In China, “non-grain” farming has become the target of the Rural Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Brigade, or nongguan, which exercises agricultural administrative penalties and related inspections for the Agriculture and Rural Development ministries.

The areas that farmers are new to include no burying of the dead as this uses farmland, no fireworks, no burning of fields, waste or firewood. It is forbidden to plant fruits or vegetables in front of farm homes, and trees cannot be taken down that the farmer planted (but the government can remove all trees). It is against the law to sell any livestock or poultry privately just as it is to plant any plant other than government-promoted crops. In addition, farmers will be charged daily with a new rural tax.

All farmers now must pass a certification course and abide by the new policy. Everything a farmer owns is registered, including cats and dogs. The hours they work and what they do when not working in the field must be logged.

The idea behind the policy is to grow more food in monocultures. To support the initiative, the new Turning Forest into Farmland Policy will strip China of its ability to sequester carbon and host any form of biodiversity as the trees are destroyed. Even the cities will be impacted. The city of Chengdu is famous for the 100 km of park that surrounds it. The Communist party has ordered these areas destroyed and all ponds filled for the conversion to fields of wheat and corn.

The current crop is currently being destroyed, leaving farmers without this year’s income and forcing them into a monoculture where the profit is extremely thin compared to the fruits and vegetables and other non-government-promoted crops that were established.

China already loses 1.7 million acres of farmland per year through degradation, soil erosion, industry and industrial poisoning and urban reach. The current policies will not restore the land and will only increase soil loss and quality — potentially taking China away from the Party’s envisioned food security and back to poverty and hunger.

Throughout history, it has been proven that when we try to conquer the land and severely disrupt watersheds, challenging the biodiversity that makes critical events like pollination possible, the opposite of food availability occurs. China has already lived this in the 1950s and 1960s, through to the uprising which brought a recognition of farmers rights resulting in their access to land and the pull back of the farming tax in 2003.

Stepping back in time by enforcing certain crops resurfaces the old moral: if the country side starves, so does the city. Historically, it does not work to use military force to create a robust singular production system. A case in point is Indonesia where the Food Estate Program was started three years ago.

Enforced by the Ministry of Public Works and Housing, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Defence, the idea was to create massive food estates of mega-rice projects. Over 900 forests have been cleared so far causing flooding and soil erosion. In addition to rice, farmers are told to plant corn, cassava, potato, garlic and shallots. An estate project in Papua will see 10,000 ha of corn planted on cleared land which is mostly peat — a practice that has failed in other areas of the nation.

While each ministry is now busy blaming the other for the failure of the food estates, the farmers’ voice has been silenced. Indonesia’s attempt at food sovereignty failed and inflation increased.

Food insecurity continues to rise globally and rural areas are under financial stress as the practice of clearing land for monocultures in the name of food security is proving economically crippling on other continents, including South America and Africa.

The blind push toward a monoculture and the consequential elimination of diversity is terminal and we do not know the forces behind these government decisions. Is this about hunger, war or power? Has globalization failed to this degree or is forced production in preparation for the interruption and dismemberment of global trade?

China and Indonesia may seem a world away but “we share the same earth and the same sky”. There is a real risk in the loss of seed diversity and farmer margins, and in an increase in the use of herbicides, pesticides and commercial fertilizer. We don’t have the privilege of time to watch soil rebuild itself nor can we continue to pressure Canadian farmers to sequester for the mistakes of other nations.

In Canada we have the democratic right to be involved in shaping policy and in saying “no thanks” when it is not in the best interest of the future of agriculture. Canadian farmers can take charge in being the the world leaders in a healthy and diverse landscape that incorporates all of the possible in food production systems that are complimentary to the well being of our society.

The post Schoepp: Forced farming 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.

That was one of the questions asked by Nuffield Scholar Claire Peltzer, whose 2020 report focused on attracting youth into agriculture. The short answer is that agriculture is considered “farming” and does not include the existing plethora of career opportunities.

The fields of agriculture include but are not limited to greenhouse and floriculture, vineyard, swine, cattle, poultry and eggs, aquaculture, sheep and goats, bees and other insect crops, field fruit and vegetable and tree fruits.

There are opportunities in science, research, technology, biology, business, economics, production, plant and animal health, leadership, governance, food processing, transportation, communication, product development, marketing, policy, agronomy and agrology, production and economics, to name a few potential streams.

So why not a career in agriculture?

That question was put to 512 students aged 16 to 18 in Western Australia. They responded that they felt they could not get into ag because they didn’t come from the country or from a farming background, could not afford it, or really did not want to move. Others simply did not know there were careers outside of farming or believed there were no jobs “for people like me.” Some felt there was more money in other industries and that the sector lacked technology and innovation.

The United Nations also reports that the perception of agriculture is that of farming, and that farming is not seen as a profitable business. Society as a whole and governments do not appreciate that agriculture is much broader than production and that farming itself is critical to economic stability and societal well-being. The UN says massive roadblocks exist for access to technology, information and credit.

Lack of access to credit in farming and in agricultural careers is still a major issue globally. Old perceptions that anything tied to farming is a losing game still float through the financial world. As Peltzer reported, we must reframe agriculture as a business, one that is impactful to the world around us – not only in the production of food but in feeding the hungry and bringing communities out of poverty, in making homes for the displaced and in addressing climate change.

More importantly, agriculture needs to be recognized as the powerful economic engine it is and for the potential it has.

Farmers themselves may be caught in the old paradigm of “just a farmer.”

That is why fully appreciating the connection of food production to the end user is so critical. We have yet to understand this in primary production and to take action, such as inviting a broad spectrum of end users, processors, traders, techies and scientists to our industry board of directors. Competency based leadership is not only advantageous to business but it is attractive to youth who are considering an agricultural career.

Educators have tremendous influence over our children’s choices but have little time or capacity to fully appreciate the intersection of agriculture in every subject they teach (math, science, IT, medicine, law, finance, economics and biology to name a few). These are all intersecting agricultural career paths and inclusion in the curriculum is critical to building a knowledge-based sector.

In my research I found that world leaders in food systems were firm that curiosity is a strong and necessary leadership trait. Fostering curiosity starts in our homes and schools. The question is, how do we reframe the conversation to ignite curiosity that could lead to a career in agriculture?

Changing the conversation and the old perception may come from education, lobby or simple collaboration that cross-pollinates all of the opportunities within agriculture. In Canada, David McInnes has spearheaded the National Index on Agri-Food Performance, a collaboration of 114 stakeholders who share a common goal to develop an integrated picture of sustainability for the country’s agri-food sector from food production to retail.

This initiative is historical in that it is bringing diverse stakeholders, including competitors, governments and entrepreneurs and a wide variety of food system players to the table. It changes the dialogue, desegregates and is achievable at all levels.

If, as Peltzer writes, “agriculture is perceived by youth as ‘just farming,’ which is the largest and most influential limiting factor to attracting more to the industry” then we must start at that point and embrace the challenge of creating a landscape that is inviting to our future employees, employers, investors and leaders.

The challenge is not one of succession in the agricultural industry, for we do not have the luxury of time. Addressing this perception needs our attention today. Reframing agriculture as a rich and impactful business starts within our own conversations and structures. Only then will we bring it to life for our youth.

The post Schoepp: We need to get past the perception that ag is ‘just farming’ appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The demise of small towns is not so much from the past attrition of young people leaving for the city as from the lack of a nearby rural population to support the core activities that back local businesses and services.

In many places, business started to decline as the population in town aged and the countryside depopulated. And though living in a small town is now attractive for many young families, they require a level of infrastructure and communication unprecedented in the past. Many now work virtually or commute, which spreads the spending power between the rural town they live in and the urban place where they work.

Having new folks in town, especially new immigrants, brings a wonderful energy and diversity to the community. But it may not be enough to keep rural agricultural connections alive. The farmers themselves are not living in town. Rather, they are living further and further apart. And social media may not be enough of a connection.

A farm today could have as many as 20 sections — land that once housed 20 to 40 families. These families supported the local infrastructure, schools, churches, government, sports teams, medical clinics and financial institutions. These farmers were the foundation of the communities we enjoy today. They built the churches and community halls that were the hubs of social interaction.

What has been the cost of massive farm expansion?

From the perspective of the land, there is a loss in biodiversity within the boundaries of the farm. Many larger farms have taken out shelterbelts, drained sloughs and levelled yards and gardens to maximize the surface area. There is also a loss of diversity in types of farms. In many cases, there is more mono-cropping and the type of livestock grown has intensified and is less varied.

This was driven by export economics and the demand from consumers to have more, have it now and have it perfect. In other words, the expansion took place because there was also a supporting market and farm policy.

But growth and efficiencies came with a societal cost.

Medical, fire, police, senior care and education facilities have been centralized, much like grain elevators. Parents with children in sports spend more time on the road than the kids do playing the game. And there is a constant struggle for child and senior care. Things such as food insecurity may not be seen, especially with the elderly, and cries for help where there is domestic violence may go unheard.

There are also mental and physical health costs when face-to-face interaction in rural communities is limited.

A multitude of studies have identified a host of conditions that are directly related to isolation: Immune disorders, stress, Alzheimer’s disease, high blood pressure, heart disease, depression, substance abuse and suicide are prominent.

For rural persons of all genders, even in this digital age, isolation is real and the silent killer is loneliness. Research repeatedly confirms that folks must be accessible to one another and that interaction must be intergenerational.

There is a man in Mom’s place of care. The resident (who I will call Fred) has never had a visitor and we had never heard him speak. One day as we chatted with Mom, my grandsons left us and went out to play. Later, we found the boys were not outside, but playing with Fred. As they tossed a huge balloon back and forth with him, we heard him say, “Who’s next, boys?” and “Good catch.” For the first time, he was speaking.

Isolation and loneliness set in when we don’t have that intergenerational and intercultural connection and a space to lean on each other, to laugh together, to discuss our lives, to learn from each other, to plan together, to share, to be heard, to play, to be inspired and to give back to the needs of our community.

For the man in this story, loneliness silenced his voice. For others, young and old, the collective weight of isolation and loneliness has cost them their lives.

“No man is an island,” wrote John Donne, and no person should try to be.

There have been huge mental and physical health costs for many farm families as a result of massive farm expansion and increased isolation.

It is not just the towns that have shrunk. So too has the social circle of many rural residents.

If we want all our rural farming families to be well, we must find and fund ways to support them, to bring them together.

And farming families — wherever they live — must be empowered to make choices that give them time away from the farm, time for intergenerational interaction and access to the services they need. Only then will we rebuild our once resilient communities.

The post Schoepp: There has been a big price to pay as farms expanded appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Years ago, I had placed a little post on Facebook with a short message in which I said I was looking for information on my maternal grandmother. I knew her name and when she passed, but that was nearly all. And I wanted to find her family in Europe.

Five years later I received an email from a fellow claiming he was that missing link.

Since that time, we have spent many hours talking about family, global politics, economy and our values. An interesting chap — he is also exceedingly kind and an entrepreneur who believes in the equality of all persons.

During one of our conversations, he revealed he was a chess master and proudly proclaimed that he currently held the 11,000th place in the world. I had to think about that.

‘How many chess masters are there?’ I asked.

The answer was, ‘just over a million.’ That reply put into perspective his actual position in the game — for he was in the top one per cent!

How tragic it would have been to pass judgment on that position without asking for further clarification. And yet, what did you think when you first heard the placing of 11,000th?

So often we are busy measuring ourselves and others by performance and output, maybe even by recognition. The rush to place first and the unintended consequences are pretty well documented.

Unless it’s your own gig, someone else is building wealth on your efforts. And if it is your own business then your definition of success could be quite different than the person next to you.

In the world of agriculture, being in 11,000th place would be met with some pretty negative responses but it’s not the placing — it is the game that counts.

Why does my cousin play chess, write books on mastering the game and teach it to children everywhere? Because, in his words, he believes that through children and the game of chess, people who know each other personally would not go to war with each other later.

He has a full appreciation of this as he lives in an area of the world that has repeatedly known conflict. The current war grieves him deeply. His definition of success was lasting peace mastered through a game that shifted cultural expectations and norms. There is hardly a dollar sign large enough to reflect that value.

In this little story of a man, a game and a mission, I see parallels to the world of food production.

How often has an industry majority ridiculed those within it when they were in last place and stretching themselves toward a value-driven goal?

Grass-fed beef was once rebuffed and is now a norm. Cage-free chickens were a production joke and now enriched cages are part of the welfare code. Organic foods were dismissed as hippie fodder and now are a US$120-billion industry with production covering just over 75 million hectares of land.

The idea of slicing beef differently from a traditional roast or steak has resulted in Korean ribs being one of Canada’s bestsellers. The young western entrepreneur who uses biodegradable packaging for his cookies is selling out, and the eastern food processor who pressed flavours into crayons dazzled foodies. Meanwhile, those without borders to their minds are producing natural fertilizers with everything from hulls to human waste.

In the past, farmers themselves were thought of as ‘just farmers’ or the bottom of the barrel in terms of education and literacy. They now write the script on one of the most technologically advanced industries in the world. And, consumers ‘want’ to know their farmer and where their food comes from. They have chosen to be in the game.

None of these achievements come with a first-place medal or instant recognition.

They are products driven from a place of core values: to treat food animals better, to eat better, to use less, to meet consumer and cultural demands, to save the soil, to reduce waste, to live longer, to make life easier and to feed the world.

As one of my close friends says, “The pennies follow the passion.”

Those who dare to be different often reap exceptional rewards. I have often found the quiet person in the room with a few acres is leading a less stressful and more fulfilling life, and netting more than the highly recognized big guns. Success is a value equation.

Certainly, the reason we play chess is to win and the reason we farm is for prosperity.

But our purpose and our calling are much higher. Just as my cousin employed chess to bring children of opposing political countries together and encouraged strong relationships, so too must we use the production of food to unite the world. But first we must unite within our own agricultural sectors.

Only then can we employ food as an instrument of peace, human rights, prosperity and stability. All the players must come to the table with a common vision to put the human, animal and environmental ecology into play.

The post Schoepp: When we put values ahead of winning, good things happen appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The weather patterns have been rather unpredictable with monumental hail in Mexico City to extreme heat in Europe and Saharan winds that are dropping sand in the most remote of locations. Putting seed in the ground this year on the Canadian Prairies was either in mud or a dust bowl, while across Canada to the east we see the severe summer storm warnings already in play. And the Rocky Mountain snowpack has yet to come down.

It is frustrating for farmers, but fresh water is a gift and rather a rarity in the world. With only one per cent of the Earth’s surface in fresh water, soggy fields are a blessing many will never know.

Why is the world so dry?

Much of the freshwater reserves globally were disturbed by mankind through deforestation, resource development, industry, residential expansion, conflict and the planting of monocultures. Any balanced ecology is water producing — even the desert. The balance between animals, humans and plants has existed and the damaging chemical washes we now use, in the production of silver for example, did not previously exist at commercial levels.

Population growth and intensity around food-production areas also had a huge impact and propelled monocultures to provide food, spurred industry to provide fuel and supported other resource development often at the cost of fresh water. Using fresh water for fracking is an example of pulling water from the aquifers. But action above ground is where the land became exposed from any source of development, warmed the soil and threatened the valuable system of retaining water as precious canopy and roots were removed.

Conflict plays a huge role in water availability worldwide as land is contaminated and areas are burned or cleared so opposing forces cannot hide. Add to this the air pollution, chemical run-off from weaponry and from the lack of facilities for human waste, and the result is the destruction of all living things and the critical infrastructure that supports a water system.

From an agricultural perspective, I like to use the example of the Beqaa Valley, a 120-kilometre strip that represents 40 per cent of the arable land in Lebanon. The rich soil was built in ancient times by rotational grazing and semi-nomadic farming. Conflict and the accompanying monoculture of hashish, opium and grapes have changed the land to a very arid area now dependent on irrigation. An unintended consequence is that the valley is also devoid of rural population because of the uncertain accessibility to water.

In many areas of the world where there is a water shortage, such as the western U.S. and in the Middle East, sea water is scrubbed to make fresh water. This scrubbed water supplies whole cities, such as in San Diego County where the desalination plant produces 50 million gallons of drinking water per day. In the desert of Qatar, large pipelines transport scrubbed water to grow feed and food.

This is a concept that may seem foreign to Canadians but the solutions for future water shortages near shorelines lie within our borders. Canada has the longest coastline in the world. We have yet to fully embrace the potential of this geographical wonder in the production of food, feed, salt and scrubbed water.

Our water and our waterways are unique. Of the 52,445 islands in Canada, the 30,000 that are inhabited need consistent food delivery and freshwater supplies. The old saying “surrounded by water and not a drop to drink” (from Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s famous poem, “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”) haunts many societies globally as it does here at home. Freshwater challenges are in land and at sea.

Being home to one-fifth of the world’s freshwater supply does not mitigate the risk of freshwater shortages to communities, nor does it assume that climate events will not happen here.

Water is found in Canada but the ecology in which it is naturally produced is disturbed as nearly 80 per cent of our population is urban, and that intensity has a profound effect on watersheds as communities live near the food and the sea. We have extensive resource development. These activities not only require a lot of water but also divert and displace natural watersheds. The rivers within our borders discharge nearly seven per cent of the global renewable water supply. Protecting our rivers is critical to ocean health.

We may not have warfare within our borders but we do have communities without fresh water. And though we are water abundant, we have yet to fully appreciate this valuable resource and to mitigate future risk with both an ecological framework and an intense investment in water technology.

Even with one-fifth of the world’s fresh water, we are not immune to climate events and need to retain and create fresh water — drop by precious drop.

The post Schoepp: Fresh water a gift we can’t afford to take for granted appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

That simply cannot be in the best interest of any living creature. However, this is exactly what is being proposed — and being developed — for cattle.

The mask (developed by art students) covers the nostrils of the cow and is held on by rigid plastic straps which also connect to a large unit that is around the neck and under the chin of the bovine. This unit converts methane to carbon dioxide by capturing the burped gas.

Prince Charles loved the idea so much he gave the team from the Royal College of Art in London an $80,000 award to further develop the mask in the interest of climate change.

The concept and award were based on the ‘fact’ that cattle are the major climate culprits by emitting methane.

• More with Brenda Schoepp: Many popular foods have a long history — and an uncertain future

Doing a little research on my own, I discovered that estimates of the methane produced by bovines varied considerably, depending on the source — anywhere from four per cent to 65 per cent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. In the story about the bovine masks, cows were portrayed as criminal emitters and even the number of cattle in the world was exaggerated — by 600,000 head.

Anyone can throw out numbers without adequate research to support a case, but you have to ask: Just what is the point of developing a methane mask?

Regardless of the conversation in high-end circles of theorists and innovators who may have never seen a cow (from either end), the reality is that when it comes to cattle, the majority of them live in India, Brazil and China. So it is highly unlikely from a logistics, cultural and economic standpoint that there is even a remote interest in masking hundreds of millions of head of cattle.

And here’s another catch: Cattle are not the only ruminants on the planet.

There are 30 million wild deer, 68,000 giraffes, 1.4 million domestic sheep and goats (along with a multitude in the wild), 165,000 moose, an unknown number of gazelles, 91 species of antelope in addition to yak and ox along with 204,000 buffalo and 15,000 head of bison — all of which are ruminants. There are far more of the other ruminants than there are cattle. Will they also be masked?

And what of those with three-stomach compartments such as camels, alpacas and llamas? Are they contributing more than a mono-gastric such as a horse and, in doing so, are they also to be considered climate culprits? Even a rodeo cowboy would think twice about masking a wild moose or the temperamental camel.

Selecting the domesticated and most docile ruminant is certainly an efficient route when it comes to understanding the science behind rumination, but it hardly is representative of the mass of animals in the world with four compartments for food digestion.

From the First World perspective, it appears we are facing three choices when it comes to appreciating meat in global diets.

The first is to change what cows eat so they have less gas. An EU company now sells a CowCredit to airlines so they can offset their carbon footprint. Each credit is the equivalent of offsetting one tonne of C02. Passengers are asked to pay an extra fee to contribute to climate solutions. (Most have refused to participate.)

Perhaps those passengers are considering the second option, which is to eliminate cattle (but not the rest of the ruminants) and eat an alternate protein. From a biodiversity and regenerative perspective, that simply would be catastrophic. The current science behind the production of alternate meats has proven that there are nearly equivalent emissions produced per calorie as there is in producing live meat. The benefit of ruminants is that they are part of a regenerative system which is something that even the CowCredit promoters recognized.

The third option is for ruminants to wear a mask. That’s likely not going to work — anywhere.

If cattle do wear masks, they should do so to protect themselves from the exaggerated bull, jet fumes, smoke plumes, drilling, mining and resource development emissions, deforestation, manufacturing, fast cars — and the waste of the elite (that one per cent of the population who are responsible for 16 per cent of all global emissions).

I have an issue with binding the bovine to escape our moral responsibility and accountability to all living things and to develop a balanced approach to mitigate future climate damage.

Part of the animal welfare code is the right to self-expression. A thick collar, hard plastic mask and harness does not lend itself to expression, movement, social interaction or provide a level of safety.

I can see a host of risks and discomforts to the animal. Using cattle as the scapegoat does not mitigate or change irresponsible climate behaviour or rescue us from future climate damage. A methane mask alters nature — and in doing so has the unintended consequence of altering our future relationship with the world in which we live.

The post Schoepp: Pity the poor cow — bovine burps have so many in a tizzy appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The plant has been traced back to Egypt some 6,000 years ago and is a member of the sunflower family. That may surprise you because we often think of sunflowers in terms of the flower and the oil. But lettuce was not grown for its leaves, it was grown for the seed which was made into oil.

Lettuce historically had a dual purpose — seed and milk. The milky stem on the mature plants was used as a narcotic (and sometimes as an aphrodisiac) and was a form of latex. Today much of the narcotic properties have been bred out.

As history moved along, someone decided to start eating the leaves and thus began the development of the varieties we have today. Although lettuce is a good source of vitamin A and K, it is really only the darker-leafed varieties that have measurable food value.

In terms of food waste, the discard from growing lettuce is very high with the romaine variety being almost entirely trashed as only the heart of the plant is sold. The rest stays in the field. I have been privileged to be on lettuce farms, in greenhouses and in the processing plants where the leaves are washed and bagged or the heads put in a transparent clamshell for retail. The waste in the plant is also significant.

On average, a lettuce field will produce 26,000 heads per acre of which 75 per cent is marketable. As a shallow-rooted annual that is 97 per cent water, I wonder what the value is in taking highly productive, good draining land and growing a moderately nutritious plant. Use of water is 10 times higher in field lettuce than in vertical growing.

This is not an attack on lettuce farmers for they are responding to consumer demand. Though Canada is a top importer of lettuce it is also eighth in terms of lettuce exports (primarily to Asia). This export product is grown inside, often in a non-soil medium.

There are also 8,000 hectares of lettuce fields in the country. Those fields require significant inputs to prepare the seedbed, plant, fertilize, manage and harvest. As the land must have good drainage, there is a run-off environmental risk. And the labour component is huge in the entire production and processing. Transport of the retail or food-service-ready product is expensive as the load is light and has to be tightly temperature controlled.

Looking at the big picture, it is clear that a plant-based diet — particularly one built around high-input annuals such as lettuce — is costly in terms of land and water use, chemical and fertilizer use, labour and equipment, energy and environmental risk. Folks may not fully appreciate that the farmer responds to their demand and buying patterns and in doing so, that demand perpetuates land use for water-hungry annuals.

A society of privilege is a society of choice. But perhaps it is time to rethink our choices.

Every acre counts not only in food production for the day but in food production for the future. Given a choice, what would you like the food production of the future to look like?

Nutrient-dense plants that offer a broader spectrum of nutrition or food animals that contribute to regeneration of the soil would benefit both the farmer and the consumer. That does not mean that lettuce will not be grown, but there is a chance that it may very well be grown in the future for its oil, not leaves. Produced indoors in a non-soil medium and with less water is perhaps a better way to provide leaves and frees up highly productive land for other activities that can contribute to building microbes and retaining valuable water.

You can’t live on lettuce. Yet lettuce, tomato and onion are the consumer’s first choice — they are the most purchased raw foods in Canada. Tomato is a fruit brought to us by the Aztecs and traced back to 700 AD, while onions are recorded as a medicinal aid and then food as far back as the Bronze Age.

There is a lot of history behind the food we eat that transcends into consumer choices. However, the growing global population, the shortage of cooking oil, the pressure on land and the disruptions in the supply chain may change the salad plate to a nutrient-fuelled experience that includes not only fibre, vitamins and minerals but robust offerings of animal proteins.

While consumers are facing the task of making their food budget stretch, farmers are facing huge production and marketing challenges across the globe.

They need to be supported as they transition into new products and markets for fresh and value-added foods. There is a smorgasbord of both choice and opportunity. We cannot know what the future holds, but sometimes a peek at history influences what road will be travelled.

The post Schoepp: Many popular foods have a long history — and an uncertain future appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The variety of food grown is astounding as is the diversity among its processed products. The landscape is home to tiny farms and large ranches, local processors and those who export worldwide. This is a province of mountains, islands, rivers, ocean, lakes, ports and flyways, valleys and plains.

The romantic pull of farming for the lifestyle and the beauty of B.C. lures young folks, just as they are captivated by the lifestyle of riding the ranges in Alberta or working the spacious plains of Saskatchewan, exploring the diversity of Manitoba, milking cows in the East or harvesting the vegetable patch in the Atlantic. However, looking at the production of food through the lifestyle lens does not ensure success.

Rural life is not a fairy tale. Agriculture everywhere has its struggles. Climate events, market prices and disruptions, labour shortages, evolving regulations, choke points in infrastructure, and exhaustion are part of the reality, regardless of the landscape.

It’s a tough gig, farming.

You do have to love it — but you’ll love it a lot more if it provides a living wage for the proprietors and the employees. You’ll like it a lot more if it gives you the headspace, often taken up by worry, to create and innovate in your own business. You’ll enjoy it a lot more if your farm contributes to building a resilient community.

As we seek sound business opportunities that will be foundational to the long-term prosperity of the farm and ranch, regardless of the location, size or scope, it is important to understand the finances of that business. The lack of financial literacy is crippling to startups and ensures a slow bleed on established enterprises.

When the young couple bought the farm, they had stars in their eyes and big plans of feeding the community. There would be a variety of animals and steady traffic to the farm stand. They were new to farming but willing learners on the ‘how to’ run a little farm and readily accepted advice and quickly implemented it. When it came to the business plan however, they refused to discuss it, claiming it would ‘all work out.’

What was uncovered in the process of a continuing conversation with these new farmers was this simple fact: They were not familiar with common business terms.

It was not that they did not desire a financial plan or were against a business plan — they just did not want to expose the fact that they did not understand the language within it.

This conversation brought to light one of the greatest challenges in agriculture today and that is the lack of financial literacy within the demographic of farming and food production. No matter how great the industry — regardless of the diversification and the opportunity — the success of the farmer or rancher is highly (if not wholly) dependent on their financial acumen. Financial literacy is to business what data is to research.

The children who were in primary school were given a loan, with interest, to purchase laying hens, feed and the wood to build the chicken coop. The first year they paid off the loan and the interest and by year two were able to cash flow any operational expenses. Fast-forward five years and these children now own and sell a variety of poultry and poultry products and have established a small cow herd with their earnings. These young entrepreneurs run the enterprise based on the financials. The resiliency they build in their business will help them weather future production or financial storms.

Watching equity erode or getting to the point of insolvency is stressful and life changing. Many of the farmers who have faced this admit they did not understand the financial terms or covenants and they were too embarrassed to ask.

Rather they hoped, instead of planned, for a better year. Often a farm in trouble today is a farm that was in trouble yesterday. The owner simply did not have a full appreciation of the gravity of the compounding issues nor expect such a terminal outcome.

It is never too late to learn.

Children, youth, young adults and mature farmers are welcome to reach out. There are experts and resources in all areas of Canada that welcome the conversation.

We don’t wish to see our children, parents or neighbour fail. The sooner we ask for clarity, the quicker we may be able to get back on track. The sooner we advocate for financial literacy as part of the curriculum from kindergarten forward, the greater the chance of resilient businesses in our communities.

We need financial literacy in schools, clubs, communities and homes for the next generation of farmers to succeed to the point where they are secure enough in business to afford and enjoy the desired lifestyle of the farm.

The farm is not a legacy. It is the people in it who are. It is those people who build the future by nurturing business acumen in our youth and new entrants — and ignite all that is possible in the diverse and exciting profession of farming.

The post Schoepp: More farms need to plant the seeds of financial literacy appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Those persons who are the most food insecure in Canada live in remote places. The population of Nunavut is 57 per cent food insecure compared to other areas such as Nova Scotia (15.3 per cent food insecure). The most food-secure provinces in Canada are B.C. and Quebec, both of which have policies to use provincially produced food first and have the economic advantage of robust food processing of local products.

Multiple research studies clearly indicate that those persons identifying as Black, Indigenous, Arab or Western Asian and living in Canada are more food insecure than others. As are people who rent compared to folks who own homes.

In investigating food security, access to food came down to reliable income. Researchers have found that the financial point at which folks may become food insecure is when earnings are less than $40,000 per year. Access to fresh and nutritious food is limited with low income and is further compounded when combined with remote location and poor infrastructure such as roads.

Is charity the answer?

To date, there is not one speck of research evidence that food charity addresses food insecurity. Charity addresses the symptoms — which are poor nutrition and hunger — but it does not provide for a consistent ability of a person to provide for or to access food. And although many Canadians rely on food banks, this is not a long-term solution.

In Canada, more than a million of the food insecure are children. This means they are either hungry or do not have adequate access to nutritious foods. Seventeen per cent of these children come from a single-parent home, usually child(ren) and mother. That mom often does not have the same earning power as her male colleagues.

This brings us to the heart of the matter.

Food security hinges on income and reliable income in many homes is dependent on work and wage parity.

Regardless of location, women in Canada make, on average, 68 cents for every $1 — or one-third less the wage — compared to a male doing the exact same job. That 32-cent gap on a 40-hour week at $20/hour equates to $13,312 annually (which is just slightly under the $13,907 it is estimated to cost to feed a family of four in Canada in 2021). Wage parity would provide the access to food needed by these Canadian families.

One of the industries that leads the way in wage difference is agriculture.

In some areas of primary production, such as hand field work, there is evidence that women earn one-half of what males do. The employees on Canadian food-processing lines, with the exception of meat processing, are primarily women. And, they are often working for less — more than $10,000 less than their male colleagues. At the end of the food chain at food service, the waitress serving that great Canadian meal today is earning 17 per cent less than the male server doing the same job.

It is a sad irony that farmers and food processors strive to feed the nation and the world when they are contributing to the difference in wages between genders. Through this practice they are, by default, adding to the food-security crisis.

Change in food security must be led by industry — all industries. As agriculture and agri-food manufacturing employs one in seven persons, it should start here, in the fields and farm sheds, pens and processing floors, offices and boardrooms of our region and nation.

There is no historical, religious or cultural argument that stands against wage parity. All persons were created equal and are recognized as such in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Regardless of where a Canadian resides, they should be able to afford to eat. Agriculture and agri-food have a strong and vested interest in seeing wage parity achieved if they are to be part of the food-insecurity solution.

There is a direct link between reliable income and food access. Those persons in families of lone female parents, those who live in remote locations (including farms), those of specific cultures and those households that earn less than $40,000 a year are the most food insecure in Canada today.

If we desire all Canadians in every region, including those without food production, to have access to the nutritious food that we as farmers grow, then we have to provide them with nutritious, affordable, accessible and culturally appropriate options. This we can only achieve with attention to the fact that reliable income provides long-term food-security solutions. Agriculture and agri-food have the opportunity to be the agent for change toward the goal of putting food on the plate of every Canadian.

The post Schoepp: It’s harder for women to put food on table when they’re paid less appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.