As someone with a background in finance, I appreciate that it’s difficult to assign a dollar figure to a marsh in the same way you would a water treatment plant. As a conservationist, however, I strongly believe that if we don’t find ways to clearly demonstrate — in dollars and cents — the value of our natural areas, we risk losing them. And we can all agree the economic repercussions of that would be catastrophic.

There’s no doubt that a lack of monetary measurement has contributed to widespread habitat destruction. A common misconception is that wetlands are “wastelands” when viewing the land’s value simply in terms of what can be harvested, developed or extracted. Today, up to 80 acres of wetlands are lost every day in Canada. This leaves landscapes vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather. But if land-use planners and developers knew that the quiet, cattail-lined pond on the outskirts of town was protecting a bridge from being washed out or streets from being flooded (things that would cost millions to repair), they might think twice before draining or filling it in. They might consider it an asset worth protecting.

The idea that ecosystems like wetlands should be classified as “natural assets” within fiscal management is relatively new. But habitat organizations like Ducks Unlimited Canada have long been striving to make a business case for conservation. For decades, we’ve been partnering with many forward-thinking communities and industries tasked with finding creative ways of stretching infrastructure budgets and that are dealing directly with the impacts of extreme weather on their populations.

Our partnerships are focused on developing nature-based solutions, which is a term that’s taken hold to describe the sustainable management and use of natural features and processes to tackle socio-environmental challenges. As examples, we map and identify existing wetlands and create best management practices to help ensure that development around them takes place sustainably. We create naturalized stormwater retention ponds that capture precipitation runoff in urban neighbourhoods. We restore coastal salt marshes to buffer rising tides and storm surges. We’ve even decommissioned an old sewage lagoon, a process my colleagues in our science department call phytoremediation, into a beautiful functioning wetland that’s become a community attraction and a hotspot for birdwatching.

So, how do we scale up these nature-based solutions to build climate resiliency? Again, I believe they need to be worth something.

Establishing value starts at the top, with government policy. Conservation organizations like ours are working with provincial governments to establish effective policies to protect existing wetlands and mitigate the loss of those that are degraded. From there, it continues down the line with businesses and industry adopting strong sustainability practices — and acting on them. And finally, it rests with all of us as individuals and consumers in the choices we make every day.

In the face of today’s rapidly changing climate, we know this to be true: nature is embedded in our economy, not external to it. Dramatic evidence exists in every corner of the country. Look no further than the flood-ravaged communities on both the East and West Coasts or to the farmers and ranchers in Prairie Canada who are still feeling the financial sting of this summer’s drought.

We also know that redefining the relationship between nature and economics will be challenging. But that’s precisely the reason why we must tackle it. We must measure and manage wetlands and other natural areas with an eye for economic, environmental and societal prosperity. While no one can put a price on nature, history continues to show that we ignore its value at our peril.

Larry Kaumeyer is the CEO of Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC).

The post Opinion: No one can put a price on nature, but we ignore its value at our peril appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

For those who have witnessed the decrease in recovery time and comfort associated with the addition of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to processing protocols, products approved for use in cattle are purchased from veterinary clinics.

With better understanding and awareness of stress and pain and the negative effects of both, cattle producers are choosing methods of eliminating some painful procedures by breeding polled cattle and performing others when they are least stressful.

Pinpointing herd health issues in cattle is difficult because as prey animals, they typically hide their pain. Dr. Murray Gillies, past president of the Canadian Association of Bovine Veterinarians, says pain in cattle is a fairly new area of research, with pharmaceutical companies investing in this field. Gillies adds they’ve made many “advances trying to understand pain and stress on calves.”

Pharmaceutical products available to mitigate pain in cattle had been slow to come to market. But the demand for these products has grown recently as producers see the benefits of pain control plus growing pressure from consumers for information about how their food is produced. Results from a survey distributed by McEndree et al., Kansas State University, indicate a majority of the U.S. population is concerned about beef cattle welfare.

The use of NSAIDs to control discomfort associated with vaccination, dehorning and castration for a substantial number of beef producers has become entrenched in spring management routines. Calving difficulties, colic associated with scours, pneumonia and injuries are examples for other uses of NSAIDS outside of normal processing procedures.

Dr. Hans Coetzee, head of the department of anatomy and physiology at the Kansas State University College of Veterinary Medicine, has devoted extensive study and education over the years to the subject of pain management in food animals.

He references dehorning as one of the major areas of consumer concern relative to the perceived humane treatment of cattle. And, he says, it has been well established through research that dehorning is, indeed, a painful procedure.

Coetzee recommends veterinarians consider what he refers to as the four S’s of livestock pain management for dehorning, injuries and surgeries:

• Suppress: When possible, make changes so a procedure is no longer necessary. In the case of dehorning, he says the adoption of polled genetics will eventually make dehorning obsolete.
• Substitute: Refine how the procedure is performed to reduce pain. For horn removal, use disbudding versus dehorning by performing the procedure at a younger age before the horn bud has attached to the underlying bone. Changing calf handling techniques and restraining animals properly also can reduce stress and pain.
• Soothe: Use analgesics to reduce pain before a procedure starts. Administering a local cornual nerve block with lidocaine before dehorning will help reduce pain caused by the procedure.
• Supplement: Back up the initial pain mitigation with a longer-acting analgesic.

Veterinary-prescribed meloxicam given at the time of dehorning in addition to lidocaine can minimize the chronic inflammatory pain caused by the procedure for at least 48 hours. Together, they help control different parts of the pain pathway.

Providing analgesics in dehorning is considered a standard of care in the American Association of Bovine Practitioners’ (AABP) Dehorning Guidelines.

There are many older pain-relieving drugs available to Canadian veterinarians. They are also available to producers by a prescription issued by a licensed practitioner for specific indications and always with clear withdrawal information related to meat and milk. Information can be found in Extralabel use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in cattle, available online at farad.org, researchgate.net and other research websites. Following prescription rules is extremely important. As veterinarians, it’s essential we write it, say it and make sure both things happen.

Some producers might not be attuned to an animal’s need for pain management or prepared to pay for it. When such scenarios arise, veterinarians must be sensitive to client concerns while still recommending the product or practice. Often, once a producer sees the difference in how an animal responds, they are likely to support future efforts to reduce or eliminate an animal’s pain.

Interest in the welfare of cattle in the beef industry has intensified over time because of ethical concerns and varying societal perceptions that exist about the treatment and living conditions of farm animals. It is one of the “new normals.” The definition of welfare will vary according to an individual’s philosophies (how one defines and prioritizes what is “good”), experiences (societal and cultural influences of animal roles and relationships), and involvement in the livestock industry (knowledge of how livestock operations work and why).

Speaking of new normals, routines in the processing corral have changed with COVID-19. Things such as social distancing, personal hygiene, socializing and food preparation altered branding-day customs to the point some ranches waived the social aspect of spring processing altogether last year, abandoned the practice of hot-iron branding, purchased calf cradles and managed processing routines in smaller groups. Many limited the need for help. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association has a three-page fact sheet online with information on processing and branding during the pandemic.

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 or to the WCABP.

The post Vet Advice: Pain control in cattle appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

I wonder what the world is going to look like in six months. Will we all remember how to socialize in real life once we re-emerge from these cycles of lockdowns and semi-lockdowns? Will we regain ground on the mental health front? Will public discourse start to improve?

One blessing for me has been the conversations I’ve had with readers over the winter and early spring. It’s not really a substitute for talking in person but it has been rewarding. We’ve set up an editorial board for the magazine comprising people (mostly producers) from across the country, and I was blown away by the insight and nuance everyone brought to the first conversations. I’ve also had some interesting conversations with readers and felt like I’d learned something by the close of each of those chats. I’m always glad when people care enough about the magazine to contact me, even if it’s with a criticism of an opinion or story in the magazine. Often what starts with a criticism turns into a great conversation.

It’s not always acknowledged or obvious to outsiders, but there is diversity built into our industry. It’s something that’s come to the forefront in the conversations I’ve had with producers and others in the industry lately. There’s a diversity of opinions on everything from American and Canadian politics to approaches to production. There is also diversity in our experiences; much of my experience as an elder millennial woman in ag media will not be the same as a Gen-X male journalist, nor will it be the same as a female reporter 15 years younger than me, or even necessarily as someone the same age. The same goes for beef producers of different ages, from different regions, of different genders or sexual orientations, etc.… Then we can get into people into regenerative, holistic, organic, or, for lack of a better word, “regular” beef production. And then we have people in different breed camps, and so forth. If we expand this into other parts of the industry, such as the people conducting research, running or working in meat plants, administering check-off funded programs and so forth, we’ll find much more diversity.

With all these differences, it’s no wonder we don’t always see eye to eye in this fascinating industry. Conflict is often viewed as unhealthy and undesirable, and we’ve sure seen some examples of that in the last year. But it’s also true that if managed well, it can lead to growth, to new and better ideas and ways of doing things. Imagine where we would be today if, 100 years ago, everyone had decided the way they were doing things was just fine and didn’t need to change at all. Some pressure is a good thing.

But I will also admit freely that I don’t really like conflict and am not especially good at handling it. I am perhaps marginally better than I was 15 years ago, though. I’ve learned there are options other than “winning” the argument or avoiding the subject completely. I think it helps to hang around a few people who are good at handling conflict and watch what they do, but there are good books on the subject, too. I also think it’s just one of the things in life most of us aren’t great at to start with, but all of us can get better at it if we try. Maybe, eventually, it becomes like muscle memory.

Back in March, Dr. Jody Carrington addressed attendees of the Alberta Farm Animal Care Conference. Carrington is a psychologist in the Olds, Alberta area. She has a very memorable coffee mug that she will slyly display during virtual talks and a wicked sense of humor. She is also, in my opinion, excellent at unpacking concepts around mental and social well-being in an engaging way.

Carrington told us that day that acknowledgment was the one concept we should tuck into our Carhartts and take home. That can mean a tip of the hat to someone who’s done well, or recognition that someone has been hurt. It can also mean acknowledging your appreciation of someone else, remembering birthdays (something I’m personally not great at), etc.…

One important thing to keep in mind is that an acknowledgment is not a one-and-done-type deal. Carrington used the example of telling your spouse you love them on your wedding day, and never saying it again — not an effective way to build a lasting relationship.

The idea of acknowledgment carries into other situations, too. The B.C. Agriculture Council has created a communications workshop for producers who want to engage with the public. Part of that workshop includes a strategy to avoid becoming defensive or offended during conversations, an approach they’ve named CHAT. CHAT stands for: Check your reactions; Hear what they are really saying; Acknowledge and ask questions; Tell your story. I have to think this same approach would serve us well in many situations outside the “talking to consumers” context. Imagine using it at least to some extent on boards, within families or at the workplace.

I will acknowledge that there are a few situations where a softer approach isn’t preferable. For example, a few years back, I was a witness for the Crown in a trial at the local Legion. For the most part, it bore little resemblance to Law and Order. But just as you’d see on TV, the cross-examination was designed to poke holes in my testimony. The lawyer for the defence was definitely not following the CHAT approach and was certainly not trying to acknowledge my experience. So acknowledging another point of view is not necessarily going to be productive in a courtroom or perhaps other similar settings, where each side is trying to win an argument. I also doubt there’s much point in employing it during a debate with an animal rights activist who is against raising livestock for food, as there likely aren’t enough shared values on that topic (but perhaps someone will prove me wrong one day).

There are also people who love a good debate, who will play devil’s advocate just for fun. I am one of those people, to a certain extent. But I can also tell you that being cross-examined did not win me over to the defence’s side, so there is little point in taking a debate that far in most real-life situations. Plus, real life is not a courtroom, and people generally don’t have to put up with an argumentative approach outside of the legal system. Know your audience.

I am also going to point out that you always have the option to walk away from someone who is cross-examining you (unless you’re on the stand). Good fences make good neighbours, they say, and a good fence is just another word for a boundary.

But I think we need to remember that diversity of experience and opinion can be a very good thing for our farms and ranches, our industry and our society as a whole. If we want to make that work for us, we need to drop the “win the argument” mentality more often and start by acknowledging those different viewpoints.

The post Comment: The power of acknowledgement appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

I don’t see my role, or the role of Canadian Cattlemen magazine in general, as advocating for the industry to the public — we are here to inform you, not to persuade consumers. However, for the record, I do believe that beef producers in general are doing a bang-up job of protecting natural landscapes. Part of that belief is bolstered by reading and hearing about the work undertaken by producers across the country, and their growing partnerships with environmental organizations. But it’s rooted in my experience growing up on a cow-calf operation, and time spent roaming pastures from the northern Great Plains to the Parkland to the Boreal regions, and even some foothills.

Unfortunately, we know public perception is often just the opposite. In late September, a producer texted me several articles and opinion pieces that included criticisms of the beef industry’s environmental record. Some of the articles did include quotes from people in agriculture, but it wasn’t cheerful reading.

Another producer I chatted with this fall wondered about suing media outlets that publish misinformation. It’s a suggestion I’ve heard from time to time. In Canada, it is possible to sue media for libel, but it’s not super easy and likely to be very expensive. Journalists have some protection as long as the information is of public interest and they’ve tried to verify it. The Canadian Journalists for Free Expression has a concise, helpful article titled “Defamation, libel and slander: What are my rights to free expression?” You can find it online by searching “defamation” on their website.

Even if there was a viable case, I’m not sure suing a journalist or media outlet would improve the public’s perception of the beef industry. Monsanto certainly didn’t score any points suing the late Percy Schmeiser for a patent violation after Roundup Ready canola was found in his field in the ’90s. That lawsuit basically turned Schmeiser into a hero for the anti-GMO movement and Monsanto into the corporate villain.

I think the industry is better off viewing journalists as potential allies against misinformation. I’m not claiming that media culture is perfect or that journalists don’t make mistakes. But the credo of the profession is to report in a fair, balanced way, so unless it’s an opinion piece, the article should include perspectives from the livestock industry and/or its supporters along with its detractors. If there’s an issue with a piece and it seems likely to influence many people, forward it to one of the beef organizations. Or send a note yourself. Be direct but polite about the correction. You can suggest experts to contact for future stories or a followup. You can also offer to write an opinion piece or do an interview yourself, if you’re comfortable with that.

It’s also worth noting that there are examples of balanced reporting and positive opinion pieces about the beef industry. It’s probably worth forwarding your appreciation of and suggestions for sources and future story ideas to these outfits, too.

On the reasonably balanced side, The Globe and Mail ran a piece this fall on regenerative ag titled “Want a more sustainable food system? Focus on better dirt.” It mentions the role of cattle in a regenerative system. On the outright glowing side we have “Meet the Canadian farmers fighting climate change,” published by The Narwhal, and “Canadian ranchers protect native grasslands and species at risk,” published by Canadian Geographic. The morning I wrote this (Oct. 21), I read an opinion piece on CBC Saskatchewan’s website penned by rancher Adrienne Ivey titled “Rural issues matter in this Saskatchewan election, no matter where you live.”

Some producers have found success reaching out on social media. We ran a piece in the Sept. 28 issue, written by Tara Mulhern Davidson, that shared insights from two producers who do this well (“Connecting farms, facts and feelings through storytelling”). I don’t see much point in arguing with the animal rights activists, but there are plenty more people in the middle. One suggestion is to start with your own non-ag interests; if you’re a runner, join an online running group. Or if you like cooking, find a group of cooks online. As we’ll all be spending more time at home this winter, it’s not a bad time to try this out. Just avoid non sequiturs — share your ag experience only when it’s a natural fit for the discussion.

I still think there is a lot to gain by leaning into a relationship with media outlets. An article in the Globe and Mail still carries more credibility than a random Facebook post, and there seems to be growing interest in agriculture in this country. With some patience, tolerance for other opinions and tenacity, I think the beef industry and its supporters could shift the current narrative. It’s certainly worth trying, as it beats the alternatives.

The post Bridging the rural-urban media divide appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

In August at the Canadian Beef Industry Conference it was a thrill to not know everyone on a first-name basis. The atmosphere has changed and the farm kitchen has expanded to many new faces. The dynamic included the energy of young men and women who dominated the conversation. They were relaxed, informed, confident and ready for leadership roles. The regenerative spirit was palpable.

This is in part due to the work of women like Jill Harvie who developed the Cattlemen Young Leaders Program and opened the doors to youth. Her commitment can be measured. A mentorship is a great experience and the outcome of the last five years was evident by those mentees who now were in leadership positions.

In the crowd was a good friend of mine whom had sent me a note a few years ago reminding me “that this industry has been good to us.” That came from the dynamic Anne Wasko who has never failed to light up a room with her smile and deeply impress with her wisdom. Anne knows how to stay true to her style, say it like it is, care deeply and she knows the value of commitment. She has had an impact on generations of men and women who strive for excellence and given them confidence to ask the questions they need to ask.

Canadians attended from every province who were also part of the Canadian Young Farmers Forum, Farm Management Canada, breed associations, service providers and more. Not only did several Canadian Nuffield Scholars attend (I am a recipient) but one presented and two arrived for the conference from Australia, all evidence that our young global family is growing.

• More ‘Straight from the hip’ with Brenda Schoepp: Farming is the future of Canada

The energy in this beef family is also due in part to the way we communicate as an industry and the strong impact of social media. When I first started feeding cattle we did not have cell phones, email, Internet or any instant messaging services. Telephone companies charged for long distance and we received our information by fax or mail! Now it all seems like a dark page in communication history when you compare it to the capabilities of today.

During the meeting the conference hashtag became the most used in Canada. That means that folks followed from around the country and the globe. It was a reflection of how youth communicates — in those amazing short and sweet messages that convey feeling and opinion. Just like the past elections, the beef industry has become a social media platform. If you want folks to come — you catch them on their cell phone and invite them in. The vibrant nature of social media allows for meetings to be fun and comments to be shared on the spot.

Communication comes in many different forms from the beautiful spoken word to what you read on these pages. In writing there is an opportunity to compliment, create dialogue and to take readers to a new plane of thought. It is a creative exercise that challenges the writer to be accurate, engaging and inspiring, and layer in messages that have impact.

It is by writing on these pages that I have received my greatest blessings — the men and women who have sent their thoughts on a wide range of topics by email, Twitter or Facebook, the encouragement they shared and the spoken compliments so kind that it makes my heart blush. This is a very special family.

I have sold my ranch and am now one step removed from the active duty that was the foundation of my living for 40 years. My writing will likely change a little and sometimes, as readers noted last month, I will take a break to ponder carefully the message that I feel needs to be shared. As we move through the pyramid of life from survival to success and finally to significance, our lens takes in many colours and we strive to share them in meaningful dialogue.

This is also an invitation for those vibrant young men and women in industry to consider moving onto these pages. There is no shortage of mentors, myself included, to help get you into the rhythm of this great magazine. Our legacy is not dependent on our accomplishments but by the talent we have nurtured in those around us. In the beef industry we have this fantastic dynamic that is not reflected in other areas of agriculture. We have engaged youth — young men and women who are committed and totally capable because of the leadership of women like Jill and Anne, the young executives and the young farmers and ranchers in Canada who live their core values. We are a family inspiring each other.

My family has grown to be international in scope and includes all walks of agriculture. I have been surrounded by the young and transformed into the realm of the possible. Each day is an exciting opportunity to learn and to share that experience. In the future, I look forward to walking into that giant industry kitchen and to be introduced to the person in the industry who competently will take my place at the table.

The post Our legacy is not dependent on our accomplishments appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The urbanization of Canada will have an impact on our farming practices. Every civilization is built on the production of food and the best soil dies under our cities. By 2020, 80 per cent of the global population will live in urban areas within 60 kilometres of a shore. This is Canada’s profile as well with over 70 per cent of our population living in a port-side city. The continuous food going in is one issue but the waste coming out also pressures surrounding agricultural land.

Agricultural enterprises by nature are often stand-alone independent units but this too is changing and we will continue to see alliances and partnerships, especially when value adding is present. To truly establish markets, producers will be seeking out end-users that align with their value systems. Younger farmers today are hungry for information that adds value to their product and are well informed and very comfortable with these types of agreements.

Rural communities will change and prosper depending on their access to technology. We are starting to see some very interesting farm operations and vibrant small-town economies based on technology hubs and layering of partnerships. With the access to information and the ability to communicate globally there are no restrictions on opportunity. Lately this has been expressed in the resurgence of interest in small family farms. Small is big again and young couples are flocking to the farm armed with their education, cell phones, cloud technology and business plans.

• More ‘Straight from the hip’ with Brenda Schoepp: The consequence of a society of privilege is choice

Many of these new farmers are women. In Canada, 30 per cent of farms and ranches are owned and operated by women (40 per cent in British Columbia) and continued growth of this trend may change the face of farming in many ways, but one which stands out is closer ties with the consumer. Women will lead this change from commoditization and price taking to price alignment with quality. Look for encouragement in areas of research such as nutrient density.

There is room for every farmer and that is what makes this industry tick. We will continue to honour past traditions like ranching but it will be data based with genomics, performance data, nutrient quality and alignment with the end-user. The horse and rider may be replaced or assisted by a drone with UHF real-time communication.

Technology and science will be the drivers to enhance our social licence and entice consumers to our food. Industry will continue to find ways to draw folks to the counter with apps such as the AHDB app for meat buyers (U.K.) and The Roundup by Canada Beef. This technology is enabling for all farms and all buyers and sellers regardless of size or volume.

We will always need the feedyard and the large landholder. Intensive farming reduces agriculture’s overall footprint and allows for an increase in set-aside lands such as grasslands and forages that are huge carbon sequesters. Manure will once again be gold and further technologies in its use will emerge.

Agriculture is the closest industry to zero waste that there is and when done right is the ultimate environmental complement — if not regenerator. This is our story and we need to tell it. In doing so, using the word “sustainable” will fall upon closed ears. Millennials — that huge and last vast buying group — are not swallowing our sustainable claims. They want full transparency. In other words, farming will be about what we do at this moment.

So close to the action, data junkies and living with FOMO (the fear of missing out), the main buyer of food in this age needs constant proof and reassurance. In fairness, this is what companies such as Earls understands. To ask for certification is that piece of assurance that market research tells the restaurant that the consumer asked for or needs to feel secure. Remember, the food service guest is making a decision based on their core values and beliefs which are formed by the environment in which they live and the information that they have.

A new area of information that is important to note is animal welfare and the interrelationship with human rights and welfare. These are massive targets for consumers and now carry the same weight as the discussion on GMO. These men and women want a food experience and are willing to take the time to ask about what they are eating, how it was raised and how the folks were treated in the process. This is our new reality and an opportunity for system-wide improvements.

A cellphone, a huge list of connections, a great business plan, a mentor and reams of data will enhance future farming. Jobs will continue to increase in the agricultural sector and in 2020 the estimate is that we will need another 122,000 persons to fill the vacancies. The $50 billion that will transfer over in agriculture within the next two decades will go to the brightest and best in production and marketing. They will have a “feel” for the end-user and in many cases a direct dialogue with them. Access to market or to further value adding will be the ultimate objective on the farm. Like the millennial buyer, the millennial farmer won’t be force-fed or have any tolerance for poor connections or relationships. They will change up or move on.

Past, present and future, we all carry the responsibility of growing food — the most honourable task on earth — for today and tomorrow.

The post Farming is the future of Canada appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Our soil, so firmly attached to our working boots, is the foundation of our existence and the reason for the health and the wealth of our nation. Although fossil fuels are surely needed to farm today, it is food that got us to this point and renewable fuels such as trees that allowed civilizations to grow.

This is also a vulnerable world. Not from the sense that we are destroying it, but because it is so misunderstood and underappreciated. Only a few Canadians understand what a farm is or does. Most think there really is a climate change disaster (although the average temperature is actually cooling) and farming, particularly beef production, is responsible for most GHG emissions. (All of agriculture, forestry and waste is nine per cent of GHG). Farming is not responsible for the end of the earth as some would have us believe. Rather, we are the regenerators of life.

Let us be clear in our arguments. No one exists without healthy soil and healthy soil is dependent on carbon dioxide (CO2). CO2 is a renewable source of carbon and with sunlight is synthesized as sugar in plants. This feeds the plants and wards off pests and as the plant matures, the sugars go back down into the soil, feeding the microbes and the process is repeated in a biological process. Micro-organisms feed on the organic matter producing nutrients and those nutrients are taken up by the plant. When there is an imbalance, such as a shortage of CO2, the soil is bound and can’t take on extra responsibility. For example, if CO2 is not in abundance then nitrogen cannot be metabolized.

For the sake of agriculture I seriously question the science or sense behind a carbon tax. CO2 has never been scientifically linked to long-term global warming or extreme weather. The higher the concentration of CO2 the greater the production of plant life on earth — that is why many food producers, especially green houses, capture it and pump it directly back into the soil for plant growth. Is the desertification of areas due in part to a reduction in CO2 rather than an increase in it?

• More ‘Straight from the hip’ with Brenda Schoepp: What does it take for farmers to earn public trust?

When it comes to carbon tax, tax payers have become victims of a money grab with propaganda being masked as science, with a movement based on fictional fear and the complete lack of understanding of the importance of CO2 to life. In Alberta, for example, individual households will be taxed from $300 and up depending on energy usage for what is really a necessity — it is cold in winter. All buildings and houses are estimated to contribute eight per cent to GHG, so the logic that agriculture, forestry and families should foot the bill for the other 84 per cent is absurd. Real carcinogens released into the air will not be taxed and foreign-owned multinationals will be heavily subsidized to adjust. Governments fail to understand basic science. Carbon tax of the masses is not an environmental solution.

Forests or planted tree stands, grasslands and natural areas and forages are profound sequesters of carbon and they can handle massive change. They are long-term respirators that continuously recycle the CO2 into nutrients for the soil. The importance of these areas cannot be underestimated and ignoring their function or failing to value them is like choosing to live with one lung. Farmers then are the stewards of our greatest resource.

So why is research within ag being compromised? A case in point is the reduction of one half of the biotechnology research team at BASF. Chopping 350 out of a 700-person research team is pretty dramatic, especially when you are in the seed bed with Monsanto that has a strong desire to capture the pesticide arm of BASF. Why stop plant research now when we have never been under more pressure to secure the public trust in terms of handling a critical natural resource? If Monsanto wants farmers to have a one-stop shop to buy all their crop inputs and that stop is at Monsanto, we have a problem and that problem is about the perception of all of agriculture.

Massive intensive farms are critical in terms of meeting current and global food needs. Yes, they use more fossil fuel but they still sequester carbon and their value is in producing enough food per hectare/acre/metre that we can start to set aside an increasing amount of natural spaces. Great producers, they remain vulnerable to a loss of freedom of choice and increasing input costs along with poor public perception. It is this lack of appreciation that overlaps all farms, including those on rangelands and with extensive forage production.

Forage production can offset some negativity as we relate the importance of farming to press, policy-makers and our consuming public. Forage requires fewer inputs, less fossil fuel and is regenerative in nature. There is an interrelationship as legumes will develop a mycorrhizal association with grasses, fixing nitrogen in a swap for phosphate. There is also a relationship with wildlife and cattle that contributes to the entire food and nutrient cycle. Forage is the base for feed, bedding, fertilizer and is a carbon sink that builds the soil — the beginning and the end of the cycle.

The last thing we would call ourselves in this business is vulnerable — but we truly are until we can sell our value to all stakeholders from both an environmental and ecological standpoint.

The post We live in a vulnerable world appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The move toward single-trait selection for huge breasts on birds has been an affliction. Coupled with hot diets, this created a situation where the birds’ feet are not the only thing dragging in the barn. Industry is scrambling to find a technology to fix this problem.

And therein lies the fiction. Finding a form of tenderization is like putting new feet on cattle with laminitis, extra spigots on a sow or ovaries in an infertile cow. Or, like adding a filter to the end of a muffler and calling it emission control. It does not work because it does not address the problem.

There are a multitude of events and outcomes, errors and arrogance that contributes to reputation risk. Every time an industry assumes single-trait selection won’t cause a problem or acidosis will not be counterproductive or that sows will be happy in crates it puts that sector’s reputation and the reputation of all food producers at risk. And we cannot hide.

To fully appreciate reputation risk we can take the Volkswagen emission control case as an example. It would be easy to do the appropriate — investigate, fix, fire and compensate. The difficulty lies in controlling or mitigating the reputation risk. Consider this; Volkswagen is second in the world behind Toyota for vehicle production and sales. Their car lines include Bentley, Lamborghini, Audi, Porsche, Skoda and SEAT. They manufacture these cars along with motorcycles, trucks and other wheeled vehicles in 100 plants in 27 countries. Owned by the Qatar Investment Authority, The State of Lower Saxony, Capital Group Companies and Porsche Automobil Holdings SE they had a net profit in 2014 of $10.8 billion euros. In addition they have been regarded as the higher end of middle-class cars for folks. Every year over 10 million diesel cars are sold under the Volkswagen banner.

As they bought a Bosch software system that is used by others, including Mercedes Benz, it is not in the cards to blame that technology. According to Bosch that software was “not pre-programmed to cheat.” That means that someone had to order the directive from within. Meanwhile, VW stocks are collapsing and the board has decided to redirect consumer attention to electric cars. The upside of this is that finally nearly 200 years after electric cars were developed, we might actually see them on the road. But that is not the issue here. The issue is that the consumer was cheated as VW focused on a single trait — sales.

• More ‘Straight from the Hip’ with Brenda Schoepp: Beef – naturally

Further investigation reveals that this is not the first time VW has been in the hot seat. In 2009 there was a criminal probe and in 2015 it was revealed that the board spent 24 months trying to hide research on a keyless ignition security flaw. One can safely assume that there is a culture imbedded within the board and upper management that is reflected in their actions and decisions. And this is the worst of all reputation risks. The fact that the software was redesigned to cheat and at a level of 35-40 per cent is a poor decision but the response that the board is hoping to redirect interest to ease the fallout is unacceptable.

Now that Volkswagen has lost its new CEO due to conflict with the board, we can assume that the board and upper management culture has dominated common sense. Volkswagen has just named an integrity officer and it is shocking that a company of this size did not have checks and balances in place. What is there to learn here? What are the things we need to address today to avoid reputation risk tomorrow?

An environmental business scan would reveal that some of the pieces of the whole may need tweaking. Just like woody breast in foul, tough cuts in beef or housing in pigs may all be issues that the consumer sees in an unfavourable light. In the beef industry we tend to look inwardly because we have the Porsche of proteins. But it is Porsche who is getting hammered right now with share devaluation. How can we work as an industry with other proteins to ensure consumer safety and confidence while safeguarding production? Are we competitors or partners?

Are not all proteins guilty of productive, reproductive and skeletal deficiencies? Are not all proteins struggling with quality on the whole carcass and an increasing need by the consumer for transparent animal welfare practices? Safeguarding reputation is not putting your competing protein out to dry — it is working in collaboration to produce and create a product that the consumer has confidence in and has the data and culture to support it into the future.

I think that many of our young farmers get this because they interact at a very high level. We need to ensure they are part of the development of the protein industry as we move forward. Quality is becoming the issue and most certainly brand recognition has proven this. From woody breast and tough end meats and all other concerns in between the problem is the solution. For today we have to ask ourselves how clean is our engine running and foster a culture to mitigate all future reputation risk.

The post How clean is our protein engine? appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Deep in a city boardroom shared with the major food industries, it became clear to me that what we assume of our urban and global customers may have been slightly underestimated. These producers and agri-food giants were very clear that the customer of the day demanded a natural product with full transparency, freshness and versatility.

A little research found that most associations are aware of the well-documented consumer shift to a more natural product but in the same article will call it a “fad” or “niche.” That tells me the depth of the market may not be fully understood. More than a decade ago a few of us in the business worried over consumer issues and talked about the shift from the practice of the day to a more natural product. We knew it had to be but at the same time it was an expensive conversion for industry — one that takes pure economic advantages and trashes them for buyer need. Could we do it?

The question is no longer if the conversion will need to take place but when it will be dictated. We only have to look at the mandates that were demanded in other industries, such as poultry and eggs to know that beef is on the hook.The success of natural programs cannot be ignored. “A customer is a customer, no matter where they are,” (AgriSuccess May/June) is a mantra to the global context of food. How we handle this broadening of scope as an industry will determine our future.

Beef is a wonderful protein that has the distinct advantage of tasting terrific. Consumer studies show us that taste is still the major driver for beef buys and tenderness the handicap. That is why middle cuts continue to sell — although in smaller portions. In Canada we enjoy state of the art of feeding and processing and are leaders in cooked meat, especially hamburger. In fact the Cardinal Meat Specialists plants in Brampton and Spruce Grove are so advanced they are unrivalled anywhere else in North America. We do have competitive advantages.

• More ‘Straight from the Hip’ with Brenda Schoepp: Revelation in the boardroom

This may all sound repetitive until we fan the pages on the future. When we look ahead there is a resounding new theme — transparency. We hear the need from scientists such as Temple Grandin, from consumer groups and young technically savvy farmers. We tend to have a knowledge gap with transparency in the processing side. This, according to Brent Cator, needs to change. In an interview with meatingplace.com, Cator was firm: the biggest trend will be in transparency. The change will come to slaughter and processing. The technologies will be diverse so they can be “combined, layered and have multiple advantages.”

Operational diversity is the key. We know in an industry, diversity brings experiences and ideas to the table. A diverse collective intelligence that runs a farm, factory, plant, industry or home is open to innovation and creativity. In nature, for example, biodiversity is the secret to balance and the higher the diversity — the greater the resistance and stronger the resilience.

A study by NPD Group recently stated that “young, ethnically diverse buyers are tomorrow’s meat buyers,” so we know that we are facing diversity at every juncture and on the marketing side all the time. How that crosses over into production for cattlemen is another story and how that product is prepared is another layer to implement.

Slaughter is an unfashionable necessity and further processing even more removed from our acceptable consciousness. If Cator is on the mark then the question becomes: how do we increase transparency in the ugly end of business? Animal welfare is first and as we move down the line, the aspects of value adding need to have a higher than regulatory standard with ample creative technologies that ensure a fresher product. Add a dash of full transparency and it sounds easy enough until economics dictate that this must be done at a reasonable cost.

Is the problem the solution? If natural is in then that can be solved with education and research for producers, cattle feeders and processors. If customers want a more convenient natural protein experience or a more flavourful one, then that can be solved with technology. If buyers want a fresher product then that can be solved with airplanes. And if full transparency is at the top of the list — then data systems can be developed to support it. The recipe for success may include the Cloud, robotics, improved transportation infrastructure, creative design, science, diverse teams from outside of industry, self-driven regulations that exceed baselines and embracing the knowledge that the world has changed yet again.

Remember the days before rotational grazing, electronic auctions sales, conveyor restraint pre slaughter, hydraulic chutes and gates, MLV, cryovac packages, high-temperature cooking, HACCP, robotics or the round baler? Do you remember the pushback when those were introduced? We cannot go back to that time when we now can knit protein fibres and sequence the bovine genome.

Science and technology have saved lives, made our world safer, improved performance for our animals and given us the tools to be better stewards. It took a diversity of thought, fearless innovation and sharing (transparency) to get to this space. As we move to the next phase, beef has the opportunity to once again be centre of plate — naturally.

The post Beef — naturally appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The boardroom experience need not be boring or redundant. It can be a fascinating journey with diverse individuals pulling in the same direction from different viewpoints. It is up to the individual board member to choose to contribute to a board or committee that aligns with their core values and beliefs and to be accountable at all times. It is up to leadership to create a platform for discussion. It is up to staff to execute the directive of the board and not to be micromanaged by it. And it is the responsibility of all to engage in ongoing dialogue and reporting.

Often industry boards are seen as battlegrounds to protect the status quo or impose a personal agenda rather than fostering an environment for growth and service. As a new board member you may wish to know what to look for. What are a few of the characteristics of a functional board? It starts with asking the fundamental questions prior to commitment beginning with: what is the mandate of the board? If that cannot be clearly articulated then there is a risk of feeling lost at sea at the table. There must be a reason for the existence of that board that is clear, measurable and accountable.

What is the governance structure of the board? Governance is a broad term that embodies the interactions of decision-making and the tiers of authority and execution. For example how does a collectively recommended action become executed and by whom? Small plays in governance make for big changes and can be as simple as agenda construction to radiate the needs of the board members and ensure their comfort regarding times allotted for discussion. This is important because if the board is presented actions already in play that do not have board approval then the tail is wagging the dog. The board itself does not have a function and the governance model is upside down.

What are the roles and responsibilities of the board member and how do they support the mandate of the board and the vision of the stakeholder? New board members should ask for and receive a complete orientation package and a briefing that clearly defines the mandate and purpose of the board and the roles and responsibilities of the members. This is for all boards of all sizes and for all purposes.

• More ‘Straight from the Hip’ with Brenda Schoepp: Farming with intentional design

Along with the value of expertise and a desire to serve, the board member commits to a great attitude and to affirm the best in their fellow members. Ego is parked with the car. The goal is servitude toward a higher good expressed as a common objective. As one size does not fit all you may have to ask for what you need to serve well. If you cannot hear — then ask for a microphone or for your fellow members to speak up. Need a break or a special diet, more complete board packages, further information or a meeting with staff or the chair to clarify a detail? — ask.

When internal barriers block the ability of the board member to fully function they should be immediately addressed. The ongoing tolerance of this only leads to frustration and an ineffective board. Take the example of board packages. The entire meeting may be fruitless if board packages are incomplete or delivered too close to the meeting date. Having resolutions of importance worded and included in the package helps board members to understand what they may be voting on in advance. Templates that measure the past success on a topic are important to visualize complex situations. Even seemingly trivial items such as dress code for board functions are important to the smooth workings of the board.

How questions are expressed is important to keep engagement at a high level and to boost moral. Questions are about the issue or item and not the person. One might ask, “Jane, thank you for your report, may I have more clarification on the number of cattle in quarantine referred to in this report?” rather than stating, “This report is not complete because Jane did not supply the numbers I need.” As representatives of our constituents we are ever polite and eloquently brief.

When on a board and it seems like too much work, too much time commitment or too much repetitive discussion then there is a failure in the design and a lack of leadership to provide the platform for open discussion. Functional design respects details in purpose, governance, diversity, leadership, roles and responsibilities and empowers board members.

The problem is the solution and a failure creates an opportunity to work collectively to design a structure that assures results. The exercise of determining board mandate and assessing the skills required while constantly mirroring the vision of the stakeholder creates value. And at the end of the day, board members want to feel that their time has been of value to their industry and community. It is a fascinating experience, a revelation, to be on the team of a highly functional board. Great experiences lead to strong comradery between board members and assure staff that the board is supportive of their work. Most importantly it fosters growth in individuals, communities, companies and industry.

The post Revelation in the boardroom appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.