months to connect to SWIFT.

She also rejected a U.N. attempt to create an alternative payment channel between Rosselkhozbank and U.S. bank JP Morgan.

“There is no real replacement for SWIFT, and cannot be,” Zakharova said in a statement.

Britain’s U.N. Ambassador Barbara Woodward said on Monday she was not confident the grain deal would be renewed.

“The U.N. is doing all it can and we will do all we can. We’ve already worked very closely with the City of London to enable a very complex payment system for grain in order to make it work and continue to get food on people’s tables,” she said.

Russia says the severing of the bank’s access to SWIFT is one of the obstacles facing its own exports of food and fertilizer, and that it cannot keep renewing the Black Sea deal unless those issues are addressed.

‘Fertilizer crunch’

The stakes are high. The United Nations says the deal has so far allowed the export of more than 32 million metric tonnes of food from three Ukrainian Black Sea ports to 45 countries on three continents.

It describes the Black Sea grain deal and the efforts to facilitate Russian grain and fertilizer exports as “a lifeline for global food security.”

Any disruption or halt to such trade could aggravate a food crisis in the poorest countries and push global prices higher. Since March 2022, global food prices have dropped by 22%, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Russia has made previous threats to quit the deal, but its rhetoric has hardened since then.

Russia’s foreign ministry said Tuesday it was “obvious there are no grounds” to extend the deal beyond July 17 and that Russia was doing everything necessary for all ships covered by the deal to leave the Black Sea before that date.

It also said the deal had delivered Ukrainian grain to “well-fed” countries but failed to help those most in need.

The five poorest countries — Ethiopia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia — received only 2.6 per cent of the grain shipped, it said, while the situation regarding Russian grain and fertilizer exports had “continued to worsen.”

The U.N. said the World Food Programme has bought more than 700,000 tonnes of grain under the Black Sea deal for aid operations in those countries — matching the volumes it procured from Ukraine in 2021.

But it has acknowledged that a “fertilizer crunch remains a reality for farmers in certain developing countries, against the backdrop of the cost-of-living crisis.”

The U.N. said it is continuing to work on ways to facilitate Russian fertilizer exports including: a trade finance platform with the African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank); facilities related to banking and insurance; and the resumption of key transshipment routes for fertilizer and ammonia.

— Reporting for Reuters by Felix Light and Olzhas Auyezov; writing by Mark Trevelyan and Michelle Nichols.

The post Russia rejects bank compromise as Black Sea grain deal expiry looms appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

This year, the grants are being increased to $20,000 per farm (up from $6,000 last year), more incentives per farm (four this year versus two last year) and reimbursement for a portion of consulting fees charged by a 4R designated agronomist for a 4R Nutrient Stewardship Plan.

The funds come from the On-Farm Climate Action Fund, which covers up to 85 per cent of eligible costs. (There is a limit of $75,000 per farm.)

The application window is to open in June. Go to canolacouncil.org/4R-advantage for details.

The post More cash available for 4R practices appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

It seems I am not the only one to believe our regenerative future rests in water and manure.

The story was about California dairy farmers entering into long-term contracts to sell their manure to the energy industry to make biogas (also called renewable natural gas). There is nothing new in using dung as fuel — indeed people in rural areas in developing countries have always used manure as a heat or energy source, and they still do.

However, one of the concerns expressed in the article was the formalizing of manure as a commodity. I agree that it is — and a very valuable one at that. In many of the countries I have visited there was often banter about manure. People would say how you were on a lucky street if you or your neighbour had livestock and were able to fertilize gardens or fields with manure. In those parts of the world where fertilizer is not available or unaffordable, gold is found at the end of the cow’s tail, not at the end of the rainbow.

Energy companies are now building bio-digesters on farm sites. That makes more environmental sense than transporting manure and it’s also cheaper to transport gas. This isn’t a novel idea and I’ve seen these types of units on European farms.

A few years ago, the Dutch government launched a major project in which farmers could lease farm-size anaerobic bio-digesters and receive a 12-year fixed price for the gas produced. They could also sell the excess electrical energy and enjoy the benefit of keeping the extracted nitrates and phosphates and applying them to the land. These small units on farms reduced the cost of transporting manure (which requires a permit) and there wasn’t much in the way of public concern about odour. (At the farms I visited, the bio-digesters were nearly odourless.)

This is an example of not only recognizing manure as a valued commodity, but of supportive policy in the development of closed-loop solutions that start and end on the farm enterprise.

To say that we need to kill cows to reduce methane is folly. Between science and production practices, methane production has already been reduced significantly. But some now worry, according to the Guardian article that programs that support bio-digesters “could end up incentivizing farms to increase herd sizes to produce more manure” or even turn dairy farms into “feces farms that happen to also produce dairy.”

To say that treating manure as a commodity will result in more cattle production is hypothetical because all of the other elements of increased production also would need to be addressed (including water usage and environmental concerns).

So just what does society want? And why the fear about the commoditization of manure and using natural sources of energy?

The public outcry for a reduction in the production and processing of fossil fuels has been loud and long. One of the solutions is tickling our noses and suddenly there is a fear of a natural and organic product that could very well stop such practices as fracking. A little manure bio-digestion does not use millions of gallons of fresh water to extract gas, release hydrocarbons, disrupt aquifers or add pollutants to the lithosphere. And there is the measurable benefit of adding digestate nutrients to the soil, thus working toward meeting targets on the reduction of commercial fertilizer emissions.

Today we have a more fulsome understanding of the importance of utilizing biological and farm sources of fertility. To build healthy soil is, or should be, the ultimate goal.

It is the soil that feeds us, along with the animals that produce milk, meat and a wide range of critical byproducts. Soil will develop its own ecology over time and may be less dependent on the incorporation of nutrients, but one has to get to that space first and be prepared to continue with nourishment as required. As plants, animals and humans intersect in this world, we will always be drawing from those life sources — soil and water.

Everything is a source of energy. All organic waste has a high value, and the farm is at the core of the solutions for the future.

Most biomass has some property of fertility, be that kelp from the sea, human sludge, food waste or wool pellets from sheep. It is about understanding the value and the interconnectivity of one to the other.

The technology exists to create the systems needed on any scale, to reduce the release of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide in conventional oil and gas production, while maintaining food systems that address food security. It is these two culprit gases that have a long atmospheric life span and it is these gases that need to be the focus. It is important to capture methane but the urgency should reside in the reduction of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide from fossil fuel extraction by creating gas through bio-digestion.

The manure on our farms is a highly valued commodity. How we move forward in ensuring its appropriate use while maintaining robust and regenerative food systems will depend on both knowledge and enabling policy.

The post Schoepp: Misconceptions about manure fly in face of common sense appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.