It was 1991, and I don’t remember the exact dates of that conflict that was a United States-led operation involving a coalition of 42 countries, determined to remove Iraqi (Saddam Hussein) forces that had recently invaded oil-rich Kuwait.

Now fast forward 35 years and many world conflicts later, and we have the U.S. and this time Iran bombing the living (fill in the blank) out of military, government, energy and civilian targets across several Middle Eastern countries, and it’s almost regarded as “just another day in Donald Trump’s world — who is getting bombed today?”

What does snap me back to reality is the price of gas in my world, which over the first couple weeks of March has been increasing steadily. With oil production and shipments through the Persian Gulf — about 15 million barrels or 20 per cent of the world’s oil needs daily — essentially cut off, at the time of this writing, gas in Calgary was about $1.50 per litre with some forecasts warning that $2 per litre might be ahead.

News reports in the past couple days have also been describing how the interruption in oil supply will affect agriculture and food prices. What might be a temporary shortage of oil will result in much higher nitrogen fertilizer prices in 2026.

As of last week, the price of urea (nitrogen) had already jumped 37 per cent in Egypt going from $485 to $665 per metric tonne. In New Orleans, the price had already increased from $516 on to $683 per short ton. Ammonia was $505 per metric ton — a $30 increase in one week. And the U.S. Gulf prices for DAP (phosphate) had increased five per cent to $655 per metric tonne.

Hopefully many producers already had fertilizer prices or supplies locked in for the 2026 growing season, so these higher prices may not have a major impact until next year.

News reports left the impression that with an increased cost of fuel and fertilizer that farmers will be charging more for their grains and livestock which will result in higher food prices. I don’t doubt there will be higher food prices in the days and weeks ahead, but unless the reality of agricultural economics have suddenly changed, it won’t be because farmers are passing along the higher production costs. Producers will do their best to absorb the increased costs, with hopes that buyers will increase the amount they are able to pay.

The Bunny Hugs Farmers podcast features two Prairie farmers speaking about everyday things happening on their farms.
— Lee Hart

Photo: submitted

Down-to-earth farming topics

If you’re looking for a diversion from the unfolding and ongoing world drama, check out a Western Canadian, farmer-based discussion every two weeks called the Bunny Hugs Farmer podcast.

Created and hosted by Saskatchewan producers Dallas Leduc of Glentworth and Tyler Jaenen of Moosomin, these are just two everyday grain and oilseed producers who team up every couple of weeks to talk about what’s happening on their farms — just everyday stuff. And they often have a guest who joins in on the conversation to talk about a wide range of topics — cattle markets, grain markets, field scouting, beef production, machinery, farm shows and you name it.

Saskatchewan farmer Dallas Leduc is one of the founders of the Bunny Hugs Farmer podcast.

Photo: submitted

I have never met either of the podcast hosts, although Dallas and I have known each other for several years. As he, along with family members, farm about 10,000 acres of grains, oilseeds and pulse crops in southern Saskatchewan. He has been a great help over my years of reporting, talking about what works or doesn’t work on their farm and thoughts on the agriculture industry in general.

Dallas and Tyler didn’t know each other either, but connected through social media and decided early in 2025 to try their hand at producing a podcast. There’s no particular theme, but as Dallas describes, “each episode dives into real farm stories, local issues, and industry insights,” about all sectors and aspects of agriculture. And it certainly isn’t all serious and dry, they make a point of having lots of laughs as well.

“Often we have no idea of what we’re doing,” said Dallas. “We hope our discussion is informative and entertaining. And we are always working to make the next podcast better than the last one.”

They put their own time and money into the project. They have no advertisers or sponsors.

So check out the Bunny Hugs Farmers podcast, which is available on a wide range of social media platforms.

The post With the world at war, you may need a Bunny Hug appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farmers’ concerns have been verified. Regulators must act.

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

This is a serious virus that has infected poultry in 50 American states since 2022. The person infected in April is the second U.S. human case since then. The person was working on a dairy farm where cattle tested positive for AI. The first person to contract AI in 2022 was working with an infected flock.

In poultry, this virus requires full depopulation once diagnosed. Cattle do not normally die from AI, although they can develop secondary infections from respiratory complications and their productive capabilities are affected.

The World Health Organization has posted that over the last 11 years, more than 400 people have died from AI, which is about 50 per cent of the total infections reported in humans globally. The triple threat in the current situation is unusual because the virus moved through three species.

It is not new for a zoonotic disease to cross from one species to another. For example, a dead bird from the wild with avian influenza can infect the resident dogs or cats.

The American Association of Bovine Practitioners has renamed the virus in cattle to Bovine Influenza A Virus. A recent U.S. survey found around 20 per cent of samples contained “particles” of the virus, which suggests the outbreak is more widespread in dairy cattle than previously thought. Further testing using egg inoculation tests, considered most accurate, have shown pasteurization kills the virus.

The trade of dairy cattle between states and territories and some countries has halted and Canada is monitoring the situation. The cause of the pathogenic parade has not been clearly identified. Were there dead birds, either domestic or wild, on the infected dairy farm that also infected dogs and cats and then a human?

Were the cattle fed chicken litter from infected barns? Speculation is currently focused on the latter. In the United States it is legal and common to feed chicken litter to cattle. It is not recommended for lactating cows and there is a withdrawal period in fed cattle to ensure antimicrobials from the litter do not appear in carcasses.

There are no forbidding regulations in any other class of bovine. Poultry litter consists of the manure, bedding and any other shedding found on the barn floor. In the United States, this can be used as feed that is composted, ensiled, made into pellets, sprayed with acid to lower the pH or served ‘as is’ and mixed with or top dressed on the ration.

This is not allowed in Canada. Poultry litter cannot be fed to cattle. With the use of antimicrobials in the average American large production barn and the high incidence of infection in the past two years, it would seem sensible to discontinue or ban the use of poultry litter in cattle feed.

Then traces of antimicrobials and growth promotants, infected feces and body parts would be kept out of meat and milk and would reduce the risk of disease transmission.

At the heart of this is the question of why. It is 2024 and we cannot say we have come a long way when science and research are trumped by an anachronistic practice of feeding manure. With all the advances in feed science and a strong veterinary community, there are other ways of knowing and doing. One drives the other.

There are about 9.5 billion chickens slaughtered in the United States every year that each produce 100 grams of manure each day. That’s a lot of litter. The protein content in the floor scraps is used in the diets of some of the 89 million head of American cattle.

The poultry, milk and beef production, of which dairy cattle are part, feed the population of the United States and their trading partners, including Canada. Therein lies the concern.

Of the beef imported into Canada, 60 per cent comes from the U.S., where feeding protocols are not reciprocal. American milk is now sold in Canada, although it is unlikely that lactating cows are fed poultry litter because this is not recommended. But many herds in different states are now reporting avian influenza, and the common denominator has yet to be proven.

This occurs at a time when U.S. officials have identified a lack of readiness and compliance for the Food Safety Modernization Act and during the ongoing federal antitrust investigation for anticompetitive conduct, bid rigging and price fixing in the broiler chicken industry.

In watching American systems fail, we are reminded how quickly the practice in one industry has potential to damage another and threaten human health.

Though Canada’s food production system is one of the safest in the world, we must remain diligent in improving it. Every day we must endeavour to protect our farm workers, serve our consumers clean and safe food, ensure we have the latest in science and innovation to back up our practices and always put animal well-being first — honouring them in every aspect of their lives for the food they provide.

Brenda Schoepp works as an international mentor and motivational speaker. She can be contacted through her website at www.brendaschoepp.com.

The post The wild side of zoonotics appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

This spring, there is an increase of sales in certain sectors. Sales driven by land stress and owners’ inability to financially weather another storm. Tree fruits and grapevines that could not recover from the second cold snap. Grain farms that had no snow or rain and could not sustain another year, and cattle farms that are short on local feed and access to water.

From the flooded plains to the barren hills, farms are pressured to perform as commodity prices weaken and interest rates hold steady.

The other similarity with many of these properties is that they are monocultures or singularly focused production units and highly dependent on one source of income from one crop. When frost kills or rain stops, everything is affected.

• MORE with Brenda Schoepp: Wider conversation needed on climate cause

Monocultures are great for scaling up and for having one specialized line of equipment, data base, parts inventory, market, husbandry system and storage facilities. These farmers tend to be very good at what they do, are technically advanced and keenly focused on the type of agriculture they have chosen.

However, a monoculture is known to be tough on natural land regeneration if not handled properly and there is no safety net, other than hedging or government intervention through insurance, payout or subsidy.

Risk mitigation and preparing for events outside farm control have always been important because history, with its nasty weather, does repeat. It is a given, regardless of how nice a day it was when the farm was bought. It will go through tough spells before it is sold or transferred.

There is no claim that mixed farms are under less tension from weather events but something is usually harvestable and saleable and at the very least, planting and harvest happens at different times. This mitigates crop and financial risk and is also a labour advantage.

Bringing in several hundred people to harvest cherries and then sending them home is expensive, tough on the employee and does not spread the risk of labour acquisition. A farming operation with a variety of crops suited to the soil and the slope can distribute fewer persons over a longer season, and in some cases create permanent homes for employee families with year-round engagement, especially if any value adding, such as packaging or product creation, occurs on the farm.

Often when discussion centres around a monoculture, the focus is on loss or lack of biodiversity and this is certainly true. There is mounting scientific evidence that highlights the intergenerational advantage to plant and animal agriculture in bio-diverse systems. Farmers who like the open fields of a monoculture know the importance of this and put into practice such actions as no-till to ensure moisture retention.

Regardless of the production practice, one thing is certain: farmland values remain strong. The average increase in value of cultivated Canadian farmland was 11.5 per cent in 2023. The only province with a decline was British Columbia, where values fell by 3.1 per cent in same year. This is interesting, as it occurred in a province where land in the Delta region can exceed $264,000 per acre.

Overall, farm values continue to increase while commodity prices are softening and there is clear evidence that the cost of owning land in some areas now outstrips its long-term production capabilities and income generation ability.

In Canada, 40 per cent of farmland is on a short-term rental. Whether the land is owned or rented, it comes down to money and there may be a better chance to recover from unprecedented weather events when in a diverse and regenerative system.

Regardless of farm size, the operation that uses a model of diversity and maintains and integrates natural landscapes may be more resilient in times of weather and financial stress, as the risk is spread over several enterprises. The big advantages in complimentary biodiverse systems are that water is captured and retained, land is renewed, carbon is sequestered, beneficial insects, birds and wildlife live in a harmonious ecology and there is cash flow in intervals.

Although the system might be stressed, it is often not destroyed when exposed to a series of extreme weather events. It’s something to think about when restructuring the farm for the future, when that future is certain to turn eyes to the skies in hope of rain to start or stop and for temperatures to rise or fall.

No community wants to see a failed farm and the exit of a farming family when a little bit of conservation might have mitigated the risk and been of benefit to all.

The post Schoepp: For sale signs of the times appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Regenerative tourism digs deep into the concept of leaving a community better than before you visited – not an easy task given the wide array of visitors and destinations, budgets and tastes.

Like agriculture, tourism has its hurdles. On the environmental side, the simple fact is that people will not give up flying. The focus then becomes improving air travel and ‘on the ground’ and ‘at sea’ practices to ensure everything that happens has a net benefit to the stakeholders, especially to the host community.

In a fascinating shift of perspective, the regenerative model was applied with acknowledgement that all systems, including tourism and agriculture, are living systems. Gone are the days when it was OK to simply visit a place. Now the focus is on how that visit enhances the community beyond economic generation. It is creation of a sense of place.

This social shift was highlighted by speaker and graduate student Agrim Banerjee, who believes community members are essentially the first visitors. That reset allows the destination provider to see the space through the eyes of those who live there.

• More with Brenda Schoepp: From beyond meat to the return of meat

Thinking of this from an agricultural perspective, we must first ask how we see our own space and the community in which we live, and then ask ourselves how we thrive and what a visitor to our sector or even our farm may see.

What is it they feel upon arrival and departure and how are we in ag going to embrace the trend that the public wants to be part of our regenerative story?

Perhaps the solution is not as elusive as we thought. Graduate student Veronica Santiago reintroduced the importance of values alignment in tourism and how that should drive every action.

We have talked about this before; the importance of finding the intersection of farm values with societal values. In travel, it lies in delivering a respectful and an authentic experience. This is what we want our visitors or customers to experience as well.

I loved the introduction at this conference of trashing the measuring stick and replacing it with a compass. With the compass, we focus on the destination, and for tourism and for agriculture, that is a shared value.

How we get there and what it looks like after we have visited or lived the experience is dependent upon our shared regenerative values.

Farms tend to work in isolation and do not leverage the secret power of connection. Tourism, more than any other industry, recognizes this as it must instantly connect with the 22 million persons who visit Canada each year.

The ultimate host provides both the platform for appreciation of regenerative practise and ensures that experience reflects this.

Ignoring the power of connection in any sector leads to the usual potholes, such as fragmentation, knee jerk policies, unclear mandates and even disaster. It is not affordable nor does it advance the sector.

Both sectors recognize the importance of this. I am part of the beef industry so I will use it as an example. Historically, the cow-calf producer has a degree of separation from the feedlot but a million miles of separation from the packer and retailer. Only when the gaps are understood will regeneration occur.

Knowledge is our holy ground and storytelling is the medium in tourism and agriculture. I watched, breathless, as graduate student Raimundo Olivios Donoso let his images of the extreme Andes grip the crowd with the fever to partake and the solemn importance of leaving that vast space better after each visit.

The story was in the pictures and the message was clear on respecting not only the physical environment but the ancient culture.

In Canadian agriculture, we have yet to fully embrace storytelling as a way to connect with our customers and as a way to knit together our communities.

The value of storytelling is evident in the documentary Guardians of the Grasslands, winner of countless acknowledgements and five major film awards. It is a story beautifully told, but one might ask: where are these places? How can visitors to the film or the space become allies for regenerative tourism and agriculture?

Guardians is the forward to an amazing world of all things agriculture and food; a story that we have yet to tell, and tell well.

So often our allies are found outside the fence lines in places we could not have imagined. Tourism told our unique Canadian story in different forms over this four-day event. The challenge now is to have the conversation on how we tell the story of agriculture and determine how we move ahead and embrace the shared values of two of Canada’s most powerful and potentially regenerative sectors.

The post Schoepp: Telling the farm story appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Essentially, this bill seeks to bestow immunity upon supply management from any potential future trade negotiations, without offering increased market access to potential trade partners.

In simpler terms, it risks holding all other economic sectors hostage solely to safeguard the interests of a small, privileged group of farmers. This is far from an optimal scenario, and the implications of this bill are bad news for Canadians.

Supply management, which governs poultry, egg and dairy production in Canada, has traditionally enabled us to fulfil our domestic needs. Under this system, farmers are allocated government-sanctioned quotas to produce food for the nation, while high tariffs are imposed on imports of items such as chicken, butter, yogurt, cheese, milk and eggs.

This model has been in place for more than five decades, ostensibly to shield family farms from economic volatility.

Despite the implementation of supply management, Canada has witnessed a comparable decline in the number of farms as the United States, where a national supply management scheme does not exist. Supply management has failed to preserve much of anything beyond enriching select agricultural sectors.

For instance, dairy farmers now possess quotas valued at over $25 billion, while concurrently burdening dairy processors with the highest-priced industrial milk in the western world. Recent data indicates a significant surge in prices at the grocery store, with yogurt prices alone soaring by over 30 per cent since December 2023. This escalation is increasingly straining the budgets of many consumers.

It’s evident to those knowledgeable about the situation that the emergence of Bill C-282 is no surprise. Proponents of supply management exert considerable influence over politicians across party lines, compelling them to support this bill to safeguard the interests of less than one per cent of our economy, much to the ignorance of most Canadians.

In the last federal budget, the dairy industry alone received over $300 million in research funds, which arguably exceed its actual needs.

While Canada’s agricultural sector accounts for approximately seven per cent of our GDP, supply-managed industries represent a small fraction of that figure. Supply-managed farms represent about five per cent of all farms in Canada.

Forging trade agreements with key partners such as India, China and the United Kingdom is imperative not only for sectors like automotive, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, but for the vast majority of farms in livestock and grains to thrive and contribute to global welfare and prosperity.

It is essential to recognize that Canada has much more to offer than merely self-sufficiency in food production.

Over time, the marketing boards overseeing quotas for farmers have amassed significant power and have proven themselves politically aggressive. They vehemently oppose any challenges to the existing system, targeting politicians, academics and groups advocating for reform or abolition.

Despite occasional resistance from MPs and Senators, no major political party has dared to question the disproportionate protection afforded to one sector over others. Strengthening our supply-managed sectors necessitates embracing competition, which can only serve to enhance their resilience and competitiveness.

A recent example of the consequences of protectionism is the United Kingdom’s decision to walk away from trade negotiations with Canada due to disagreements over access to our dairy market. Not only do many Canadians appreciate the quality of British cheese, but increased competition in the dairy section would also drive prices down, a welcome relief given current economic challenges.

In the past decade, Canada has ratified trade agreements such as CUSMA, CETA and CPTPP, all of which entailed breaches in our supply management regime. Despite initial concerns from farmers, particularly regarding the impact on poultry, eggs and dairy, these sectors fared well. A dairy farm in Ontario recently sold for a staggering $21.5 million in Oxford County.

Claims of losses resulting from increased market access are often unfounded, as farmer boards simply adjust quotas when producers exit the industry.

In essence, Bill C-282 represents a misguided initiative driven by farmer boards capitalizing on the ignorance of urban residents and politicians regarding rural realities.

Embracing further protectionism will harm consumers who yearn for more competition at the grocery store. It will also impede the growth opportunities of various agricultural sectors striving to compete globally and stifle the expansion prospects of non-agricultural sectors that seek greater market access.

The post Bill C-282 is an awful idea appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

This significant sum is the largest verdict in the ongoing five-year litigation involving the weed killer. However, the legal battles are far from over. There are still more than 50,000 cases pending in the United States.

It’s important to note that out of more than 165,000 cases initially filed, over 110,000 were either dismissed or deemed unjustified by the courts. This situation underscores the complexity of the issue, and it’s unfair to solely blame the individuals pursuing legal action. The industry also bears responsibility for the glyphosate controversy.

Glyphosate, the primary component of Roundup, was patented by Monsanto in 1971 and introduced to the market in 1974. It is a widely used herbicide with broad-spectrum capabilities. Extensive use by farmers worldwide led to its widespread presence in the environment, including Canada. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a potential human carcinogen, placing it in Group 2A, the same category as red meat and very hot beverages above 65 C. This categorization ignited ongoing debates regarding glyphosate’s carcinogenic effects.

Recent studies, including a comprehensive one published in Environmental Research, shed new light on glyphosate’s environmental presence and its potential impact on human health. Consequently, the question of whether glyphosate is carcinogenic remains a subject of ongoing discussion. While numerous studies suggest strong associations between glyphosate and human diseases, as well as environmental harm, other meta-analyses suggest the risks are minimal.

Glyphosate has arguably been one of the most extensively studied chemicals globally, resulting in a plethora of research, primarily negative. Monsanto itself faced accusations of manipulating its research and results to influence governments and public opinion on the matter. The common thread among these studies is the call for more research to better understand the risks.

Nearly 50 years after Roundup’s introduction, more than 30 countries have banned glyphosate use. Various interest groups have effectively demonized glyphosate over the years, creating doubts about its safety.

After years of scientific evaluation, Health Canada claims glyphosate is safe, although many still advocate for its ban.

The latest review in suggests that epidemiological studies offer limited evidence to definitively establish glyphosate as a carcinogen. These findings align with IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen in Group 2A. Banning glyphosate would be akin to banning red meat or hot beverages above 65 C, which may seem overly dramatic.

The ongoing debate and fear surrounding glyphosate can be attributed to the biotech industry’s inadequate risk communication strategy over the years. Since 1974, the industry has primarily focused on selling to farmers and increasing agricultural yields.

Genetic engineering, reliant on herbicides like Roundup, has undoubtedly improved agricultural efficiency. However, it has also exacerbated the rural-urban divide, leaving many city dwellers without an understanding of genetic engineering. Interest groups opposing industrial agriculture have capitalized on this information gap.

Ultimately, Bayer AG, Monsanto, and other biotechnology companies have only themselves to blame for taking consumers for granted. Consumers have been served food without adequate transparency about what was happening in farmers’ fields.

Advocates who call for GM labelling are justified, as it would increase transparency in the agri-food sector and empower consumers to make informed choices.

With gene editing now permitted in Canada since last year, the industry mustn’t repeat the same mistakes. Ignoring consumers’ concerns could have financial consequences.

It’s essential to value consumers and address their questions and apprehensions to build trust in the industry and its products.

The post How industry neglect fueled a US$2.2 billion verdict appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

In the 28-year history of the Conference of the Parties, agriculture has always taken a backseat. The 2023 meetings brought food production forward, not as the saving grace for global food insecurity, but as the culprit for climate change and the emitter of one-third of all greenhouse gases. And front and centre in the discussion were livestock and the accusation that their contribution to methane was paramount.

Experts claimed that livestock, that being farmed ruminants, were responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the narrow scope of one study, that spurred one of the three main directives of the conference, which was innovation in the livestock sector.

The 150 signatories, of which Canada was one, affirmed “that agriculture and food systems must urgently adapt and transform in order to respond to the imperatives of climate change.” Furthermore, the declaration said that “to achieve these aims – according to our own national circumstances – we commit to expediate the integration of agriculture and food systems into our climate action and simultaneously, to mainstream climate action across our policy agendas and actions related to agriculture and food systems.”

• MORE with Brenda Schoepp: From Beyond Meat to the return of meat

At first glance, it appears we are making progress with the promotion of cross-ministry policies. But Canada’s total output for all of agriculture is slight at 10 per cent of greenhouse gases and our nation’s response was not joint and did not come from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It came prepackaged and ready to go from Environment and Climate Change Canada and was announced immediately following the COP28 meetings.

In the complex protocols for Canada’s program to incentivize beef producers to reduce methane emissions, it appears that to apply the protocols into practical action involves the assistance of a beef cattle scientist or researcher specializing in ruminants.

There is no indication at this time of the incentive or penalty within the context of the program, other than one line that claims there is an opportunity to generate offset credit.

It is not the project and related initiatives that are so concerning. Perhaps these will bring a long-needed boost to livestock research and attract more scientists, which is a positive outcome.

However, Canada agreed to expedite agriculture and food into climate action. Without in-depth consultation, that may have negative impact to an industry already suffering from high input costs and weather challenges. Neither Chief Climate Negotiator Michael Bonser nor Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault have served in any agricultural capacity in their careers.

Also concerning is the sudden emergence of methane expert groups. An example is the Expert Panel on Livestock Methane, a group of six academics who provide daily and very dire predictions. Their mandate is to reduce the emissions from livestock and reduce global livestock numbers.

One post recently read “1 million + premature deaths per year. Methane emissions from livestock contribute ground level ozone, a harmful gas that is responsible for one in five of all respiratory deaths.”

Shocking and also fraudulent. The sole source was an article in which mortality was estimated in males over 30 years old from poor air quality caused by nitrogen oxides, non-methane volatile organic compounds, methane and carbon dioxide in India, Pakistan, China, U.S. and Europe.

Ruminant producers, but especially beef producers, have been caught in a vortex of environmental emotion that is not supported by accurate science or informed advocates. Regardless of the conversation in some circles from those who may have never seen a cow, from either end, the reality is that when it comes to cattle, 53 per cent of the global population live in India, Brazil and China.

India, home to nearly 33 per cent of the world’s cattle, did not sign the declaration. And 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), 1.5 million 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.

And what of those with three-stomach compartments such as camels, of which there are 35 million domesticated and one million in the wild, and their relations such as alpacas and llamas? Are they contributing more than a monogastric such as a horse and, in doing so, are they also to be considered climate culprits?

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

There is a gap in understanding of the role of ruminants to use grass and other digestibles to produce milk, meat and much needed byproducts and to generate manure – one of the most valuable assets on earth, particularly in the face of soil depletion and dehydration and the need for alternative fuel sources.

For Canadian farmers with just 1.2 per cent of the global cattle population, the conversation itself is a challenge, as the industry and policy makers are short on accurate data.

For farmers and ranchers of all ruminants, the next few years will require additional research and strong advocacy to ensure they are not penalized nor put to pasture for producing food and valuable byproducts that do more to address climate change than ridding the earth of cattle in their natural environment.

The post Schoepp: Ruminants in the COP28 crosshairs appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

One particular individual, an economist seemingly more interested in grabbing headlines and camera attention to boost fundraising and personal interests, made bold claims about “record and excessive profits” in the grocery sector for 2023.

The term “excessive profits” has become a favourite slogan for those seeking to foster animosity toward businesses.

However, it’s crucial to note that his argument relied on Statistics Canada data, which encompasses convenience stores and specialty stores in its dataset, not solely the major grocers. The sensationalized $6 billion figure quickly circulated in the news, causing considerable harm.

The facts indicate that gross margins, a valuable metric for assessing whether a company overcharges for its goods, will remain at 3.4 per cent, consistent with the five-year average for Loblaw, Empire and Metro.

Regrettably, we shouldn’t expect an apology from this economist. He seems intent on misleading Canadians, insisting that profits should continue to rise due to inflation, all the while resorting to attention-grabbing headlines and fearmongering tactics. This was a reprehensible misuse of a platform to advance a political, anti-corporate agenda — utterly disappointing and disingenuous.

Loblaw also made some questionable claims during a visit to Ottawa concerning the potential impact of a grocer’s code of conduct. The company admitted on Dec. 23 that the Australian example cited by its CEO, Galen Weston, to justify the company’s refusal to sign the code of conduct, was inaccurate.

At that time, Weston expressed concerns to federal officials that the current code of conduct could potentially increase food prices by $1 billion, arguing that, in Australia, the third party responsible for enforcing the code favoured suppliers seeking higher prices, which would harm consumers. None of these claims held.

At least Loblaw eventually acknowledged its error, albeit on Dec. 23, when most of us were preoccupied with holiday preparations.

Leaving aside Loblaw’s failed attempt to obstruct the industry’s efforts to implement a more disciplined and fair code of conduct, Ottawa’s primary focus should be on fostering competition. Providing consumers with more choices and making the Canadian food market more attractive to external investors is essential.

The code of conduct should be a non-government, third-party-led mechanism enabling companies to resolve disputes related to contractual terms rather than pricing per se.

Currently, as grocers unilaterally raise listing and marketing fees imposed on suppliers, the manufacturers, in turn, increase prices to offset these higher fees set by grocers. This results in a cycle that ultimately impacts consumers, often without their awareness.

This is the only way food prices can become more stable over time. In countries like Ireland, Australia and the United Kingdom, where such a code exists, food price increases, adjusted for inflation between 2013 and 2023, have been negative, whereas Canada’s food price increase adjusted for inflation over a decade was 8.9 percent.

While a code of conduct may not entirely curb food inflation, it will help the industry coordinate vertically and address market turbulence, which is often triggered by factors like climate change and geopolitics, leading to price volatility and sticker shocks.

Ottawa should compel all parties, including those who oppose the code like Loblaw and Walmart, to adhere to the code of conduct. That should be the shared goal of all Canadians for 2024.

Sylvain Charlebois is professor of food policy and distribution at Dalhousie University, and senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab.

The post Loblaw’s gaffe and apology appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

It’s an ideal picture in fall or even spring, but this was late November and not a snowflake or raindrop had quenched the open fields. I recalled past seasons, with both bitter cold and massive snow, as well as balmy days, on the same date throughout the years. But never had it been this dry.

Is this a dry year in recent history or will it be known as the wettest year in times to come? Pondering this as a wet year puts a new perspective on the dialogue and the potential solutions.

The disruption of water systems started long ago with the ridding of our industrious engineers who understood hydrology and the importance of water. They built dams that stored water behind and below their structures and in doing so preserved, purified and regenerated this essential resource.

Canada’s beavers are symbolic for an important reason. They remain the ultimate representatives of conservation, even as they and their lodges are threatened in a system of watershed and ultimately wetland destruction. The harvest of the beaver for pelts, the opening of land for other uses and blowing up dams, had an impact on our wetlands and contributes to current day climate change.

Farming, forestry, mining, oil, gas and other resource development, recreation, manufacturing and urban development all contributed to the demise of natural renewable systems. Solving the problem is complex and may take generations to fully appreciate. And what is clearly not understood is the intersection of all things – how systems work and are interdependent.

Pointing a withered finger at agriculture as the culprit doesn’t hold ground because we are only a speck on the landscape. Only 4.3 per cent of Canadian soil is currently arable. The rest of the disturbance and destruction has come from those outside ag and with the exception of flatland river sheds, from those activities often located at higher elevations.

It starts with watershed destruction that often leads to erosion, plant invasion and hotter soil. Every living thing becomes impacted thereafter, as families of trees are uprooted and the orchestrated activity of biodiversity is ripped apart, jeopardizing water retention.

The very plants that help us breathe by cleaning the air also create rain as roots, branches, stems, leaves, heads and canopy store and release water vapour. Strapping the earth with roads and structures, diversions, drains and below surface pumping completes the devastation.

Science tells us all these things and we think we know them, and yet we remain a society that watches and wastes.

We watch the contractual, and often foreign interest, destruction of our precious clean watersheds, waterways, wetlands and river basins while casually washing our perfectly clean car. We watch and worry while supporting policy that forces the responsibility of food security into the hands of the farmers who have, on many occasions, limited access to ground water and rain. We build, burn, bury and toss, and then publicly ask for solutions for the outcome of those actions to mitigate future risk.

Communities should be built around water preservation and regeneration instead of continuously withdrawing on the natural capital.

Just unintended consequences? Hardly. We have the science. Going back to Science 101 and embracing its reality is instrumental in educating the whole of society and the whole of government on the value of water.

In my own research on global food systems leadership, it was repeated often that we need practical solutions that benefit regional economies and long-term enabling policies that are multi-generational.

On a farm tour in the Netherlands, the host was asked why there is no religious conflict in the country. The answer was simple: “We all live below sea level.” In other words, the whole of society appreciates that there are places where Mother Nature will never be pushed.

Without the collaboration of governments and input from stakeholders who occupy the space, particularly in agriculture, any attempt to reverse parched landscapes is folly. We must commit to mirroring what nature does and in doing so, we get to explore all that is possible.

Our land has a reproductive and regenerative right and she wants to use her power to continue to sustain life – including our own. Farmers get this but they need more tools and information than a set of best practises. And, they need to know that they are valued in a society that flushes more water than they will ever feed. Just like living below sea level, every industry and every Canadian is in this together.

From the mountain top where a tree is felled to the plains where the drill is driven right through to the last trickle into the sea, and every beaver dam in between, there is synergy that must honoured if we are to succeed in quenching the thirst that faces us – in what could be the wettest year in this time in history.

The post Opinion: Water for our world appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.