Spotlight on sustainable, environmentally sound farming

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 10/11/2023 (696 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Farmers are in an awkward spot in the whole debate around climate change.

Whether their farms flourish or fail is highly dependent on the weather. They are on the front lines of whatever it is that’s going on outside our windows.

On one hand, farming practices such as tillage and the sector’s heavy reliance on inputs such as nitrogen fertilizer contribute to the problem. That also means that by incorporating more sustainable practices into their operations, they can be part of the solution. Retaining and capturing more carbon in the soil not only mitigates global warming, but also enhances the soil’s overall health and productive capacity. The jury is still out on how much and how long that might take.

Adding to the complexity is that we’re talking about food here, one of life’s necessities.

While it’s fair to expect farmers to employ environmentally sound practices in their operations, they still need to make a living.

A case in point is this week’s decision by the Senate of Canada to reject a proposal to exclude greenhouse and livestock barn heating and cooling systems from legislation exempting farmers from carbon pricing.

Farm organizations lobbied through the Agriculture Carbon Alliance to get the proposed amendment to Bill C234 axed on the basis that it unfairly targets certain sectors that have no viable alternatives.

“Paying tens of thousands of dollars in carbon pricing annually while waiting for technology to catch up is not a reasonable solution for Canadian farmers,” said ACA chair Dave Carey in a release. “Bill C-234 serves as a practical solution that will put capital back in the hands of farmers so they can continue to do what they do best — feed a growing and hungry world.”

Another example of this conundrum is “enhanced efficiency fertilizers,” products developed by manufacturers to reduce the nitrous oxide emitted when fertilizer is lost by leaching or into the atmosphere instead of being used by growing plants.

Using various approaches, these products slow the breakdown of the fertilizer granules, which extends the window for the crop to use them, thereby reducing how much gets released into the environment.

A study conducted in Manitoba shows that use of these products can indeed result in reduced nitrous oxide emissions. But it didn’t increase canola yields, at least not enough to justify the additional cost.

“The additional costs of (enhanced efficiency fertilizers) without a corresponding economic benefit will remain a barrier to their adoption unless the additional cost is shared by society,” the researchers concluded.

Using cover crops to promote healthier soils is also getting a lot of hype these days. The theory goes that the longer you can have living roots in the soil throughout the year, the better it is for the soil-building micro-organisms that promote tilth, water-holding capacity and carbon capture.

But so far, the research delving into whether this pays off for the farmer has come up with mixed results at best. One recently released study on farms using cover crops in the American Midwest showed farmers suffered a yield penalty. Is it a function of time or management, both or neither?

Farmers surveyed by the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute this year indicated they are interested in adopting sustainable farming methods, but there’s some confusion over what “sustainability” really means.

One of the more surprising insights emerging from the CAPI survey is that farmers aren’t necessarily looking to the rest of society to foot the bill with subsidies or incentives.

They’d rather adopt practices that are both good for the environment and profitable, which raises the question of what’s it will take convert new practices and products that theoretically bring value into tangible benefits in the field.

Adopting unproven approaches is risky, even more so when more volatile weather is already amplifying a farmer’s uncertainties.

Clearly, continued research and innovation has a role. Financial carrots or regulatory sticks will also undoubtedly be part of it. There’s growing consensus, however, that the missing link is more investments in extension support — at a time when many governments are investing less.

Laura Rance is executive editor, production content lead for Glacier FarmMedia. She can be reached at lrance@farmmedia.com