I would like to call attention to several points that need to be kept in mind when reviewing the University of Saskatchewan’s ranking by an American newspaper.

Firstly, the U of S has a long record on research and innovation in agricultural science. The work of our 80 researchers, which is a smaller group than the universities that rank above us, shows up in journals that are highly specialized and may not be part of the US and World Report methodology.

This is as it should be. One would expect an agricultural college with our history and record to be publishing in specialized leading edge science journals as well as in local industry and producer outlets.

In addition, the U of S has an outstanding applied record that bears noting.

A critical measure of agricultural research’s impact at the U of S is in the province’s fields. Saskatchewan has 43 percent of Canada’s arable land, so what we grow is highly reflective of Canada’s agricultural quality, output and impact.

Thirty-two percent of the acres seeded to Saskatchewan’s top 12 crops last year were planted with varieties developed by researchers in the university’s agriculture college.

In 2010, Saskatchewan exported $2.3 billion worth of wheat and durum, 20 percent of which was varieties from the U of S.

The province also exported $1.7 billion worth of lentils and peas (96 percent from the U of S) and $1.3 billion “other,” which included flax (70 percent U of S), oats (40 percent U of S), barley (40 percent malt barley and 80 percent forage U of S) and canaryseed (50 percent U of S.)

The university also has innovative crops under development or patents in food and bioproducts, and has had a significant impact on animal production, particularly beef.

As well, the land management techniques and policies developed here have made a major contribution to increasing global food production, improving sustainability and enhancing ecological quality.

Another measure of which we are particularly proud is how sought after our students are following graduation. We have close to 100 percent placement on graduation and high job satisfaction after graduation. Employers are eager to hire our students.

There is a place for rankings, provided one does not lose sight of a larger picture. With rankings, one also sees what one wants to see.

“Rankings are based on each system’s definition of what a university should be, not on any specific university mission,” says Gary Barron, an Alberta PhD student blogger.

I would argue that agriculture at the U of S is succeeding at our mission because the impact we have on the world is undeniable and, we believe, visible and valuable.

Mary Buhr is dean of the University of Saskatchewan’s agriculture college.

Ron was speaking to the 2012 graduating class of students from the University of Saskatchewan’s agriculture and engineering colleges.

He was speaking to them because he was the recipient of an honourary degree in recognition of his extraordinary contributions to agriculture and the world’s food supply.

And he wanted these young university graduates who live in a world of tweeting, hybrid vehicles and global crisis to care about the old-fashioned concept of stewardship.

He gave online dictionary and Wikipedia definitions, including “an ethic of responsible planning and management of resources” and “a responsibility to take care of something belonging to somebody else.”

Stewardship is a concept that we in agriculture, and many other disciplines, like to claim for ourselves. I’ve always said that we in agriculture, particularly our farmers and primary producers, are committed to stewardship, to caring for the land that gives us everything.

Of course we’ve made mistakes, but the concept of being stewards of precious, limited resources was always absolutely integral to our understanding of agriculture.

What Ron’s words made me realize is how limited that thinking is. He was challenging not just these bright and flexible young people but all of us, no matter what age and stage of life we are at.

And perhaps even more critically, he was not just expecting the farmers and primary producers to commit to being stewards.

He also wants bankers, bridge builders, electrical engineers, mechanics, policy makers, store clerks, hairdressers, construction workers, chief executive officers and janitors to think about stewardship.

And remember, it means “planning to responsibly manage our resources.”

But resources are not our resources. As stewards, we have a responsibility to take care of something belonging to somebody else. We are living on borrowed land, using borrowed water, borrowing from our grandchildren and from the other co-inhabitants of this world.

Don’t our grandkids have a right to expect Grandma and Grandpa not to mess up their home?

The aboriginal concept of being caretakers of Mother Earth involves using resources today in such a way and to such an extent that future generations are not put in peril.

While I always thought I understood that, I hear it differently now, thanks to Ron.

We get the concept, but since less than two percent of Canadians are primary producers, how can the 98 percent of us who are cab drivers, doctors, secretaries, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers be stewards? I hope you have some answers. Even after much hard thought, my answers aren’t very original.

I need to walk the walk, in the big and little things I do. Certainly I can reduce, reuse and recycle more at home and in my work, but beyond that?

I’ve looked at the opportunities in my job, and I figure I can think about the long-term impact of the new programs I support and either insist they are sustainable or refuse to support them.

I can insist on this in my home. Let the grass be green or brown as the weather dictates, and use windows and sweaters before air conditioners and furnaces.

I can talk to everyone I know, and here is where Saskatchewan truly can make a difference, because people here are so interconnected it’s crazy. I can blog, you can e-mail, she can tweet. Talk the talk and walk the walk until we’ve all heard the word. We can honour our parents and ancestors by living in the shadow of our descendants.

Mary Buhr is dean of the College of Agriculture and Bioresources at the University of Saskatchewan. This is an edited version of Buhr’s post at www.agwest.sk.ca/blog.

Limited access to food will be exacerbated if climate change reduces the amount of productive land in currently arable areas.

Some people argue that animal agriculture will have no place in that world, citing competition for plant food sources, production of greenhouse gases, particularly from ruminants, and the need to manage manure.

Let’s look at the facts.

Animals produce high quality, easily digested protein on which the human omnivore is biologically designed to thrive.

They add to biodiversity and provide transportation, labour and companionship.

Animal-based, high-value food protein is in increasing demand in geographical areas of improving wealth.

Animals also provide non-meat products of high and/or additional value, including milk, fabric, leather, fur, energy, fertilizer, byproducts such as gelatin, lard, vaccines and pet food, and components for cosmetics and the personal grooming industry.

Animals can graze on land that cannot efficiently produce plant-based food for human consumption, and they can thrive on non-edible by-products of human food production, such as canola meal and human food waste.

However, it is common to feed human-edible grain products to animals. This significantly increases the efficiency of animal meat production per acre, reduces the cost to consumers and provides a reliably high quality product, but also promotes human-animal competition for the same plant products.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane are greenhouse gases naturally produced from domestic animals. Ruminants directly exhale methane, while animal manure, whether stored or spread on the ground, produces N2O.

Additional greenhouse gases come from the non-renewable gas, oil and energy used to produce feed and manage the animals.

Recent research shows that changing animals’ diets can reduce methane production by ruminants. Other research hints that we may be able to select animals that naturally produce less methane and develop methods of grazing and land management that would reduce animal emissions of greenhouse gases.

Technology to decrease the use of non-renewable fuel and energy is already being developed.

The value of animal products and uses cannot be underestimated.

Animals represent a normal part of the human omnivore’s diet, provide a wide range of other commodities and are a reliable source of income for Saskatchewan’s people and the provincial economy. They can be a critical part of a sustainable, well-balanced ecosystem.

Our markets, fellow citizens and policy-makers need careful thought and wise counsel to weigh the relative values of inefficient production of variable-quality animal products on marginal land versus efficient production of reliable high quality animal-based products using human-grade feedstuffs, versus efficient production of byproducts, some of which are not currently approved, versus greenhouse gas — and versus environmental costs and benefits.

I believe properly managed animal agriculture has a positive role in global food security.