European consumers should not assume Canadian crops have a bigger environmental footprint than locally produced product because of how far they have to travel, says Pulse Canada.
It argues that production is a far bigger factor than transportation when it comes to measuring food’s carbon footprint, and says Canadian crops offer distinct advantages in the planting through harvesting phase of a crop’s journey to the marketplace.
Food customers in Europe have become increasingly interested in how much energy was consumed getting the food from the farm to their store shelves.
Read Also
Farmers urged to be grain-safe this fall
Working around grain bins comes with risk, from farmers falling to drowning in grain: Experts have five tips to help avoid grain-related accidents this harvest.
“For example, we’ve heard (from) some mustard buyers in Europe saying they’re getting questioned on sustainability quite hard,” said Denis Trémorin, manager of sustainable production at Pulse Canada.
France has legislated environmental labelling for food and other products. A pilot program is supposed to be in place by July.
“We’re also seeing major retailers in France and the U.K. that are going on a carbon footprinting binge,” said Trémorin.
There is a notion, fuelled by the 100-Mile Diet craze, that food from far away is less sustainable than food from close to home.
But that’s not necessarily the case, according to research compiled by Pulse Canada.
Canadian National Railway has developed a transportation carbon calculator that reveals a shipment of 5,000 tonnes of crops moving from Regina to Rotterdam, Netherlands, has a transportation carbon footprint of 130 kilograms of carbon dioxide per tonne of product.
By contrast, a load of grain trucked from Eastern Europe to Western Europe has a footprint of 110 kg of carbon dioxide per tonne.
Trémorin said it highlights the efficiencies of rail and marine transport when compared to trucking.
“You can move 50,000 tonnes in one vessel across the ocean,” he said.
“When you boil it down to a kilo of product, the amount of fuel is insignificant.”
But that’s only part of the story.
Research shows the energy spent transporting crops to market pales in comparison to what occurs growing the crop.
A study by Agriculture Canada’s research centre in Swift Current, Sask., shows the carbon footprint of producing a crop varies from 200 kg of carbon dioxide per tonne for lentils to 861 kg for canola.
It’s 1.5 to 7.5 times greater than the footprint of shipping those crops from Western Canada to Europe.
The same research said that the production, transport and application of fertilizer accounts for the biggest portion of a farm’s energy use. Western Canadian agriculture benefits in this analysis because of the production of pulse crops, which use little or no fertilizer.
A life cycle analysis conducted by the Saskatchewan Research Council found that the use of pulses in a four-year rotation can reduce non-renewable energy use by 24 percent.
Durum grown in a rotation that includes pulses has a carbon footprint that is 108 kg per tonne lower than durum grown in a cereal mono-culture rotation. The carbon dioxide savings almost covers the footprint of transporting durum to Europe.
Canadian crops also benefit from the widespread adoption of conservation tillage practices and side-banding fertilizer at seeding.
Pulse Canada is investigating two carbon calculators for their accuracy and practicality to see if they can help further substantiate the pulse industry’s sustainability claims.
One of them is used in a joint project with Heinz to develop a carbon footprint for navy beans.
Pulse Canada will launch a sustainability website at the end of September, which will be an information resource for consumers and food companies.
