The tariffs announced by the commerce ministry, to take effect on March 20, add a new front to a trade war largely driven by U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement of tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China and threats of protectionist measures on other nations.

China will apply a 100 per cent tariff to Canadian rapeseed oil, oil cakes and pea imports, and a 25 per cent duty on Canadian aquatic products and pork, the ministry said in a statement.

Canada’s 100 per cent tariff on Chinese EVs and 25 per cent levy on its aluminium and steel products “seriously violate World Trade Organization rules, constitute a typical act of protectionism and are discriminatory measures that severely harm China’s legitimate rights and interests,” the ministry said.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in August that Ottawa was imposing the levies to counter what he called China’s intentional state-directed policy of over-capacity, following the lead of the United States and European Union, both of which have also applied import levies to Chinese-made EVs.

China is Canada’s second-largest trading partner, trailing far behind the United States.

That was the main message from soil scientist and conservationist Ray Archuleta at the Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association conference in Regina earlier this month.

“Regenerative farming is a mind shift,” said Archuleta, who farms in Missouri.

“If we learn how to emulate and mimic nature and work with it, not only does nature benefit, but we benefit financially and economically.”

The first step in making that shift happen is simply understanding that the soil is alive, Archuleta said, a concept he doesn’t believe the majority of farmers understand or appreciate.

“Fifty per cent of all biodiversity is in the soil. It is elegant. It’s complex. Once you start to embrace that and really believe it, the way you manage the ranch, the farm completely changes.”

The concept of regenerative agriculture has become a lot more mainstream in recent years, and there is evidence that Canadians farmers have adopted practices in line with the concept in recent decades. For example, about 60 per cent of Canadian farmers report using no-till or conservation tillage methods — in Saskatchewan that number increases to 80 per cent — while a growing number are interested in renewable energy production.

However, there are still many economic and practical barriers to adopting practices generally associated with regenerative agriculture for large-scale farms, which include not only no-till or conservation tillage but also cover cropping, managed grazing, composting and strategic crop rotations.

Archuleta said he used to be one of the farmers who didn’t see value in putting in the time and effort to adopt these practices. That changed when he was in his 40s, working in Oregon and living in Idaho, both major agricultural states.

“I couldn’t understand why you couldn’t make a living, two families couldn’t make a living on 500 prime acres of irrigated agriculture,” he said, adding he also began taking note of the state of soil health across the country.

“We have been working 90 years on trying to stop wind erosion and water erosion, and it’s still the number one water quality issue in the country. And we supposedly have some of the best universities in the world.”

That prompted him to question modern farming practices and the role of science in shaping them.

“You have to be very careful with science because you might not be asking the right questions. The question should have always been, ‘how do we have a relationship with the natural system, and how do we emulate our farming to look more like nature?’ You’re approaching nature with the wrong paradigm. It didn’t work.”

However, although Archuleta now travels the world as an advocate for regenerative agriculture, he says his focus isn’t on convincing farmers to change their minds on the concept.

“I used to be the same way,” he says.

“Don’t think you’re going to convince people.”

He says that instead he’s focused on working with the small minority of farmers who have already adopted a regenerative agriculture mindset and are practising it on their farms.

“Until we reach 13.5 per cent, we’re not going to get a complete conversion of the other system. The others will come later. I’m here to work with those that are walking this journey. They’re tired of being broke, they’re tired of the margins. They know this is not working.”

However, despite the numbers, he said he’s still hopeful that regenerative agriculture will become a common practice for farmers and a solution for many of our climate problems.

He also believes that there could be positive developments in this area in the United States in the near future, particularly now that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been confirmed as health secretary.

“Mr. Kennedy understands regenerative agriculture. He understands the two parts of the coin of health, the soil and food. So, there could be some changes on the horizon.”

He also believes that changes in the U.S. could have a direct impact on Canadian agriculture.

“Canada’s intimately linked to us. We need Canada, and Canada needs us. I hope it’s a trickle effect. The trickle effect is already happening.”

However, regardless of potential government action, Archuleta said he believes that we are going to need to have a major shift in how we produce food in the future.

“If the population is going to diminish in the next 50 to 100 years, what are you going to do with all that grain that we’re growing? Agriculture is going to have to shift. Our farms are too big, and people don’t want to hear that. The future is not about quantity, it’s about quality.”

He also said he’s hopeful this shift will come from farmers themselves.

“It always starts small, and it all starts from the bottom up, not from the government down. Great movements that change the world start from the bottom up.”

Below are links to Western Producer stories capturing that rich history. You can also check out our handy “know before you go” story here.

Agribition 2024 Simmental, Red Angus win Beef Supreme titles – REGINA — Two Saskatchewan families were celebrating Saturday evening after winning the Beef Supreme at Canadian Western Agribition.

VIDEO: Agribition ends with successful Beef Supreme – Six days of Agribition came to a close on Saturday, November 25th, with the annual Beef Supreme event and the final night of the Maple Leaf Finals Rodeo.

Charolais bull takes top Agribition title – There are all kinds of connections made at Canadian Western Agribition in Regina, but the links between family members and fellow breeders took centre stage as the 2022 show wrapped up with the Beef Supreme Dec. 3.

Supreme Beef winners both from Bashaw and repeat – If winning Canadian Western Agribition’s Beef Supreme is the pinnacle of achievement for purebred cattle breeders, winning it more than once is undoubtedly a sign of continued excellence.

Limousin bull wins big at Agribition – This has been a stellar year for two Saskatchewan families showing prize purebred cattle.

Alta., Sask., split supreme winners – Every year, cattle producers are able to honour their peers at Canadian Western Agribition. The RBC Beef Supreme is the grand finale of the show that ran from Nov. 19-24 and recognizes the first among equals in the purebred cattle business.

Agribition recognizes excellence – Two elated families made history at Canadian Western Agribition Nov. 25 when they won the supreme championship award. Prairie Cove Charolais of Bow-den, Alta., won the top female banner with PZC Lily 5013 Et and her calf at side, while Greenwood Limousin and Angus of Lloyd-minster, Sask., won with a two-year-old red Limousin bull named Canadian Impact.

Supreme winners named at Agribition – The 2016 winners of the Canadian Western Agribition supreme championship were two black Angus. Selected on the final night of the show, which ran from Nov. 21-26, Sean Enright of Renfrew, Ont., won with a yearling bull named EF Titan 545 all summer.

Charolais cow named supreme champion – Many families come close to grabbing the brass ring at the Canadian Western Agribition supreme championship, but only a few have taken home the big prize. This year’s top bull award went to Poplar Meadows Angus for a two-year-old bull and the outstanding female came from Rod, April, Colby and Megan McLeod of Cochrane, Alta.

RBC Beef Supreme champions – Black was beautiful at the grand finale RBC Beef Supreme championship at Canadian Western Agribition in Regina, Sask. Held Nov. 29, the supreme champion bull was the entry of Gary and Richard Latimer of Olds, Alta.

Charolais female and Red Angus bull take Agribition supreme championship – A red and white theme with an international flair dominated this year’s premier livestock show, which wrapped up the exhibition season for some of North America’s top purebred beef cattle. Canadian Western Agribition’s RBC Beef Supreme champions were a Red Angus bull from Alberta and a Charolais pair from Texas.

Hereford bull is overall champion – Grant Hirsche is a man with a plan. His horned Hereford bull was named overall champion at the grand finale RBC Supreme champion challenge at Canadian Western Agribition Nov. 24. The bull was also champion at the World Hereford Conference held in Alberta this summer.

Angus, Charolais reign supreme – Declared fairest in the land is the kind of praise the team at Soo Line Cattle Co. likes to hear. Roger Hardy and his crew at Midale, Sask., were ecstatic when Soo Line Annie K 9165 was named supreme champion at the 2011 Canadian Western Agribition Nov. 26.

Smiles, cheers and tears – It is fitting that a family with as much grit as the Hereford breed should win the supreme championship at Canadian Western Agribition during the 150th anniversary of the red and white breed in Canada. It was a happy but tearful moment for Buddy and Frances Leachman of Big Gully Farm near Maidstone, Sask., after they won grand champion Hereford and later premier breeder at the national show held Nov. 22-27.

Supreme champs both Angus – A seasoned rancher at the top of his game and a 10-year-old girl who cleaned up at this year’s junior shows are the winners of the Canadian Western Agribition supreme championship.

OTTAWA — A second term for former U.S. president Donald Trump could mean increased competition and shifting trade priorities for Canadian agriculture, say industry leaders and experts.

Trump’s pledges to boost competitiveness and renegotiate the United States-Mexico- Canada Agreement (USMCA) as well as the potential to impose trade sanctions could spell difficulties for Canadian producers.

Sylvain Charlebois, director of the Dalhousie University’s Agri-Food Analytics Lab, said in a statement that Trump’s pledges to boost competitiveness for American farmers could put Canadian farmers at a disadvantage and intensify the pressures on the Canadian ag sector.

Regarding North American trade, Charlebois wrote that “Canada must confront a transactional approach from a Trump-led U.S., one that may bring both predictability and hard-nosed negotiations.”

J.P Gervais, executive vice-president of Farm Credit Canada, said a new U.S. administration would have meant several changes for agriculture no matter who took office, the most significant being renegotiation of USMCA, which Trump promised to undertake, according to a Global News report.

Major changes to the agreement could have significant impacts on Canadian trade.
A USMCA review is currently slated for 2025 and into 2026, though Gervais said he thought Trump may choose to expedite the process.

Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Keith Currie said Canada should be pushing for the review to be a rundown of what worked and what didn’t rather than a full-scale reworking.

“we’re pushing for our government to remind the U.S. and Mexico … U.S. in particular, that this is a review, not a renegotiation.”

Grain Farmers of Canada executive director Kyle Larkin said he thought a Trump-led USMCA renegotiation could lead to significant problems for Canadian farmers.

“We don’t have to go far back to know what happened in the … original negotiations of (USMCA),” he said.

“Steel and aluminum tariffs for no reason, or you look at the total (unpredictability) that we saw with those negotiations, I think we’ll probably see something similar or even worse going into 2026.

“Canadians need to be significantly concerned … because it’s not only the livelihoods of grain farmers that’s at risk, but it’s really the livelihoods of all Canadians.”

International tariffs are another relevant ag-facing priority in Trump’s presidency.

Currie said one potential challenge for Canada will come if Trump decides a product or industry in Canada has taken away from American producers and levies tariffs.

“I think that’s where our government, whoever our government’s going to be, certainly has a tough job ahead of them.”

National Farmers Union president Jenn Pfenning said she thinks agri-food will not be a top priority for Trump.

“I don’t think that it is particularly useful to speculate much about it,” she said.
“I think that probably food is not the top priority for him in terms of trade negotiations.”

However, she said there is precedent for Trump’s tariffs harming Canadian producers.
“What we’ve seen in the past is that Canada has not been immune to the protectionist tariffs levelled under his administration, so, while we probably will not be bearing the brunt of them, I expect they will have at least some impact on how we’re doing business.”

Added Gervais: “The stance of the U.S. with regards to China and the overall trade policy is different now with Trump in the White House, as opposed to what it would have been under (Democratic candidate Kamala) Harris.”

“You’re taxing exports out of China at a rate of 60 per cent, which is really high. Then you’d expect China to retaliate, which was actually what happened in the first Trump administration.

“That retaliation actually touched on ag commodities, which led to fluctuation in prices that sometimes have not been favourable to Canadian producers.”

Larkin expressed concern over how Trump tariffs could affect Canadian grain farmers, noting that the U.S. is “our largest grain customer.”

“We export … nearly eight million metric tons of grain annually to the U.S., which is worth $9.5 billion. They’re our largest trading partner, and they’re extremely important for the livelihoods of grain farmers.”

He said Trump’s plan for a 10 to 20 per cent tariff “would have a significant impact on Canadian grain and grain product exports to the U.S that could go down the line and have a real impact on the livelihoods of individual grain farmers.”

Trump had not made any announcement about his choice for agriculture secretary as of last week, but Currie said the possibility of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. being awarded the role raises concerns.

“From an agriculture standpoint, he’s a little bit out there in left field, so to speak.”

Currie said Kennedy has talked about “how pesticides are ruining our diets, for example, and we need to control that, we need to get away from genetically modified organisms, gene editing, all that.

“If he has influence within the administration, what does that mean going forward for the technologies that we have in agriculture?”

Gervais said he thought one of the main initial adjustments with Trump will be the speed at which certain changes come into effect.

“We know that … they like to move fast and don’t care about consultations,” he said.
“One of the big differences, though, is when it comes to commodities, what will happen between the U.S. and China. That’s, I think, critical for commodity prices, and for sure Canadian producers.”

Canadian Cattle Association general manager Ryder Lee said it would be important to wait see how many campaign promises end up making it into law.

“We’ve been waiting to know, but still we don’t really know,” Lee said.

“There’ll be lots of trying to figure out what is for sure going to happen.”

“We’ll continue to engage and work with our counterparts in the U.S. We buy feeders from them. They buy cattle from us. And so, we have a really integrated beef sector, and it benefits both sides of the border.”

Many changes out of the U.S. remain uncertain, but Pfenning said it will be important for Canadian farmers to keep producing no matter the outcomes.

“Farmers, we keep farming,” Pfenning said.

“Regardless of the politics, regardless of whatever else may be going on in the world, we keep growing food and looking to feed our neighbours and communities.”

Forty-one members of the U.S. House of Representatives recently sent a letter to the Treasury Department urging that the final guidance for the Section 45Z Clean Fuel Production Tax Credit restrict eligibility to renewable fuels made from domestically sourced feedstocks.

Related stories:

• Canola sector gets biofuel shock
• Sustainable aviation fuel won’t short food supply, manufacturers say

“If drafted and implemented per congressional intent, 45Z will support American energy independence by incentivizing production of biofuels made with domestically produced feedstocks,” stated the letter.

Similar letters have been submitted by a group of 16 U.S. senators and a collection of farm organizations.

The National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA) noted in a recent news release that the United States imported 7.9 billion pounds of used cooking oil (UCO) and tallow between Jan. 1, 2023, and June 30, 2024.

That is the equivalent to the soybean oil crushed from more than 650 million bushels of soybeans.

“Making certain that 45Z is limited to domestic feedstocks will ensure that this important tax credit is implemented as intended in support of the American farmer, processor and the U.S. taxpayer,” NOPA president Kailee Tkacz Buller said in the release.

“Failing to do so will only incentivize continued use of foreign feedstocks to the detriment of those produced by American farmers and put the significant investments to expand U.S. crush capacity by 30 percent in doubt.”

Canada’s canola sector is concerned about the push to prevent biofuel made with foreign feedstocks from collecting the new tax credit.

And it appears to have a powerful ally in that cause.

U.S. secretary of agriculture Tom Vilsack recently commented about efforts to exclude foreign feedstocks during a presentation at Growth Energy’s 2024 Biofuels Summit.

“This is a tough issue because if you essentially create some kind of significant restriction in the efforts of trying to protect commodities and items that are grown and raised here, you essentially invite the entire world to do the same thing,” he said, according to a transcript of his remarks.

U.S. corn, soybeans, pork, poultry and other commodities could quickly become targets for retaliation.

“Other countries go, ‘wait a minute, they’re restricting this over here to protect their industry. OK, we’ll do the same,’ ” said Vilsack.

He told farmers they need to know what the reaction is going to be.

“Because if that reaction is, ‘we’re not going to buy your corn, we’re not going to buy your soybeans, we’re not going to buy your ethanol, we’re not going to buy your pork, we’re not going to buy your beef,’ are you OK with that?” he said.

“If you can’t sell that stuff overseas, what do you think is going to happen to the low prices we have today? Aren’t they going to be lower?”

Vilsack said China is a “classic example” of what he’s describing. The U.S. has been criticizing China “publicly and openly,” and that has consequences.

“Have you noticed how much China is no longer buying from us?” he said.

“They used to be our number one customer for a lot of our commodities. Now it’s Mexico and Canada.”

While the secretary of agriculture is clearly against preventing foreign feedstocks from accessing the 45Z tax credit, he did concede that the U.S. needs to be vigilant in ensuring imported feedstocks are indeed what they say they are.

Is it really used cooking oil or is it palm oil, which raises all sorts of environmental red flags.

“So that gets into inspections, and it gets into certifications, and it gets into the nuts and bolts of how things come and go,” he said.

Alberta Grains, SaskWheat, Manitoba Crop Alliance and Grain Farmers of Ontario will contribute $13.4 million to the project known as Gate.

All are members of Cereals Canada, which has proposed the $102 million building to advance Canada’s position as a leader in innovation and food security. So far, $18.4 million has been raised with a contribution from Cereals Canada’s coffers.

JoAnne Buth is the capital campaign chair.

“High-quality Canadian wheat starts with the growers, so it is fitting that this capital campaign starts with their commitment,” she said in a news release.

She added that farmers understand the need to stay competitive in a global market.

Gate is to contain state-of-the-art equipment for milling, baking, pasta and noodle making, malt and brewing and oat processing.

Fundraising was delayed earlier this summer. Several members of Cereals Canada had also decided to leave around that time.

Some farmers on social media said after the funding announcement that they opposed the contributions because levies should not be used to construct buildings.

Contact karen.briere@producer.com

Today, the Canola Council of Canada, the Canada Grains Council and Cereals Canada “applauded” the CFIA for its new guidance on gene editing.

Related stories:

• Gene editing approved for crops
• EU seeks revised GMO rules to loosen curbs on gene-edited crops

“This is a ground-breaking day for Canadian agriculture as the (CFIA) confirms its livestock feed guidance, marking the final piece in a series of vital policy updates that began in 2018,” said Krista Thomas, vice-president for trade policy and seed innovation with the Canada Grains Council.

“With this final piece in place, Health Canada and the CFIA have now answered longstanding calls from the seed and grain sectors for predictable, clear and consistent policies for gene edited crops.”

Krista Zuzak, director of crop protection and production at Cereals Canada, made a similar comment.

“Cereals Canada views the final piece of updated Canadian policy clarifying the regulatory pathway for gene edited plants as a positive advancement in plant breeding innovation,” she said.

“The finalized CFIA guidance on livestock feed will support research and development of new varieties that use gene editing to enhance traits such as drought, pest and disease resistance and input use efficiency, among others.”

The CFIA decision can be found at here.

The key wording is in Section 1.9 of the document, in which the CFIA states that crops developed with gene editing technology are safe for livestock.

“The CFIA’s opinion of the scientific literature is that gene editing technologies do not pose unique risks of harm to human or animal health or the environment compared to other plant breeding technologies,” the document says.

“As a result, feed ingredients derived from gene-edited plants are regulated like all other products of plant breeding under the Feeds Act and Feeds Regulations, with regulation based on the traits or characteristics of the product, regardless of its development method.”

That paragraph will help clear the way for public and private plant breeders to use gene editing in their crop and trait development programs.

Genome editing, or gene editing, involves changing the genetic code of a plant with technology such as CRISPR-Cas9, a technique used to cut sections of DNA. Scientists from California and France won the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their discovery of CRISPR.

It allows scientists to precisely change a plant’s DNA to achieved desired traits, such as improved disease resistance or healthier oils in the kernel.

It is also being employed in medicine.

In December the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved gene editing to treat sickle cell disease, a rare, genetic mutation that causes red blood cells to develop a crescent or “sickle” shape.

The misshapen cells restrict flow in blood vessels and limit oxygen delivery to the body’s tissues, causing severe pain and damage to organs.

“Gene therapy holds the promise of delivering more targeted and effective treatments, especially for individuals with rare diseases where the current treatment options are limited,” Nicole Verdun of the FDA said in a news release.

Most plant breeders and plant scientists say that gene editing is a new tool in the toolbox, which could lead to faster development of new crops and traits.

Health Canada decided a couple of years ago that gene edited crops are safe. So, in most cases they will be treated the same as crops developed through traditional plant breeding methods. The exception is when foreign DNA is introduced using gene editing. In those cases, gene edited crops would be regulated more like transgenic plants.

Commodity groups and value chain organizations in Canada’s grain industry have been waiting for the CFIA to make its final ruling on livestock feed and gene editing crops.

“In recent years, the grain sector has faced punishing drought conditions and we have too many examples of crop diseases that lack adequate control. Gene editing can help develop solutions faster and more efficiently than traditional plant breeding methods allow,” said Thomas of the Canada Grains Council.

“This news opens up incredible opportunities for innovation within the grain sector…. (It) directly translates to stability in food supply and prices, which is crucial for both our economy and food security.”

Contact robert.arnason@producer.com

Dr. Emily Snyder, a researcher at the University of Saskatchewan’s Western College of Veterinary Medicine, is hoping her research will help address the issue.

Snyder said the genesis of her research came through work she was doing in Georgia with a cattle stocker and what she observed with incoming calves.

“We were taking nasal swabs on arrival. They were being processed like they normally would with metaphylaxis, vaccines, castration, those sort of things,” she said. “We go from having no mannheimia haemolytica being resistant at arrival to pretty much everything being resistant 10 to 14 days later when he was bringing them up for re-vaccination.”

Three weeks in, bovine respiratory disease (BRD) had infected the herd, “and he was having a real hard time treating them because there wasn’t anything left in terms of anti-microbials that would work,” said Snyder.

It’s far from a unique experience for cattle producers, Snyder said, with her research focused on how resistant strains of BRD are transmitted between animals.

“It used to be that we thought when cattle got sick, it was their own commensal bacteria — the ones they were carrying anyway — that were making them sick,” she said of resistant strains. “What we’re seeing now is there is contagious spread between cattle in a pen.”

The spread of anti-microbial resistant BRD treatment appears to speeding up, but several factors could be at play.

“I don’t think we understand all the factors associated with that,” said Snyder. “We know that we have different isolates and strains of bacteria pop up that are becoming multi-drug resistant. The thought is these strains of bacteria that have multiple drug resistance might have basically an advantage.”

Treatment with metaphylaxis for such multi-drug-resistant bacteria may actually have an unintended consequence for cattle.

“Potentially what we are doing is killing off the normal commensal bacteria that it has in its nose and throat and the only thing that’s left that can survive that metaphylaxis is the resistant strain,” said Snyder.

The spread of anti-microbial resistant BRD is a health, economic and animal welfare issue as options for treatment become more limited, said Snyder. Once one type of a drug becomes resistant, the whole class of drug follows.

“We have a limited number of drug classes available that we can actually use in cattle and it’s very unlikely the pharmaceutical industry is going to discover new anti-microbials,” she said. “Drug discovery takes a long time. It’s very expensive so there probably isn’t going to be any new drugs coming on the market anytime soon.”

Regulations governing use of antimicrobials are likely to limit access, which complicates matters further.

Snyder said she hopes her research will augment understanding about the spread of anti-microbial resistance and allow producers to make management decisions to prevent wider bouts of infection within a herd.