Podcast: How sustainable is Canadian agriculture at producing cereals, pulses and oilseeds?

Clinton Monchuk: (00:07)
From Canadian Food Focus. This is Ask a Farmer. I’m your host Clinton Monchuk, a Saskatchewan farmer. In this podcast, we talk to food experts to answer your questions about your food.

Clinton Monchuk: (00:27)
Welcome to the podcast everybody. Today what we’re going to be talking about is the sustainability of Canadian agriculture, particularly talking about cereals, pulses, and oilseeds. So Canadians have continued to move further and further away from food production. We can see this as urban centers continue to expand and there’s less individuals that are out there growing our food, and it’s led to more discussions about consuming food that’s sustainably produced and not just environmentally sustainable, but also looking at other factors like economically and socially sustainable as well. The Global Institute for Food Security at the University of Saskatchewan was tasked in 2022 with understanding agriculture’s contribution to improved sustainable outcomes. As part of this, the Global Institute for Food Security examined the carbon footprint of agriculture production in Saskatchewan, and in Canada, and then compared it to other producers across the globe. Dr. Steve Webb, who is the CEO of the Global Institute for Food Security, is going to walk us through how we’re doing in terms of cereals, pulses, and oil seeds based on this research. Before we get into some of the heart of our discussion, maybe just fill our listeners in with a little bit more about yourself. You’ve led a very interesting life.

Steven Webb: (01:52)
Great, thanks. You know, it’s kind of embarrassing to talk a little bit about yourself. I have had the wonderful opportunity to be the Chief Executive Officer of the Global Institute for Food Security for the last four and a half years. Prior to that, I was 23 years in industry and I actually started my career here in Saskatoon with, at the time it was Dow Elanco and then it became Dow AgroSciences. My family, and I relocated to Indianapolis, where I held a number of positions in both R&D and commercial for the next 19 years, and had the opportunity to come back here to Canada and to Saskatchewan and Saskatoon to lead the Global Institute for Food Security, which is something that is near and dear to my heart because I believe in partnerships and collaboration and of all the time I was in industry, there’s no place like Saskatchewan with the ability to do research, and the partnerships and the ecosystem that we have here.

Clinton Monchuk: (02:56)
There’s definitely a lot of interest on the sustainability front. So it’s great that you were tasked with this. You know, why do you feel that’s important research to do and disseminate to Canadians out there?

Steven Webb: (03:10)
You hit on it at the beginning, that the success we’ve had in agriculture, a vast majority of our…of the Canadian population is really disconnected from it. The opportunity to conduct the study builds on work that others in Canada have done, like Dr. Lana Awada, Peter Phillips, Stuart Smyth, and others here at the University of Saskatchewan, but also to look at the comparison between Canada, western Canada, Saskatchewan, with other countries that have similar high-quality data sets where we can look at the carbon lifecycle. For everyone listening, the full studies are available at our website at GIFS.ca/sustainableag. And again, I think it’s something that, there’s an awful lot of detail that’s gone into these, and it’s a nice way to kind of understand where we are. I think the comparisons have really helped position Canadian agriculture and understand how we’re part of the solution to the challenges of feeding not just ourselves, but more importantly, Canada is one of only five countries that are net exporters of food. And our role in feeding the world sustainably is super critical. We also wanted to really understand the carbon life cycle of these crops, because by measuring this, it provides insights where there’s future opportunities to improve the sustainability. And to echo your comments during the introduction, sustainability is economic, environment and social, and it’s all three. It’s not a trade off for one or the other.

Clinton Monchuk: (04:50)
So based on the research that you did, and I know a lot goes into it, what are some of those factors that you actually considered in the research to get that sustainability factor?

Steven Webb: (05:01)
That’s a great question, and this is one of the things because sustainability is such a hot topic and, in some certain groups kind of, it’s in the eye of the beholder. We wanted to make sure that we followed the accepted international practices for understanding carbon lifecycle analysis. So all of the components that go into understanding the carbon dioxide equivalent production from the beginning of all the inputs, the manufacturing of seeds, crop protection products, fertilizers, the shipment of these to the farm on-farm practices that are different between how farmers and our producers in Saskatchewan, western Canada, the rest of Canada practice versus other jurisdictions around the world, to the consolidation and the ability to ship the grain. And again, that full detailed analysis, we followed the standard internationally acceptable protocols. We looked at contribution from all of those aspects.

Steven Webb: (06:05)
One thing in our study that we did do that is a bit different is we did the conventional analysis, but we also, because we understand here in western Canada by the adoption of some of the innovative tools and technology such as no-till and minimum till, that the land in Saskatchewan and western Canada sequesters carbon. And that’s built on previous work of other researchers here at the University of Saskatchewan, like Dr. Lana Awada. And we included side-by-side comparisons of how you would normally look at carbon lifecycle and then carbon lifecycle plus the contribution that soil has. In the case of Canada, the contribution actually reduces the carbon footprint. In other jurisdictions where they do not practice the same techniques or agronomic practices that we have here, it’s a contributor and adds to the carbon footprint in those other jurisdictions.

Clinton Monchuk: (07:06)
So, for everybody listening out there that that’s not as comfortable with the terms direct seeding, minimal tillage, zero tillage. Direct seeding means effectively you’re just seeding directly into the crop from the previous year. So for example, we will go and we’ll harvest a crop and there’s still the stalks from the year before that are standing, and we’ll leave them; they’re great for catching snow in the wintertime. Springtime comes around, we have our, our direct seeding planter, or we call it an air drill or an air seeder, and it actually just cuts a furrow into the ground, and ours are about an inch wide, and it cuts into the ground, and that’s where the seed and the fertilizer are dropped. So the soil is not being disturbed other than that one inch. And then, you know, you have another, 10 to 12 inches to the next side and another furrow, and you kind of keep on doing that.

Clinton Monchuk: (08:01)
So as a result, there’s very minimal disturbance of the soil. The soil stays where it is, and you have that benefit of all that plant matter just staying on top of the soil and decomposing, turning into organic matter, which then helps that carbon sequester back into the soil and benefit for future years. So, it’s a great model, you know, similar to what we talked about both the environmental side to reduce the amount of erosion from wind or water, but also it saves you time and money. It’s one pass going over the crop as opposed to trying to till up that land numerous times. So it’s a great practice that’s been adopted in Saskatchewan and in western Canada, to a larger degree. So based on all this research that was done, trying to look at these different factors, how do we score? Are we good? Are we mediocre or where are we?

Steven Webb: (08:59)
Well, okay, being a Canadian, I am biased. We’re pretty darn, we are good, we’re really good. At the national level, when we look at Canada versus the other countries–and the common set of countries that were looked at in our set were Australia, the United States, France and Germany. We did add other geographies depending on the specific crop, but in essence, those four comparators, because again, all of those jurisdictions have really high quality data at the national level like we do here in Canada. So again, the ability to really ensure that we are looking at reliable, validated datasets so that we can make this comparison was fundamental. Our track record is we are better than all geographies at the national level, with the exception actually of canola when we look at Australia. However, when we look at subsections of Canada, because we’re a big country and the way we farm in Saskatchewan is actually different than the way we farm, even in Manitoba and Alberta.

Steven Webb: (10:10)
And again, when we aggregate at the western Canadian level and at the Saskatchewan level, we have the lowest CO2 equivalent or carbon footprint of anywhere in the world. In fact, our footprint is significantly lower than everyone else’s. So our score is excellent in terms of our performance. So for Canada’s performance relative to the other countries, and again, the other countries that I mentioned are Australia, France, Germany, and the United States, when you basically compare them to wheat produced here in Canada, France and Australia are 95% higher carbon dioxide equivalents produced versus Canada. Germany is 114% higher than the Canadian average, and the United States is 98% higher than the Canadian average. But when you then pull out Saskatchewan, it’s actually 29% lower carbon dioxide equivalents versus the Canadian average. Again, the development of these types of the adoption of no-till and minimum tillage here in Saskatchewan and western Canada is 13% lower than the Canadian average.

Steven Webb: (11:23)
So again, you can see the widespread adoption of these innovative tools. And what does this mean? Wheat produced here in the province of Saskatchewan can be shipped three and a half times around the world before it has the same carbon dioxide equivalents as wheat produced in Germany. So again, our ability to help feed the world sustainably is because of the work that our producers do here and the ability to produce crop and ship it out. Here in western Canada, we might not think no-till is new because we’ve been using it for such a long period of time. But it really illustrates that these practices make a positive contribution to not only the environmental sustainability piece, but they make positive contributions to the farm, adding more, better soil health, organic matter content increases. And again, the adoption for so long has also resulted in, you know, more land in production. There’s an economic benefit to these tools and technologies as well. And even though we’ve used it a long time, we don’t see that penetration in other geographies, even in a Canadian context. In the census, it’s only about 61% of the farms in Canada were reporting use of no-till, but the percent penetration of no-till and min till here in Saskatchewan’s over 95%. So again, it’s not saying it’s right or wrong, it’s just the best technology, the best approach is adopted for the region that you’re in.

Clinton Monchuk: (12:54)
So is it fairly then uniform when you compare to some of the different crops there based on the different regions within Canada, was it predominantly that Saskatchewan had a better carbon sequestration amount than other jurisdictions as well? Like was it always that Saskatchewan with all those crops was better or was there one-offs where say, pulse crops were maybe better or wheat was better in Alberta versus Saskatchewan?

Steven Webb: (13:23)
So in the crops that we looked at, in every case, the rank order was Saskatchewan, western Canada, and then the Canadian average. And the Canadian average was, like I said, better than–you know, for non-durum wheat, durum, wheat, peas, lentils– was head and shoulders above the other countries that we compared. It was only the Australians that were slightly better than the Canadian average in terms of the carbon lifecycle on canola. But once we included soil sequestration in the analysis, even the Canadian average was good.

Clinton Monchuk: (13:57)
Yeah. So you touched on it, obviously the no-till or the minimal tillage is a big factor in this. So something that realistically my whole time of actively engaging in farming, we’ve been always direct seeding and minimal tillage, but are there other factors that contribute to our better sustainability? So for example, I think of places like Ontario where the soil is just different, right? If it’s not as common, is it not as common because it’s just not possible? Or is it like, are there other factors that contribute that you can say, well, we’re still doing a really good job in Ontario even though we’re not using that practice?

Steven Webb: (14:44)
I think that’s a great question, Clinton, because again, I don’t want to make it sound like this is the only prescription. I think the other thing that the study shows is that there are regional differences and you don’t even have to go to Ontario to see it. You can see it actually in the data. When we look at the aggregate western Canadian data because again, — you know, my favorite go-to town in Manitoba is Morris, Manitoba, the home of the Stampede. But it’s right on the Red. It’s right in the Red River Valley. And that land there is heavier, it’s wetter. And you know, direct seeding no-till is really difficult, but they use minimum tillage. So again, they optimize for the best practice in their region. And again, I think that’s the other key message that is so important from this study, from the datasets within Canada, that we need to think not as a one-size fits all, but rather as what’s the best approaches for the agronomic practices that deliver the right economic, environmental and social outcomes, and optimize for the region as opposed to prescribe for Canada because you know, Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, BC are very different from what we are in western Canada and even in, western Canada, there are differences across the west.

Clinton Monchuk: (16:01)
So you mentioned some of those other countries that you looked at: the US, Australia, Germany. When you consider those countries, they’ve had the same access to some of the new technologies that we’ve had here in Canada, right? So is there anything that maybe they’re lagging behind and I, I’ve never actually been to Australia, so I can’t comment on this, but I would make the assumption that their practices are almost identical to what they are here in western Canada. Are they not?

Steven Webb: (16:33)
In Australia, there’s a lot more tillage for weed control that takes place, so you’re seeing that come through in the datasets. With respect to the agronomic practices, they’re probably the closest to us, you’re right. But there is more tillage there, more field activity that is part of the overall carbon footprint of their crop. I think what’s very fascinating about this data is that this technology was, pioneered (no-till, I mean) here in Saskatchewan and its adoption by farmers, like your own story is a great example because it made sense. I mean it reduced wind erosion, it helped to conserve moisture. Fewer passes over the field meant you were burning less fuel. There was an economic benefit right then and there. And it wasn’t mandated. It was purely about: does this make sense for me? And the adoption is really high.

Steven Webb: (17:29)
We’re not seeing that in other geographies because maybe some of the constraints that were driving adoption here in western Canada don’t exist there. Now there’s I think, some resistance, and we’ve heard this a number of times at GIFS through interactions that we have with international partners, that how do you incentivize farmers to adopt these practices? How do you bridge the a perceived decline in yields, you know, the three or four or five years it takes to get back to yield stability with these new types of tools and technologies? I think the other key takeaway for me from the study is when someone asks the question, how do you scale regenerative and sustainable practices? Or they’re worried about scaling regenerative versus sustainable practices. We’ve been doing that since, like you said, you’ve been farming since, you know, the mid-1990s and there it is. And you can’t get bigger than we are in western Canada, where these practices, not just the tillage, but also the adoption of technologies like herbicide-tolerant canola played a significant role not only in the economics, but also the environmental footprint as well.

Clinton Monchuk: (18:42)
If I think back to when we started, there was a lot of… It was starting to take place, the direct seeding, minimal tillage practices. But you know, we’d still have the odd farmer that would drive by and say, boy, you know, what are you doing there? It’s supposed to be black when you seed your crops into it and you have that standing crop from the year before still in there. But then everything grows through. And over time you’re right, you know, that more people saw it. They kind of adopted the practice. But it gets me to the question around policy, and you’ve kind of mentioned it, but the policy in Canadian agriculture, did it promote more of this innovation to actually take place? Is that why Saskatchewan actually was the birthplace of some of these direct seeding, minimal tillage planting systems? Or was it just sheerly by luck and the fact that there was no restrictions to policy that allowed farmers to innovate to move forward? And again, using the example just south of the border, in the United States, it’s [land in Saskatchewan] not that dissimilar to how it is in the Dakotas and Minnesota and Montana, but yet their level of adoption to these practices is not nearly as high as this. So just curious your take on the policy side of things.

Steven Webb: (20:01)
From a policy perspective. I think that around tillage, it was more the pragmatic, how do I solve the problem? And I think the pressure of, and the challenges of 1988 and the droughts and looking for solutions and how do I mitigate risk, I think really drove it because again, our farmers are businessmen and women, and I think that really helped drive the adoption and there was really no fallback. And again, I think that really helped. I think the policy side of things that helped us as well was in the 1990s, we were able to bring these new tools and technologies like the hybrid canolas that are the part of the innovator program and the herbicide-tolerant canolas, again, which had huge benefits. And we need to be thinking about new tools and technologies to help solve today and tomorrow’s problems versus relying on yesterday’s tools and technologies. And that’s part of why this study for me is really important because it really articulates not only how new technology can impact, but it’s the adoption of that technology that leads to the impact. Because you don’t see it in these other geographies. It’s not because they couldn’t afford no-till, it’s just not been adopted. And I think overcoming those barriers is really going to be critical. And again, Canada can take that leadership position on that.

Clinton Monchuk: (21:33)
So this brings us to the fun farm fact of the segment. Did you know that in 2021, 95% of all Saskatchewan farms use the practice of zero or minimal tillage on their farm, which as I mentioned, involves planting the seed directly into the standing stalks from the year before without actually moving around that soil very much? This is based on research conducted at the University of Saskatchewan and published in peer-reviewed publications. This is in comparison to the 2021 census data from Canada showing that farmers use zero tillage practices on about 61% of our total land. So we kind of alluded to this a little bit before, and in terms of some of the numbers, and Steve, you had mentioned that as well, but I think it just goes to show that strong level of support for these practices, now you’re seeing the takeaway and the benefits and other jurisdictions throughout the globe, you know, trying to mimic this because of the success here in western Canada. Right?

Steven Webb: (22:36)
Yeah. And I think, again, the adoption in other places is a lot slower, like we’ve talked about before. And I think that we are in a position to help be a template, if you will, for best practices and how to move things in a economic, environmentally and socially sustainable way when we think about sustainability and the three legs of that stool.

Clinton Monchuk: (22:59)
So now that this information is released, you have the indication of really how much better Canada is as a whole on these crops versus other jurisdictions throughout the globe. Do you see some of the trading partners looking to Canada now saying, you know what, we want to actually source our product–our durum or our canola– from a sustainable, more sustainable producing country? Do you see that being, you know, driving more demand for our products here in this country? Or do you see at this time it’s still more of a commodity market, everybody’s just trying to get cheap grain?

Steven Webb: (23:40)
I think this does create an economic benefit for Canadian products. And again, we have a reputation for quality and safe and nutritious products. Now we can use this study along with other studies that have been done in Canada to add “…and sustainable”. So again, that it’s not or-rated, but it’s “and” gated. And I think it really does create an opportunity for us to differentiate ourselves in the international marketplace. Whether people will pay a premium for that or not. That’s a different debate. But if there’s a choice, again, getting the sale is good.

Clinton Monchuk: (24:20)
You were at Dubai for COP28. So just for everybody out there, there’s a meeting with all the different countries, mainly talking about environmental policies and whatnot for the world. So in December of 2023, there was a meeting that took place in Dubai. Do you feel that there are sometimes mixed messages when it comes to the terms “sustainably produced food” in that, you know, you’ve done this carbon lifecycle assessment and went through these different crops. Do you feel that sometimes some of the countries have differing views around this sustainability discussion?

Steven Webb: (24:57)
Well, I think the COP28 event in Dubai was a really important event for us to participate at. And I think it was also a very important event for the province of Saskatchewan to have a presence at, because it was the first one of the meetings– there was 27 of them before, you know, this is COP28– where agriculture actually was at the table. All of the other times around the environmental climate change discussions that had been taking place, that industry did not really have a seat at the table. It was talked about on the periphery, but this was the first time we were actually agriculture and food were right at the table. It was a fantastic meeting. There’s new business opportunities that have come out of that for the province of Saskatchewan, companies as well as from a Global Institute for Food Security perspective, new opportunities for partnerships globally that have come out of that meeting.

Steven Webb: (25:52)
So again, it was a great meeting to really showcase and provide a framework. One of the things that happens at those meetings is everybody gets kind of ‘debbie downer’ about: we’re not hitting the 1% or one degree or two degree target and all of this kind of stuff. I tend to think that this story here and how we are doing things provides a path forward that’s economically viable, environmentally and socially viable. So I kind of really liked the opportunity to share that because it was an eye-opener. It goes against the narrative that a lot of people see agriculture as part of the problem. And this study here shows it’s clear that agriculture’s part of the solution, but it’s also an innovation story. It’s new tools, new technologies, and we can’t stay where we are. We need to continue to innovate and make sure that our farmers who are very pragmatic and they adopt tools and technologies that make sense on the farm from both an economic and environmental standpoint, and they use them. And how do we make sure that we give our farmers the best tools and technologies is a focus we have for GIFS, and something that we try to influence through our policy and regulation piece. Because even here in Canada, we need new tools and new technologies.

Clinton Monchuk: (27:11)
Sometimes we’re maybe not as loud as we should be about the practices that we’re doing, to, you know, get out onto the rooftops and say what a good job we’re doing in terms of producing the food here in Canada. And so you touched on five different crops, but I know with the Global Institute for Food Security, you’re looking at doing more in the future. Do you want to just touch on some of what you’re looking at for the future in terms of sustainable research?

Steven Webb: (27:40)
Sure, Clinton, thanks for that question. Again, we’ve got a study going on right now looking at the practices of beef production here. Again, the same kind of looking at a Saskatchewan, western Canada, Canada comparison to other geographies, with a perspective on beef. We have, after we’ve released this report, we’ve had lots of other crops asking are you going to, you know, they want to see their crop done on this. And again, I think one of the key things, the I points that I would like to make is that the benefit that we see in the performance of Canadian crops is due to how our farmers produce the crop. So it’s those principles that we practice, like you mentioned, right product, right place, right time, the minimum soil disruption at seeding, the focus around keeping the land covered either with the crop residue or, you know, in the future, maybe even in Ontario, for example, cover crops and stuff like that. So again, where we can continue to innovate is something that makes every crop that we produce sustainable. And another winner for Saskatchewan and western Canada and Canada on the international scorecard.

Clinton Monchuk: (28:58)
A lot of the research that you do at the Global Institute for Food Security is kind of on the cutting edge. And I’m curious, as you know, you move forward into new research, new technology, new robotics. How do you see some of that impacting agriculture in terms of just an overview and maybe specifically on the sustainability side too, because you already mentioned that that was one practice in terms of the direct seating, minimal tillage, whatnot, but it’s not like we’re standing idle. We’re always looking for new technology and trying new things. How do you see some of this new research that the Institute is looking at progressing the agriculture industry?

Steven Webb: (29:40)
So at the Global Institute for Food Security, we have, we have three programs and they’re all pointed at market opportunities. You know, the program that’s the most advanced is our accelerated breeding program. And that is, we’re not a breeding organization, but we do enable accelerated breeding, which is, you know, genomic selection with speed breeding again for crops, but also for livestock. Beef has not enjoyed the same benefits that the dairy industry, the hog industry has had in terms of the genetics. Accelerated breeding really represents the ability to shorten the time between a cross and new variety being in the hands of growers. So for example, we’ll take in Australia, they’re using this for pea breeding. They’ve been able to, through breeding and variety development, in five years, deliver new pea varieties that are 30% higher yielding than their current incumbent varieties. And anyone that’s ever been in a breeding program that knows 30% is a big, big jump. And it’s a combination of being able to select across the entire trait package. This is technology that has been developed, was originally pioneered in the dairy industry in the early 2000s. When I was with Corteva, we did the work in corn over a decade ago, and corn and soybean have benefited from this– crops that are really important for us here in western Canada. Our breeders are using some of the techniques, but not at scale because wheat, the pulses, the markets are smaller. The value capture is not there. And that’s why we need to be thinking about new approaches to plant breeding. And again, with the Global Institute for Food Security, we are a collaborator, a connector and a catalyst, and we see through our cutting edge technology platforms, we can enable breeding organizations to be able to deploy accelerated breeding.

Steven Webb: (31:51)
Our other areas that we’re very interested in relate to maybe new market opportunities around carbon and the opportunity to take advantage of Canada’s unique position where our soils in Saskatchewan and western Canada sequester carbon. How do we develop the methodologies to support the monetization of this practice? Again, that’s early days here. And again, at the national and regional levels, we can actually see that. But again, that’s going to take another level down to the farm and the field and the locations in the field to be able to really understand this. And again, I think all of that’s good because that gets more to the full deployment of precision agriculture and again, optimizing the economics on the farm. Again, there’s a benefit for farmers and hopefully a new revenue stream for farmers as well. And then the other program that we have at GIFS is around our biomanufacturing.

Steven Webb: (32:54)
It’s not a replacement for agriculture in any stretch of the mind, but it’s a way for us to think about how do we bring new tools for farmers to the forefront through the application of biomanufacturing and fermentation principles like new biologics, helping companies with biologics optimize their production systems and new natural products chemistries, because again, those are really big opportunities. And again, at GIFS, we’re very much aligned with our mission of working with partners to discover, develop, and deliver innovative solutions. And we see that now with our programs that are focused on those market opportunities.

Clinton Monchuk: (33:35)
Awesome. It really is interesting to hear about everything that you’re doing and we are going to be looking forward to the new research that you do, especially on the sustainability front in the coming months and years. And we look forward to seeing those results. So I do want to say thank you very much Steve, for taking the time to be on this podcast and we wish you all the best.

Clinton Monchuk: (34:05)
I want to thank you for taking the time to listen to our Ask A Farmer podcast. We at Canadian Food Focus value the input from our listeners and ask that you share the podcast with your friends and family. Remember, this is a two-way street, so we seek your input for future segments that are of interest to you about food and farming. To do this, please click on the ‘Ask Us’ icon at the top of our website, canadianfoodfocus.org. While you’re there, feel free to follow our numerous social media links and sign up for our newsletter. This segment was produced and edited by Angela Larson, research and writing by Dorothy Long and Penny Eaton, music by Andy Elson. I’m your host Clinton Monchuk, and from all of us at Canadian Food Focus, we wish you good health and great Eats.