The trend to more intensive farming could jeopardize the environmental progress that has been achieved in Canadian agriculture during recent decades, warns a report prepared for Agriculture Canada.
Ottawa established a program in 2003 to gauge agriculture’s environmental track record and a report this summer on results on two decades to 2001 contained both good and bad news.
“Overall, the results suggest that considerable progress has been achieved toward environmental sustainability, but that further expansion and intensification of cropping and livestock production has the potential to exacerbate the environmental risks unless appropriate actions are taken to manage them,” said the report.
Read Also
Interest in biological crop inputs continues to grow
It was only a few years ago that interest in alternative methods such as biologicals to boost a crop’s nutrient…
It indicated that fuel and nitrogen use efficiency declined during that period and the risk of nitrogen contamination of water was greater in 2001 than earlier.
However, the program also reported that soil quality was better, erosion was less of a problem and salinization risks were declining.
There also was good news about agriculture’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
The report said emissions fell by four percent over the 20 years studied. However, the gains were largely in carbon sequestration in the soil, while methane and nitrous oxide emissions increased.
The environmental report card was included in a government response to an environmental petition filed earlier this year by the Winnipeg-based Beyond Factory Farming Coalition.
It asked the federal government to report on the environmental impact of the agricultural policy framework. The government response was that it is too soon to tell.
A report on how the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program and farm insurance programs have affected production decisions and the environment is supposed to be ready in December.
A comparison of Canada’s agricultural impact on the environment compared to other countries still is in the preliminary stages, said the reply.
“Initial results comparing the risk of erosion by water suggest that Canada leads in the percentage of cropland falling within sustainable erosion rates as compared to the United States, Australia and the (European Union) 15.”
The comparison suggests that while 86 percent of Canada’s cropland is not susceptible to unsustainable water erosion, that figure drops to 72 percent in the U.S., 39 percent in Australia and 34 percent in the 15 original EU countries.
The Beyond Factory Farming coalition also asked whether CAIS payments disproportionately favour large farms. It believes large, more intensive farms are more damaging to the environment.
The response from Agriculture Canada was that in the 2004 program year, what the department considers “very large farms” with sales over $500,000 accounted for fewer than 10 percent of all farms, but 55 percent of production.
“With respect to CAIS payments for the 2004 program year, the latest complete data, program participants classified as very large farms accounted for 14.2 percent of all participants, received 38.4 percent of all CAIS payments but represent 63 percent of the total cash receipts of all CAIS participants,” said the department.
