The study by the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity (CCFI) found that 91 per cent of Canadians feel they know little, very little or nothing about modern agricultural practices. However, this research also shows that 60 per cent of Canadians are interested in knowing more about these practices.

“If three in five Canadians are interested in learning more and they claim to know very little, this is an opportunity to share exciting new technologies, best practices that farmers utilize every day and accurate nutrition information with consumers,” said Paighton Smyth, CCFI’s partner engagement co-ordinator, during a webinar outlining this research. “The more Canadians feel empowered and informed, the more they build trust in the Canadian food system.”

CCFI’s 2019 research comprises three studies, one of which is based on the public trust tracking data the organization has been gathering since 2016. Surveying more than 2,000 Canadians, this research aimed to provide a better understanding of public views on the Canadian food system.

Each year, the public trust tracking research asks respondents whether or not they believe the Canadian food system is on the right track. With results almost identical to that of the 2018 data, 35 per cent of Canadians think the food system is moving in the right direction, while more than 20 per cent believe it’s going in the wrong direction.

When asked about their overall impression of agriculture, 60 per cent of respondents have an overall positive impression, rising from 55 per cent in 2018.

“There have been significant results showing a decrease in the number of people who have a negative impression, but this is directly coincided with the number of individuals who voted to say they don’t know enough to even answer the question,” said Smyth.

This study also examined perspectives on specific agricultural practices, with levels of personal concern about some practices higher than in 2018. The study found that 38 per cent of Canadians are concerned about eating food derived from genetically engineered crops, while 46 per cent are concerned about the use of hormones in livestock. As well, 46 per cent worry about the use of pesticides in crop production.

The primary concern consumers had with livestock production was “how the animals are raised and if the practices fit their expectations,” said Smyth. “A significantly higher proportion compared to a year ago agree they have no problem consuming meat, milk and eggs if the animals are treated decently.”

However, the study found that just 33 per cent of Canadians strongly feel that Canadian-produced meat comes from humanely treated animals.

Smyth noted it’s important to consider how the consumer’s limited knowledge of agriculture can result in inaccurate perceptions. For example, for someone involved in agriculture, the term “modern farming” may suggest new technologies, but this isn’t the case for the average consumer.

“Many Canadians associate modern farming with terms such as ‘factory farms,’ ‘big agriculture companies,’ ‘poor animal welfare,’ and ‘decreased food quality,’” she said. “Moving forward, the food system needs to ensure that the consumer viewpoint is understood and utilized to ensure that they’re introduced to the advancements that are being developed daily.”

Trust versus responsibility

In order to understand who in the food system is best positioned to share information on its behalf, part of this research focused on who consumers trust for information related to food and agriculture, as well as who they deem responsible for providing this information.

“We separated out these two questions because who people hold responsible is not necessarily who they trust to provide information,” said Smyth.

When asked who they consider to be most responsible for providing information on food production, Canadians chose farmers and ranchers as the most responsible, with food processors and manufacturers in second place and government and government agencies in third. When asked who they trust for information related to food production, producers were voted at the top of the list again, followed by university researchers and Canadian agriculture in general.

CCFI also wanted to find out who is considered the best source of information on nutrition issues, environmental issues, food safety issues and animal welfare issues. The top source was different for each topic, with dieticians considered the best source for nutrition issues, veterinarians for animal welfare issues, and farmers and ranchers as the best source on both environmental and food safety issues.

“When communicating with Canadians, evaluate the topic or information you’re disseminating; who could be the best person to convey the message, and who would your target audience trust the most?” said Smyth. “Utilize their knowledge on the subject, and based on how consumers responded in the research, they’re actually going to be more likely to believe the information in front of them.”

Shifting perspectives

Another component of the 2019 research explored what messages resonate with Canadians as related to the benefits of specific agricultural practices. Using artificial intelligence software, this research studied online conversations from more than 25,000 Canadian social media profiles with publicly available data.

The goal was to learn how it may be possible to shift a consumer’s perspective of a controversial practice, and this software was able to predict if a negative view could be changed to a more positive perception.

“By knowing how Canadians feel about GMOs and how they feel about food affordability, the (artificial intelligence) software can predict how a consumer might react when food affordability is used to describe a benefit of using GMO technology,” Smyth said.

“The key messages that resonated most with Canadians about GMOs was that they helped to reduce greenhouse gases and fight climate change, and that they allowed farmers to use less pesticides. The top messages for pesticides were that they had the potential to decrease exposure to food contaminated with harmful micro-organisms and could help climate change,” she continued.

“For antibiotics, messaging that they could improve food affordability and regulators assure food safety presented as messages that could shift opinions. Finally, for modern farming, wording that suggested animal welfare is highly regulated and farmers care about their animals was most successful.”

While this tool only provided predictions, it offers direction for more successful engagement with consumers.

“Overall, messaging that promotes a decrease in greenhouse gases/fights climate change has the most potential to reach the 2.5 million Canadians who are currently discussing these topics online,” said Smyth.

The full research summary can be downloaded from CCFI’s website. Graphics based on the 2019 findings are available for presentations and to share via social media. CCFI will also produce insight reports every two months in 2020, focusing on a specific topic in the Canadian food system by sharing credible information and advice on how to connect with consumers.

The post Research finds Canadians want to learn about agriculture appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

More evidence of the American left’s firm belief that man causes climate change and beef production is the worst offender.

Politically, we have heard the two main opposition parties in Canada might try to delay the ratification of the CUSMA treaty, accusing the Liberals of “botching” the treaty revisions (Reuters).

At the end of the negotiations, there were two weeks of very intense sessions among the U.S. Trade Representative; Mexican negotiators, private sector businesses and legislators; Canadian negotiators; and the Working Group, about labour issues and enforcement. The U.S. was eager to please the labour unions and finish the treaty. Perhaps something in those last-minute negotiations displeased the Canadian opposition parties.

U.S. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had appointed a Democratic Working Group (no Republicans allowed) to “improve” the treaty. The working group was subdivided on four issues: drug pricing, labour, environment and enforcement. Labour and enforcement issues could be bothering the opposition.

U.S. labour unions had been asking that U.S. inspectors be able to make unannounced inspections of Mexican factories to check on compliance. Mexico considered that unacceptable.

Details are scarce but the final AFL-CIO official statement said “for the first time, there truly will be enforceable labour standards,” including some process for inspecting factories that are not meeting standards. That process could involve not systematic blanket inspections but investigations and inspections of suspected rule breakers.

The treaty specifies 75 per cent of auto parts to be made in North America and for Mexican workers making 40 per cent of production to be making $15/hour.

R-CALF has lately been busy suing the major packers and getting help from the trial lawyers to sue the beef check-off and USDA.

CEO Bill Bullard has a new target. He claims “importers” “control” sufficient numbers of imported cattle and beef that they influence Congress to block the resurrection of mCOOL.

Bullard has determined that the roughly three billion pounds of beef imported each year by the U.S., plus the feeder cattle imported from Mexico and Canada and the live cattle from Canada account for 6.9 million head. He contends that those “importers” that exercise “dominant control” through those 6.9 million head have “extraordinary influence in both Congress and the administration, enabling them to drown out the voices of U. S. cattle farmers and ranchers.”

In reality, 6.9 million head is minor compared to America’s 32 million beef cows and 33 million head of slaughter cattle.

Bullard seems to envision rascally Mexicans and Canadians loading up trucks and looking for a place over the U.S. border to dump loads of cattle and beef.

Actually, when American feedyards or packers or ground beef purveyors need cattle or beef, they find and buy it, say, in Canada, and bring it to the U.S., under inspection and clearances.

The three billion pounds of beef imported by the U.S. is 11 per cent of the total of 27 billion pounds. The total that upsets Bullard from Mexico and Canada is 778 million pounds, about a fourth of total imports and three per cent of total U.S. beef.

Those “importers” are not a foreign, monolithic evil empire. They are companies operating in America buying the products, not unseen conspirators force-feeding cattle and beef down our throats. The booming ground beef demand in the U.S. simply requires more cull beef and dairy cows than we have.

R-CALF has continually attacked imported beef or cattle, alleging that anything bad in the markets occurs because of the eight or nine per cent of the total fed slaughter that packers procure in Canada. Those cattle are not flooding our market. Some help border packers stay in business. Those packers harvest fed cattle from American feeders in areas with too few American cattle to support a plant. Area feedyards buy feeder cattle from local American producers.

Noteworthy: the number of feeder cattle from Canada going to the States continues to drop, some 70 per cent over a decade, partially because of legal, political and public relations efforts of R-CALF. Its efforts to keep the Canadian border closed over unfounded BSE fears and operational and cost factors caused by R-CALF’s ill-advised mCOOL efforts, triggered Canadian government help to Canada’s beef industry, boosted the packer and feedlot demand for cattle, and fewer feeder cattle now flow from Canada to the U.S.

It is opposition from the majority of U.S. farm and ranch groups, plus mCOOL’s illegality, that have prevented the reinstitution of mCOOL. It is not the “overwhelming influence” or “undue lobbying influence” of beef and cattle “importers” in Washington, D.C.

The post Dittmer: From the Golden Globes to R-CALF appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

For months now, many have taken to social media to spread their concerns about choices made when travelling. Some means to travel, especially the plane, have been targeted by environmentalists, using guilt and public shaming to get people to think differently about their lifestyle. Even if air travel is responsible for less than two per cent of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, discrediting those who travel by plane is a continuing practice. Air travel does emit GHGs, but this industry is far from being the worse culprit, and many travellers have no other option but to fly to reach their destination. Studies have suggested that reducing the number of flights could reduce our carbon footprint. Perhaps, but weaponizing science to support a social movement or support a political campaign is now the new norm and often leads to contentious debates. Similarly, food, even though it can be personal and culturally charged, is not immune to this phenomenon.

Public shaming may reach a new, awkward level by looking at how much we eat. A recent study published by the Obesity Society suggests that obesity and overeating generates approximately 20 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions when compared to diets of people considered to have normal weight.

Researchers found that global obesity was estimated to contribute an extra 700 megatons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, or about 1.6 per cent of all man-made emissions, which is almost the same as air travel. The authors of the new study did emphasize that it is crucially important that this information does not lead to more weight stigmatization. But given the era we are in, recognizing how social media can interpret science differently, the potential for consumers with excess weight to be stigmatized is real. And some of us can be overly sensitive about this, especially after the holiday season.

Climate change has clearly become an important issue for a growing number of consumers. Some even call it a crisis. Such rhetoric is meant to entice governments and industry to make changes, and adopt new regulations in order to safeguard the planet. It is also attempting to cause consumers to think differently and become better environmental stewards.

Individually, we all make decisions based on professional responsibilities, personal wants and lifestyles. And, of course, we can all make different choices to help the planet. The public discourse is moving towards individualizing a plan of action to better serve the environment. That is all wonderful but using guilt and dishonour to condemn choices we all make daily is starting to reach uncomfortable levels, especially if these tactics are used against people facing weight challenges.

Obesity is a multi-faceted, highly complicated issue. Genetics, changing health conditions, mental health, our sedentary lifestyles, are all factors that can contribute to sudden or long-term weight gains. And many times, factors are beyond an individual’s control. Linking overeating with climate change is indeed a dangerous path to take and should be avoided at all cost. The potential to harm is certainly there. Food waste, on the other hand, is more controllable and not as personal. Food waste is not as complex either. Our discussion to reduce the amount of resources to generate the food we consume should be based on the food we waste and need to rescue, not obesity. And packaging, plastics, do represent a more appropriate target for environmentalist.

The Obesity Society’s study likely won’t help our quest to find a socially acceptable contract between good dieting and our environmental obligations. The year 2019 was marked by a very divisive, ridiculous debate between those who believed animal proteins are irreplaceable and those who fear that our current collective course of meat consumption is not sustainable. Fueled by highly public reports supporting one view or another, protein consumption has become a highly polarized, sensitive issue. The great Protein war, as some would suggest, is dividing industries, scientists, and even families. Some conversations between interest groups have been shockingly disruptive in recent months. Global meat consumption is slowly reaching its peak and the world is changing, without the shaming. Considering how food can be as cultural as it is personal, shaming someone for eating a hamburger, or a good steak is simply insolent.

Researchers conceded that the imprecise nature of data combinations should get readers to consider findings with some caution. This, however, may not be enough to discourage some groups to use the study against those they believe are behaving irresponsibly in the face of our climate crisis.

And that would indeed be shameful.

The post Is weight shaming going to be a thing? Let’s hope not appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Agricultural emission offset projects are attractive to companies required to purchase emission offsets and those voluntarily making a positive environmental impact. The added benefits of these projects, a result of sustainable production practices, are often just as enticing.

“A lot of agricultural projects, they have more of a story,” said Max DuBuisson, policy director for Climate Action Reserve, a carbon offset registry based in California. “They have more co-benefits and they have more appeal to these buyers. This is something that they can put in their glossy corporate annual report and feel good about it.”

There are two types of carbon market structures. The first is the compliance-based market. In this, a large emitter is legally required to offset what it emits, so it purchases credits from a third party that is reducing its emissions. The second structure is the voluntary market, in which the buyer purchases credits voluntarily.

Carbon offset systems are based upon protocols, which are documents outlining the steps involved in an offset project, including what is eligible as a pro­ject and how it is monitored. Protocols are approved by organizations that issue credits, and third-party verification of credits is required.

DuBuisson outlined the requirements for issuing credits at the 2018 Canadian Forage and Grassland Association’s Conference. Emission reductions need to be measurable, verifiable and permanent. Credits may be worth up to US$14 in the California compliance market, while prices in the voluntary market vary based on the type of project.

Price uncertainty is a risk in the voluntary market, given that demand isn’t as certain as it is in the compliance market. But demand has generally been stronger in the voluntary market. Some experts also argue that enforced programs aren’t as effective as voluntary ones. Aaron Schroeder of Brightspot Climate, an energy and climate change consulting service, stated that projects that aren’t imposed upon a business or operation are generally more successful and producer-friendly.

“In my opinion part of the problem we have federally is that we set targets at the top level and they become imposed on us at the grower level, at the producer level,” he said. “I think we have a lot more success when… we build opportunities and build up a more bottom-up approach.”

Real-world application needed with agricultural protocols

Agriculture-related carbon offset projects have existed for some time in Canada, though the development process for some has been time-consuming. In the Alberta Emission Offset System, voluntary projects are quantified by protocols approved by the province and registered with the Alberta Emissions Offset Registry. Between 2002 and 2016, agriculture-related projects in Alberta removed almost 13 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions from the atmosphere, equal to taking around 2.5 million cars off the road.

The most widely used of Alberta’s agriculture protocols is Conservation Cropping. This quantifies emission reductions by sequestering new carbon in the soil and decreasing nitrous oxide emissions through no-till practices, subsequently reducing fossil fuel use. While several other agriculture-related protocols have been explored, not all are operational. Some were discontinued due to difficulty in being implemented, while others are being further refined.

As agriculture only contributes around eight per cent of the province’s total emissions, and reductions may not be substantial on an individual scale, it’s generally more cost efficient to aggregate a project with other producers to accumulate offsets. Karen Haugen-Kozyra, president of environmental consulting firm Viresco Solutions, explained that a buyer in the compliance market is generally looking to purchase about 10,000 tonnes. However, she noted that buyers in the voluntary market may be interested in smaller volumes, adding that 30 per cent of offsets sold through the Alberta Registry are purchased by voluntary buyers.

Feedlot Health Management Services (FHMS) at Okotoks, Alta., was one of the first groups to explore Alberta’s feedlot-related protocols. This consulting service uses research and data-based technologies to help feedlots improve animal health and production efficiency. Dr. Calvin Booker, a veterinarian with a background in epidemiology, is a managing partner and research manager at FHMS. He has been involved with FHMS’s carbon offset projects since the company first explored the programs in 2009, working with the aggregator Trimble.

At the time, the only approved feedlot-related protocol focused on decreasing days on feed in order to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, putting this into practice proved difficult, as lighter animals were being placed into feedlots, requiring more days on feed to finish.

“As they began to feed them to heavier and heavier carcass weights, that also extended the days in the feedlot portion of the production system,” said Booker. “So the less days-on-feed method really didn’t apply to how the industry was evolving.”

Soon a second protocol was developed for GHG emission reductions, resulting from improvements in feed efficiency. FHMS worked with Trimble to create a pilot project with two feedlots, and in doing so helped identify issues with the original protocol. They worked with Alberta Environment to refine the protocol to be more functional, and have since created a second project with several feedlots.

The recording process requires four main pieces of data. Production lot information and diet composition are the first two, required to determine the dry matter feed conversion. The third dataset is carcass information, and the fourth is individual animal records tied to CCIA numbers. The CCIA numbers ensure that credits aren’t claimed on an animal more than once. These datasets are then used to determine whether there has been a reduction in emissions.

FHMS worked with Trimble to create a model for calculating GHG emission reductions, then connected the aggregator to the feedlots and quantified the data.

“We have the technological expertise between our PhD animal scientists, epidemiologists, and veterinarians and data collection systems to be able to put that together to build a model to be able to feed the data into the calculations that are required by the Alberta government as part of these protocols,” said Booker.

He suggests that interested feedlots work with both an aggregator and project developer. “They are going to have to work with, in most cases, some intermediary — a company like ourselves — to be able to connect the raw data to the GHG emissions formulas that are published by the government.”

In addition to understanding the process of verifying, serializing and selling offsets, an aggregator is key to bringing enough producers together to create a big enough package of credits for buyers, Booker said.

“The cost of getting all of the due diligence done is way too expensive if you’re going to do it at all the individual levels,” he said.

Together, FHMS, Trimble and the feedlots assess available credits, with a revenue sharing agreement between the three parties. “Based on what we have been able to determine so far, these GHG emission reductions from improved beef feedlot production efficiency are some of the very first in the world to be recognized and monetized through an official carbon offset program.”

For FHMS, the biggest challenge was the complexity of the process when they began the pilot. It took several years for them to work through the process, meet all the requirements and see any value from the credits.

“It’s not like filling out your income tax return and doing some calculations and figuring out whether you owe Revenue Canada money or you’re going to get some back,” he continued. “It would be much more like a large multinational corporation having to pay a team of tax accountants and tax lawyers to put together your corporate income tax return and figure out what’s left at the end of the day.”

Booker explained that FHMS was interested in these projects because of its interest in new technologies adopted by the feedlot sector for greater efficiency in production. In a number of cases, he said, this can result in reduced emissions.

“Being able to quantify that and claim those GHG emissions reductions, if there’s a method to do so, I think that’s probably an important aspect of being a competitive and sustainable business.”

Grassland conservation protocol in the works

A protocol for preventing grassland conversion to cropland is gaining attention in the U.S. When Climate Action Reserve first explored the possibility of creating this protocol, it was spurred on by a study showing that between 2008 and 2012, 5.7 million acres of grassland in the U.S. was converted to cropland.

“Of all the new cropland that came during that period, 77 per cent of it came from grassland, so there was a big need to provide more conservation dollars,” said DuBuisson.

This protocol has a narrow focus — protecting grassland that is considered “under threat of conversion to cropland” — in order to create a streamlined quantification methodology. One of the protocol requirements is that the landholder sets up a conservation easement, as land currently under an easement isn’t under threat of conversion.

Technical consultants at Colorado State University created the quantification methodology for this protocol, based on their land use change emission work for the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

“They were able to stratify the U.S., break it up into different areas and then pair up grassland sites and cropland sites and run this daily model of how would this grassland site change if you converted it into the cropland sites,” said DuBuisson.

Climate Action Reserve and Viresco Solutions are currently adapting the Avoided Conversion of Grassland protocol for use in Canada. This originally started under contract with the Ontario provincial government and was to be applicable across Canada, but development halted after the province pulled out of the Western Climate Initiative.

Now, this protocol will operate through two different markets. The first is the Canadian voluntary market registry run by Climate Action Reserve, which aims to have the protocol ready for adoption in June. The second is the compliance market through the Alberta Emission Offset System, which has a longer regulatory approval process. At the time of writing, the group was waiting to hear if the proposal was approved.

“There will be subtle differences or some nuances to the protocols that are developed through both of those markets, but the underlying quantification and the methodology in each one will be the same,” said Jon Alcock, sustainability specialist with Viresco Solutions. The two protocols will also operate under each program’s set of rules.

The Canadian version uses the same framework as the U.S. protocol but relies on Canadian data and practices. The main difference in data is the baseline quantification of emissions due to grassland conversion to cropland, coming from Canada’s greenhouse gas inventory.

“They had done a lot of modeling of land use change, and they were able to sort of crunch those numbers and turn them into emission factors that we could use. So the formulas in the protocol don’t really change, but the numbers you put into the formula are different in Canada than they are in the U.S.,” said DuBuisson, speaking in February.

They are currently creating a pilot project under this protocol, working with industry partners to find interested producers. They plan to use up to 10 sites in Western Canada, with one or two specifically in British Columbia and the rest across the Prairie provinces. The Southern Alberta Land Trust Society, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, Canadian Forage and Grasslands Association, Alberta Beef Producers, Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association and Saskatchewan Stock Growers’ Association are involved in the pilot project.

Implementing the U.S. version of this protocol has given DuBuisson insight into which situations are best suited for these projects. There are currently 10 American grassland projects registered with Climate Action Reserve, some of which are run by a single land trust.

“The land trusts in general have emerged as our target for outreach because doing the carbon project kind of dovetails nicely with the conservation work that they’re already doing. Monitoring the easement is already something that makes sense to them and they already take a long-term view, so it works where the landowner has a long-term vision and is interested in protecting their land and managing it over a very long period of time,” he explained. “So it’s not going to be interesting to a huge swath of landowners, but it could be very interesting to others.”

Based on the protocol’s American counterpart, DuBuisson predicts interest in the voluntary market because grassland conservation has a good story attached to it. While credit prices vary, they tend to range from US$4 to US$8 in the American voluntary market.

“When you see carbon projects that do nothing but reduce greenhouse gas emissions — they have no other interesting or useful benefit to society or the environment — they tend to be cheaper,” he said at the CFGA conference. “It’s these projects like grassland that tend to be more expensive per credit because you’re working with a complex system and you’re achieving additional benefits.”

Alcock noted that this protocol likely won’t have major financial implications, given prices for carbon credits, but it may be an incentive for producers already considering other conservation efforts.

“To those landowners that are on the fence or thinking about getting an easement put on their land, this should be another revenue stream that maybe makes that decision a little bit easier.”

Project update: Climate Action Reserve is working on a grassland conservation protocol for Canada’s voluntary carbon offset market. They originally expected to have it ready for adoption in June, but now they’re expecting it to be ready for October.

The post Carbon offset projects may provide financial opportunities appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Forage and grasslands improve soil quality, reduce soil erosion and improve water quality. And since grass farmers use little or no tillage, they allow forage plants to store valuable carbon deeply underground. That value is behind a four-year project being led by the Canadian Forage and Grassland Association (CFGA).

The project

The CFGA was created in 2010 to address the need for a national voice on forage-related issues and opportunities. In 2016, the Government of Canada announced the renewal of its Agricultural Greenhouse Gases Program (AGGP) to help create technologies, practices and processes to help the agricultural sector adjust to climate change and improve soil and water conservation by developing new farming practices and methods.

The CFGA assembled a group of stakeholders who developed a proposal to look at high-performance management systems to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada’s forage and grasslands. In February 2017, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada awarded the CFGA $656,000 over four years to support the project, which consists of four major deliverables:

1. Complete a current state of science literature review.
2. Develop a carbon-sequestration protocol for Canadian forage production systems.
3. Develop a best management practices (BMP) guide for enhancing carbon storage in forage systems.
4. Pilot the protocol on Canadian farms.

Literature review

Alberta environmental consulting firm Viresco Solutions Inc. conducted the literature review, which was intended to link specific management practices to soil carbon-sequestration rates. However, in the complex world of greenhouse gas science, things don’t always work out as intended. The review revealed that the current state of the scientific understanding of the processes that drive soil conservation were not conclusive enough to tie sequestration rates to individual management practices.

“The intent was to be able to say ‘Practice A gives us carbon X,’” says CFGA executive director Cedric MacLeod. “In an ideal world, that is where we would have ended up. What we have been able to do is create a solid foundation for how to quantify existing carbon stocks under grassland soils, knowing intuitively that they are significant.”

Avoiding conversion to crops

Following the direction of technical workshops in November 2017 that brought together leading forage and grassland experts from across Canada and North America, the CFGA moved forward with the development of an “avoided-conversion-of-grasslands protocol.”

“Grasslands and pastures make up a considerable proportion of Canada’s landscape and are important for the many ecosystem services they provide, including increased resiliency and adaptation to climate change impacts,” says Viresco Solutions president Karen Haugen-Kozyra. “The conversion of these ecosystems to annual cropping leads to greenhouse gas emissions that cannot easily be reversed.

“Global estimates identify that this soil carbon is at risk of release to the atmosphere following land-use conversion, with cultivation leading to a 30 to 50 per cent reduction in carbon stores,” she adds. “Conservation of these ecosystems maintains natural carbon stores.”

Viresco Solutions presented the draft avoided-conversion protocol document at the 2018 CFGA conference, explaining it is being adapted from the California Climate Action Reserves protocol, an orphaned protocol that was being adapted as part of the 13 protocols into the Ontario-Quebec cap-and-trade system.

“With proper investment offered by a carbon price signal, it’s estimated that nearly 16 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent could be retained in the soil, and thereby avoiding release, by 2030 across Canada,” says Haugen-Kozyra.

BMP recommendations

Work continues on closing the research gaps and moving towards a practice-based protocol.

Work also continues on developing a BMP manual that highlights five forage BMP areas the CFGA has committed to focusing on following workshops at its annual conferences in 2017 and 2018. The BMP areas include:

• Use of certified seed for highly digestible forage species and varieties.
• Intensive rotational grazing systems.
• Intensive forage harvesting systems.
• Forage stand establishment, fertility and management for high-performance yields.
• Advanced crop production systems for perennial and annual forages, including no-till cropping and cover crops.

“The new angle is we’re adding carbon to the conversation,” says MacLeod. “Understanding that the concept of carbon, carbon storage and management, and working through the complex policy dynamic of the carbon market is largely foreign to a lot of farmers and ranchers, we wanted to take this opportunity to pull together some information on specific management practices that they can put to work on the farm, and start to point folks in the direction of what that means in terms of policy.”

Pilot projects

The final piece of the project is piloting the protocol to test it under actual field conditions in each province.

The results of the pilot projects will be used to test the protocol under commercial conditions, to understand any challenges that producers may face in applying the protocol and to promote and advance the concept of advanced forage management in sequestering soil carbon. It will also help create localized verifiable data on what the forage industry contributes in carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation.

The pilot project sites will also showcase the benefits of using the high-performance forage-management BMPs for farmers.

This article was published in the 2019 issue of the Forage & Grassland Guide.

The post Leaving the grass – and the carbon – in the ground appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

I doubt anyone would argue with the food guide’s advice to regularly consume vegetables, fruit, whole grains and protein. Nor does its recommendations to cook more often or enjoy your food seem like bad advice (although it does seem a little condescending).

But the dietary guidelines go on to suggest: “Among protein foods, consume plant-based more often.”

Within the evidence review document, which is partly based on Health Canada’s 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey (the most recent national survey), is a more explicit recommendation to eat less red and processed meat, along with less added sugar and fewer refined grains. But who, exactly, needs to eat less red meat? All Canadians? Certain groups? I didn’t find a clear answer in the Canadian documents. It may be in there, but the documents are a bit of a maze.

The evidence document does note that many Canadians, across all categories, are short on calcium (among other minerals). Kind of makes a person wonder why they slashed the dairy category. People over 70 and adolescent girls had low intakes for most food groups and most nutrients, which the evidence document highlights as a concern. Still, that recommendation seems buried in the layers of documents and links.

One document cited by the food guide is a U.S. report from the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. That report has detailed information on the dietary habits of Americans. For example, it states that teenage boys and men need to reduce protein intake overall. However, the same report also found that 42 per cent of Americans are consuming less protein than recommended. As well, adolescent girls and pre-menopausal women, as a group, aren’t consuming enough iron.

Given those numbers, it seems to me that experts and media should be cautious about advising Canadians in general to eat less meat. That might discourage populations that are already short on protein and/or iron from getting the nutrients they need. If people get the impression that they can simply cut out all meat and not find other sources for those minerals and nutrients, that’s a problem.

Still, there are practical ways forward. Right before Canada’s Food Guide was unveiled in January, I caught up with Dr. Sylvain Charlebois at the Saskatchewan Beef Industry Conference in Regina. He talked about the opportunity to market beef as a healthy ingredient to different segments of the population (ex. women and flexitarians). He also saw opportunity in partnering with other sectors, such as pulse producers, to reach these groups.

If you think about this at the level of a meal prepared in a home or school cafeteria, it could look like chili or lasagne that incorporates both meat and pulses. That could serve flexitarians and meat-lovers alike, nutritionally and otherwise.

Environmental impact

Canada’s new food guide goes beyond assessing the nutritional impact of food. It also dips its toe into the environmental impact of food choices, although it doesn’t wade in very deep.

Specifically, the dietary guidelines state that “there is evidence supporting a lesser environmental impact of patterns of eating higher in plant-based foods and lower in animal-based foods. The potential benefits include helping to conserve soil, water and air.”

The dietary guidelines cite three sources to back this assertion. All three sources did report environmental benefits to eating less meat and dairy.

One source is the previously mentioned 2015 report from the U.S. dietary guidelines advisory committee. Another is a review of studies that updated the work done for that 2015 report (Alignment of Healthy Dietary Patterns and Environmental Sustainability: A Systematic Review). The third was also a review of previously published research (The Impacts of Dietary Change on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use, Water Use and Health: A Systematic Review). I’ll refer to this third one as the GHG study.

These types of reviews are common, generally useful research methods. By reviewing published studies on a given topic, researchers can find patterns. Such a review is also an antidote to a single sensational study that is an outlier rather than an indicator of a wider truth.

But every research method has its shortcomings. The GHG study includes caveats, such as how raising livestock in some areas “allows humans to derive nutritional benefit from non-arable land, or to utilize crop residues and food waste.” It also notes that some studies found that replacing calories from animal-based foods with equivalent calories from nuts, fruits and vegetables would increase water use.

The GHG study also noted inconsistencies in how water use was measured. For example, some studies measured blue water (fresh water), others green water (soil moisture), and some grey. Some used a combination. How researchers measure water use will affect how they perceive the sustainability of the beef industry. For example, including soil moisture in marginal dryland pastures may inflate the water use numbers.

Canada’s new food guide ignores the limitations acknowledged by some of the same researchers it cites. While the recommendations around environmental sustainability are a small part of the current food guide, the beef industry needs to take note, as it could become a more prominent recommendation in the future. And while there’s little doubt that most Canadians aren’t eating enough fruits and vegetables, many aren’t getting enough protein and iron either. Hopefully nutritionists and meal planners working in institutions will pay attention to these nuances and complexities.

The post Comment: Canada’s New Food Guide short on nuance appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The late evolution of wisdom and delayed acquisition of knowledge had something to do with earlier pessimism. I saw a quote in a T-shirt shop the other day that made me think about the importance of knowing the difference. The quote: Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

It’s important to accept climate change as far more than just weather-related incidents and that emergence of many infectious diseases have been directly correlated with climate change. West Nile virus, Chickungunya, Ebola, MERS, Nipah and Dengue are but a few examples that were not even recognized when I graduated. In the future, civilization will see many more diseases emerge as a direct result of climate’s effect on shifting habitats that bring wildlife and farm life, crops and humans into closer contact with more pathogens.

The spread of African swine fever in China and its appearance on the fringe of Europe is today’s biggest animal health story, one few talk about. China, the world’s largest producer and consumer of pork, hopelessly battles African swine fever within its borders. African swine fever is about to change the world’s trade in animal protein with global knock-on effects to corn and soy production. The global swine herd is roughly 250 million head. Roughly 50 to 55 per cent of that number of swine is produced in China with about 40 per cent of China’s swineherd categorized as “backyard” hogs. Curt Hudnutt, executive vice-president of rural banking, North America, at Rabobank, feels the ability to contain the spread of African swine fever in China is very low.

In September, officials in Belgium confirmed the presence of African swine fever in two wild boar in a town roughly 10 km from France. The presence of wild boar throughout the region stokes fear that African swine fever could spread into the Netherlands, then Germany and throughout the continent. Control of highly infectious disease across international borders represents one of the great challenges facing animal health professionals.

Habitats are being altered in arctic regions and have been drastically changed in areas like California, recently ravaged by fires that consumed upwards of 500 square miles of forests and nearly eliminated Paradise, a city of 27,000. Entire populations of animals become displaced through natural disasters of all types, including deforestation linked to human efforts to expand food production. Due to ancestral genetics of pathogens — some unchanged for millions of years — disease agents easily find new hosts when transported into new areas.

No feature of Earth is more complex, dynamic, and varied than the layer of living organisms that occupy its surfaces and its seas, and no feature is experiencing more dramatic change at the hands of humans than this extraordinary, singularly unique feature of Earth. Food, clean water, medicines and protection from natural hazards are important ingredients in maintaining our security and quality of life. Breathable air, potable water, fertile soils, productive lands, bountiful seas are manifestations of the workings of life. No one can escape the impact of biodiversity loss because reduced global diversity translates quite clearly into fewer new medicines, greater vulnerability to natural disasters and greater effects from global warming. — World Wildlife Fund

At least 40 per cent of the world’s economy and 80 per cent of the needs of the poor are derived from biological resources. Scientists worry about an “Insect Apocalypse.” In a New York Times article (2018/11/27), Brooke Jarvis outlines scientific concern that the population of monarch butterflies fell by 90 per cent in the last 20 years; the rusty-patched bumblebee, which once lived in 28 states, dropped by 87 per cent over the same period. A whole insect world might be quietly going missing, a loss of abundance that could alter the planet in unknowable ways — much of it linked to climate change.

Climate change has been implicated in the spread of arboviruses — viruses carried by arthropods such as mosquitoes, midges and ticks. While alterations in temperature and rainfall are important factors in making new territory hospitable to an invading arbovirus, many other forces also influence new patterns of viral emergence. Although you can’t disassociate arbovirus diseases from the climate, Texas Medical Branch at Galveston pathology professor Stephen Higgs and Oxford University professor Ernest A. Gould outline other factors. They include:

• Genetic mutation, new mosquito species, the presence of immunologically vulnerable humans, numbers of humans and movement of infected individuals (Chikungunya virus).
• Cyclic periods of high rainfall, modern irrigation projects, and livestock trade between Africa and southern Arabia (Rift Valley fever virus).
• Modern air transport, the availability of compatible mosquito species and large numbers of virus-spreading migratory birds (West Nile virus).

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system seems unequivocal. Oceans warm, ice sheets shrink, glaciers retreat, snow cover diminishes and ocean levels rise. The numbers of record high temperature events continue to increase, while the number of record low temperature events decrease. Climatic extremes create an increased number of intense rainfall occurrences and punishing drought. The “shifting baseline syndrome” has been described by hunters and fishermen: The fish get smaller and smaller, to the point where today’s prize catches were dwarfed by fish that in years past were piled up and ignored. But the smiles on the fishermen’s faces stay the same size. The world never feels fallen, because we grow accustomed to the fall. — Cabela’s

Dr. Ron Clarke prepares this column on behalf of the Western Canadian Association of Bovine Practitioners. Suggestions for future articles can be sent to Canadian Cattlemen (lisa.guenther@fbcpublishing.com) or WCABP (info@wcabp.com).

The post Climate change’s impact on managing animal health appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

I couldn’t help wondering if there wasn’t some subtle connection lying behind tying these announcements so close together. One causes pain, and the other helps you just shrug and let it drift away. Full disclosure: I’ve never tried the first one, but just like you I won’t be able to escape the effects of the second.

What Mr. Trudeau calls pollution, I call heat to warm my home in bitterly cold winters, or fuel to maintain our very way of life given the current state of transportation technology.

I can’t pretend to have closely followed all the science and pseudo science on climate change. It doesn’t really matter anyway. The weight of public and political opinion, with some notable exceptions, has determined that something must be done to turn the planet around before it is too late for humankind.

The odd thing is we Canadians were doing some things to cut down on our carbon emissions but not enough to meet the Paris Agreement target of 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

So we need to start paying at the pump to further discourage our personal carbon consumption. An output-based pricing system is also being established for large industrial emitters to match their contribution to the carbon load.

There has been plenty of time for everyone to digest how they will be affected by this new pricing plan. My main point of contention is that won’t do much to meet the stated goal.

Nobel-winning economists predict putting a price on carbon is the best way to drive down emissions. That may be true if we all reacted as the econometric models predict that we should.

But will we?

The carbon tax on fuel that Ottawa will impose in April on the provinces without a carbon fighting plan — Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick — starts at 4.4 cents per litre next year and increases to 11.05 cents by April 2022.

Let’s set that last one aside for the moment because it is long after the next election, so is immediately suspect.

The price of gas on this day in Winnipeg where I live varies from $1 to $1.05 per litre so if I add 4.4 cents to that is it likely to change my driving habits? No. Maybe if I lived in Victoria or some other place where the price is higher it would but I doubt it.

Large jumps in the price of gas are a normal occurrence in today’s world and just the cost of living a modern life.

The same reasoning goes into the 3.9 cents per cubic metre the tax will add to my natural gas bill.

It’s just another tax, added to the federal and provincial sales taxes and the GST and whatever else governments siphon off when I fill the tank on my six-year-old car. According to the 2018 Gas Tax Honesty report from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, taxes account for 33 per cent of the pump price on gasoline and 30 per cent for diesel fuel.

Yet I see an increasing number of large SUVs and trucks in the city and rural areas, so if that amount of tax hasn’t altered their behaviour, what’s a little carbon tax going to do? Take more money out of our pockets, yes, but not move us any closer to a low carbon climate.

Besides, the government has said my wife and I will get a $255 rebate to cover the cost of my piddling contribution to greenhouse gas emissions on my next tax return. So I have even less reason to change my ways.

Mind you I am not a big consumer of fossil fuels, minuscule compared to most farms and ranches.

Fortunately farm fuel for trucks, tractors and other farm machinery substantially used for farm work is exempt from this carbon tax, so that eases some concerns for farmers and ranches. However, the cost of fuel to dry grain or heat barns or any of the other chores that don’t involve machinery does not appear to be covered by that current definition of exempt.

Then there all those other costs, like the rising cost for feed, and equipment, or parts (which are also hit by steel and aluminum tariffs), trucking charges and the hundred and one services that you buy that will go up in price to cover carbon taxes further down the supply chain.

Next April, while you are paying Trudeau’s carbon tax to help reduce Canada’s two per cent share of global gas emissions you might wonder what this does to your competitive position vis a vis the Americans. In the U.S. today’s corporate and individual taxes and heavy-handed regulations are being cut, and carbon has been officially declared somebody else’s problem.

Maybe I should try a bit of that new legal weed.

The post Comment: Carbon overload appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

“We need to know how feed affects methane production, but we also need to know how it affects other aspects of the farm operation, like daily gains in animals, milk production, and feed efficiency. Farmers want to help the environment, and they need to know what the trade-offs will be, which is why we took a holistic approach looking at the overall impacts,” explains Dr. Karen Beauchemin, a beef researcher with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC).

Researchers from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Agriculture Victoria (Australia), and the University of Melbourne, worked together to examine three feed supplements.

Methane inhibitor supplement 3-nitrooxypropanol (3NOP) could reduce costs and increase profits

3NOP is a promising commercial feed supplement that can be given to cattle to inhibit the enzyme methyl coenzyme M reductase — an enzyme responsible for creating methane in the animal’s rumen (first stomach). After blocking the enzyme, 3NOP quickly breaks down in the animal’s rumen to simple compounds that are already present in nature.

Beauchemin studied the short- and long-term impacts of feeding 3NOP to beef cattle and shared her findings within the broader study.

“We now have clear evidence that 3NOP can have a long-term positive effect on reducing methane emissions and improving animal performance. We saw a 30-50 per cent reduction in methane over a long period of time and a three to five per cent improvement in feed efficiency.”

Producing milk, gaining weight, and creating methane all take energy that a cow fuels by eating. Cattle eating a diet that contained the 3NOP supplement produced less methane. And, because there was less methane more energy could be used by the animal for growth. When using this supplement, cattle consumed less feed to gain a pound of body weight compared to control animals.

“What is also great is that the inhibitor worked just as effectively no matter what type of feed the cattle were eating,” explains Beauchemin. “We don’t know the actual market price of the supplement yet because it is still going through approvals for registration in Canada and the U.S. That will be important for farmers who want to calculate the cost-benefit of using 3NOP to reduce methane emissions from their cows and enhance profits.”

The story of nitrate

Micro-organisms in the cattle’s rumen need nitrogen to be able to efficiently break down food for the animal to absorb. Nitrate is a form of non-protein nitrogen similar to that found in urea, a compound used in cattle diets. When nitrate is fed to cattle, it is converted to ammonia, which is then used by the micro-organisms. During this process, nitrogen in the nitrate works like a powerful magnet that is able to hold onto and attract hydrogen. This leaves less hydrogen available in the rumen to attach to carbon to make methane, thus reducing the amount of methane produced.

Researchers in Canada found that adding nitrate to the diet of beef cattle reduces methane production by 20 per cent in the short term (up to three weeks), and after 16 weeks it still reduced methane up to 12 per cent. In addition, feeding nitrate improved the gain-to-feed ratio. However, administering the correct dosage is extremely important, as too much nitrate can make an animal ill. So it is recommended this method should be used with care and caution.

Dr. Richard Eckard, a researcher from the University of Melbourne, explains, “I understand that in Canada most forages are not that low in protein. But in the rangelands of northern Australia, the protein content in the forage is extremely low. It is possible that adding nitrate to Australian cattle feed may be able to improve the feeding regime from the current use of urea, but it depends on the price.”

To supplement with grain, or not

In the short term, wheat effectively reduced methane production by 35 per cent compared with corn or barley; but, over time cattle were able to adapt to the change in feed and the methane inhibitory effect disappeared. Essentially, after 10 weeks, methane production was the same for corn, barley, and wheat.

The study also showed genetic variation in cows where about 50 per cent of the cows that were fed wheat remained low in their methane emissions, even for as long as 16 weeks. However, the other cows adapted to the wheat diet and had methane emissions similar to, or even greater than those fed diets containing either corn or barley. Based on genetics, some cows are more adaptable than others and, in the long term it is more difficult to reduce the amount of methane they produce.

Lessons learned

“Our better understanding of feeding regimes will make a difference for farmers, but more importantly this research has really helped us understand more precisely the volume of greenhouse gases (GHGs) the industry is producing under different feed regimes. This is powerful information for policy makers,” says Beauchemin.

This is particularly true for countries that have implemented or are thinking about putting a price on carbon or a carbon trading scheme in place to reduce GHG emissions.

“By adopting different farming methods to reduce GHGs, farmers may be able to sell these carbon credits for revenue. But the key is to prove that these farming methods work and warrant being officially recognized for carbon credits. This work is one step closer in this process,” explains Beauchemin.

The post New supplement results in more beef and less methane appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

“Dear Dr. Bergen… My name is Emma. I am in 6th grade at Rime Street Elementary. My class found out on vegsource.com that it takes 2,500 litres of water to produce one kilogram of beef. Another site said 25,000 litres… all these different answers are confusing. My social teacher also showed us a video named Cowspiracy, but it didn’t help. Do you have a dependable answer?”

Eleven-year-olds aren’t the only ones asking these questions. So are consumers, retailers, and others. When the facts aren’t available, exaggerated opinions often fill the gap. A Canadian research team is providing the facts to help us answer these questions, and to help us know how to do better.

A Beef Cluster study led by the University of Manitoba’s Getahun Legesse is measuring how the environmental footprint of Canada’s beef industry is changing. They’ve already reported that each kilogram of Canadian beef generated 15 per cent less greenhouse gas in 2011 than in 1981. A new paper from this team entitled “Water use intensity of Canadian beef production in 1981 as compared to 2011” was just published in Science of the Total Environment.

What they did: They calculated the amount of “blue” and “green” water required to maintain Canada’s beef breeding herd, grow feed, background and finish cattle (including Holstein steers), and process beef in Canada in 1981 and 2011. Blue water (surface or groundwater deliberately used for a specific purpose) mainly includes cattle drinking water, water used by processing plants, and irrigation. Drinking water was easily calculated; the amount of water cattle drink depends on their age, body weight, weather, and whether they’re lactating. Blue water used to wash carcasses, beef, equipment and laundry in packing plants came from published research, World Bank statistics, and information from packers. Blue water for irrigation came from census information, expert opinion (e.g. types of irrigation systems used for different crops in B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan), irrigation districts, and provincial government records.

Green water (rainfall) used for dryland feed production was much more challenging to estimate. They first determined which pasture types, forages, feed grains and protein crops were most commonly used in Eastern and Western Canada in 1981 and 2011. For example, using annual crops for extended grazing was unusual in 1981 but quite common by 2011. The amount of water required by each crop at different stages of production was determined from published reports. The same crop may have different water requirements depending on when and where it’s grown. For example, barley seeded in July for swath-grazing experiences different growing conditions and has different water requirements than barley seeded earlier for silage or grain. Yield records for each crop came from 82 census agricultural regions across Canada. Rainfall (green water), temperature, and soil moisture records came from 679 weather stations located within agricultural regions of Canada. Animal and crop data were combined into 49 different feeding scenarios.

What they learned: In 2011, producing a kilogram of boneless beef in Canada required 459 litres of blue water and 15,485 litres of green water. Over three-quarters of the blue water was used to produce forage and feed crops. Less than a quarter of the blue water used was consumed by animals, and well below five per cent was used to process beef. When green water (rainfall) used by feed and forage crops was included, feed and forage production accounted for over 99 per cent of total water use; drinking water was less than one per cent, and water used for beef processing was negligible.

Overall, it took 17 per cent less water to produce a kilogram of Canadian beef in 2011 than in 1981. This was mainly due to increased reproductive performance, growth rates, slaughter weights and improved crop yields.

What it means: Because beef’s water footprint is mainly due to crop production, shrinking it further will require improved water use efficiency by feed crops and forages through breeding, management, and improved irrigation practices. These steps will reduce the water footprint of agriculture overall, not just for beef production. Further improvements in feed efficiency will also improve the water footprint as well as the greenhouse gas footprint and overall competitiveness of Canada’s beef industry.

Including blue water in the calculations makes obvious sense, because we’re choosing to use that water for a specific purpose. Including rainfall (green water) may seem strange because we can’t choose where it falls. But we are choosing what the land is being used for. Most of the land and water used for feed production is used by forage crops, which also help support ecosystem services like carbon sequestration, biodiversity and healthy watersheds. In many cases, keeping grass and cattle on the land is an environmentally responsible choice. Also remember that water cycles; it isn’t used up.

This research is helping the beef industry answer important questions from the public, and is another example of how improving our production efficiency helps shrink our environmental hoofprint.

The Beef Research Cluster is funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada with additional contributions from provincial beef industry groups and governments to advance research and technology transfer supporting the Canadian beef industry’s vision to be recognized as a preferred supplier of healthy, high-quality beef, cattle and genetics.

The post Beef’s shrinking water footprint appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.