Farm for food not fear

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Fall harvest is in the storehouse. Now, let’s put away all proposals to cap fertilizer inputs to save the earth. Canadian farmers are ensuring food security, not fueling the droughts, fires, or storms that critics unfairly attribute to them.

The Saskatoon-based Global Institute for Food Security (GIFS) did as fulsome an analysis as possible on carbon emissions in Saskatchewan, Western Canada, Canada, and international peers. Transportation, seed, fertilizer and manure, crop inputs, field activities, energy emissions, and post-harvest work were all in view.

The studies, published last year, had very reassuring results. Canadian crop production was less carbon intensive than other places, and Western Canada was a little better yet. This proved true crop by crop.

Carbon emissions per tonne of canola production were more than twice as high in France and Germany as in Canada. Australia was slightly less carbon intensive than Canada, but still trailed Western Canada.

For non-durum wheat, Canada blew Australia, France, Germany, and the U.S. away with roughly half the carbon intensity of those countries. For durum wheat, the U.S. had twice the carbon intensity of Canada, and Italy almost five times as much.

Canada was remarkably better with lentil production. Producers in Australia had 5.5 times the carbon emissions per tonne produced as Canada, while the U.S. had 8 times as much. In some parts of Canada, lentil production was a net carbon sink.

Canadian field peas have one-tenth the carbon emissions per tonne of production as is found in Germany, and one-sixth that of France or the United States.

According to GIFS, Canada succeeds by “regenerative agriculture, including minimal soil disturbance, robust crop rotation, covering the land, integrating livestock and the effective management of crop inputs.”

The implementation of zero-till farming is especially key. If the land isn’t worked up, most nutrients and gases stay in the soil–greenhouse gases included.

Western Canada has been especially keen to adopt the zero-till approach, in contrast to the United States, where only 30 percent of cropland is zero-till.

The adoption of optimal methods has already lowered Canadian carbon emissions substantially. Despite all of this, some net zero schemers aim to cut carbon emissions by fertilizer by 30 percent, just as it does in other sectors.

This target is undeserved for Canadian agriculture because the industry has already made drastic, near-maximum progress. Nitrates help crops grow, so the farmer is already vitally motivated to keep nitrates in the soil and out of the skies–alleged global warming or not. Fewer nutrients mean fewer yields and lower proteins.

The farmer’s personal and economic interests already motivate the best fertilizer use that is practically possible. Universal adoption of optimal techniques could lower emissions a bit more, but Canada is so far ahead in this game that a hard cap on fertilizer emissions could only be detrimental.

In 2021, Fertilizer Canada commissioned a study by MNP to estimate the costs of a 20 percent drop in fertilizer use to achieve a 30 percent reduction in emissions. The study suggested that by 2030, bushels of production per acre would drop significantly for canola (23.6), corn (67.9), and spring wheat (36.1). By 2030, the annual value of lost production for those crops alone would reach $10.4 billion.

If every animal and human in Canada died, leaving the country an unused wasteland, the drop in world greenhouse gas emissions would be only 1.4 percent. Any talk of reducing capping fertilizer inputs for the greater good is nonsense.

Lee Harding is a Research Fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Up Next

Healthcare Innovation Isn’t ‘Scary.’ Canada’s Broken System Is

Don't Miss

“Mainstream media bias is beyond biased”

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Kennedy to cut 10,000 HHS employees to reduce ‘bureaucratic sprawl’

Business / 3 hours ago

Feds Spent Roughly $1 Billion To Conduct Survey That Could’ve Been Done For $10,000, Musk Says

Energy / 8 hours ago

Poll: Majority says energy independence more important than fighting climate change

Agriculture

It’s time to end supply management

Published on March 23, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Ending Canada’s dairy supply management system would lower costs, boost exports, and create greater economic opportunities.

The Trump administration’s trade warfare is not all bad. Aside from spurring overdue interprovincial trade barrier elimination and the removal of obstacles to energy corridors, it has also spotlighted Canada’s dairy supply management system.

The existing marketing board structure is a major hindrance to Canada’s efforts to increase non-U.S. trade and improve its dismal productivity growth rate—crucial to reviving stagnant living standards. Ending it would lower consumer costs, make dairy farming more dynamic, innovative and export-oriented, and create opportunities for overseas trade deals.

Politicians sold supply management to Canadians to ensure affordable milk and dairy products for consumers without costing taxpayers anything—while avoiding unsightly dumping surplus milk or sudden price spikes. While the government has not paid dairy farmers directly, consumers have paid more at the supermarket than their U.S. neighbours for decades.

An October 2023 C.D. Howe Institute analysis showed that, over five years, the Canadian price for four litres of partly skimmed milk generally exceeded the U.S. price (converted to Canadian dollars) by more than a dollar, sometimes significantly more, and rarely less.

A 2014 study conducted by the University of Manitoba, published in 2015, found that lower-income households bore an extra burden of 2.3 per cent of their income above the estimated cost for free-market-determined dairy and poultry products (i.e., vs. non-supply management), amounting to $339 in 2014 dollars ($435 in current dollars). Higher-income households paid an additional 0.5 per cent of their income, or $554 annually in 2014 dollars ($712 today).

One of the pillars of the current system is production control, enforced by production quotas for every dairy farm. These quotas only gradually rise annually, despite abundant production capacity. As a result, millions of litres of milk are dumped in some years, according to a 2022 article by the Montreal Economic Institute.

Beyond production control, minimum price enforcement further entrenches inefficiency. Prices are set based on estimated production costs rather than market forces, keeping consumer costs high and limiting competition.

Import restrictions are the final pillar. They ensure foreign producers do not undercut domestic ones. Jaime Castaneda, executive vice-president of the U.S. National Milk Producers Federation, complained that the official 2.86 per cent non-tariffed Canadian import limit was not reached due to non-tariff barriers. Canadian tariffs of over 250 per cent apply to imports exceeding quotas from the European Union, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA, or USMCA).

Dairy import protection obstructs efforts to reach more trade deals. Defending this system forces Canada to extend protection to foreign partners’ favoured industries. Affected sectors include several where Canada is competitive, such as machinery and devices, chemicals and plastics, and pharmaceuticals and medical products. This impedes efforts to increase non-U.S. exports of goods and services. Diverse and growing overseas exports are essential to reducing vulnerability to hostile U.S. trade policy.

It may require paying dairy farmers several billion dollars to transition from supply management—though this cartel-determined “market” value is dubious, as the current inflation-adjusted book value is much lower—but the cost to consumers and the economy is greater. New Zealand successfully evolved from a similar import-protected dairy industry into a vast global exporter. Canada must transform to excel. The current system limits Canada’s freedom to find greener pastures.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Agriculture

Grain farmers warn Canadians that retaliatory tariffs against Trump, US will cause food prices to soar

Published on March 22, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

One of Canada’s prominent agricultural advocacy groups warned that should the federal Liberal government impose counter-tariffs on the United States, it could make growing food more expensive and would be a nightmare for Canadian farmers and consumers.

According to Grain Growers of Canada (GGC) executive director Kyle Larkin, the cost of phosphate fertilizer, which Canada does not make, would shoot up should the Mark Carney Liberal government enact counter-tariffs to U.S. President Donald Trump’s.

Larkin said recently that there is no “domestic phosphate production here (in Canada), so we rely on imports, and the United States is our major supplier.”

“A 25% tariff on phosphate fertilizer definitely would have an impact on grain farmers,” he added.

According to Statistics Canada, from 2018 to 2023, Canada imported about 4.12 million tonnes of fertilizer from the United States. This amount included 1.46 million tonnes of monoammonium phosphates (MAP) as well as 92,027 tonnes of diammonium phosphate (DAP).

Also imported were 937,000 tonnes of urea, 310,158 tonnes of ammonium nitrate, and 518,232 tonnes of needed fertilizers that have both nitrogen and phosphorus.

According to Larkin, although most farmers have purchased their fertilizer for 2025, they would be in for a rough 2026 should the 25 percent tariffs on Canadian exports by the U.S. still stand.

Larkin noted how Canadian farmers are already facing “sky-high input costs and increased government regulations and taxation.”

He said the potential “tariff on fertilizer is a massive concern.”

Trump has routinely cited Canada’s lack of action on drug trafficking and border security as the main reasons for his punishing tariffs.

About three weeks ago, Trump announced he was giving Mexico and Canada a 30-day reprieve on 25 percent export tariffs for goods covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on free trade.

However, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, despite the reprieve from Trump, later threatened to impose a 25 percent electricity surcharge on three American states. Ford, however, quickly stopped his planned electricity surcharge after Trump threatened a sharp increase on Canadian steel and aluminum in response to his threats.

As it stands, Canada has in place a 25 percent counter tariff on some $30 billion of U.S. goods.

It is not yet clear how new Prime Minister Mark Carney will respond to Trump’s tariffs. However, he may announce something after he calls the next election, which he is expected to do March 23.