Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Speaker 2 (00:07):
From Canadian Food
Focus. This is Ask a Farmer.
I'm your host Clinton Manuk . ASaskatchewan farmer. In this
podcast, we talk to foodexperts to answer your
questions about your food.
(00:27):
Welcome to the podcast,everybody. Today what we're
gonna be talking about is thesustainability of Canadian
agriculture, particularlytalking about cereals, pulses,
and oil seeds. So Canadianshave continued to move further
and further away from foodproduction. We can see this as
urban centers continue toexpand and there's less
(00:48):
individuals that are out theregrowing our food, it's led to
more discussions aboutconsuming food that's
sustainably produced and , andnot just environmentally
sustainable, but also lookingat other factors like
economically and sociallysustainable as well. The Global
Institute for Food Security atthe University of Saskatchewan
(01:10):
was tasked in 2022 withunderstanding agriculture's
contribution to improvedsustainable outcomes. As part
of this, the Global Institutefor Food Security examined the
carbon footprint of agricultureproduction in Saskatchewan in
Canada, and then compared it toother producers across the
globe. Dr. Steve Webb, who'sthe CEO of the Global Institute
(01:34):
for Food Security, is gonnawalk us through how we're doing
in terms of cereals, pulses,and oil seeds based on the
research. Before we get intosome of the heart of, of our
discussion, maybe just fill ourlisteners in with a little bit
more about yourself. You've,you've led a very interesting
life.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
Great. Thanks. You
know, it's kind of embarrassing
to talk a little bit aboutyourself, . I have had
the wonderful opportunity to bethe Chief Executive Officer of
the Global Institute for FoodSecurity for the last , uh,
four and a half years. Prior tothat, I was 23 years in
industry, and I actuallystarted my career here in
Saskatoon with , uh, at thetime it was Dal Lanco, and then
(02:15):
it became Dow AgroSciences, myfamily, and I re relocated to
Indianapolis, where I held anumber of positions in both r
and d and commercial , uh, forthe next 19 years, and had the
opportunity to come back hereto Canada and to Saskatchewan
and Saskatoon to lead theGlobal Institute for Food
(02:36):
Security, which is somethingthat is near and dear to my
heart because I believe inpartnerships and collaboration
and of all the time I was inindustry. There's no place like
Saskatchewan with the abilityto do research , the
partnerships and the ecosystemthat we have here .
Speaker 2 (02:56):
There's definitely a
lot of interest on the
sustainability front. So it'sgreat that you were tasked with
this and , and, you know, whydo you feel that's important
research to do and disseminateto , uh, Canadians out there?
Speaker 3 (03:10):
You hit on, on at
the beginning is that the
success we've had inagriculture, a vast majority of
our, of the Canadian populationis really disconnected from it.
And the opportunity to conductthe study builds on work that
others in Canada have done,like , uh, Dr. Lana Waa , Peter
Phillips, Stuart s Smith , andothers here at the University
(03:32):
of Saskatchewan, but also lookat the comparison between
Canada, Western Canada,Saskatchewan, with other
countries that have similarhigh quality data sets where we
can look at the carbonlifecycle. For everyone
listening, the full studies areavailable at our
website@gifts.ca CA forwardslash sustainable ag. And
(03:57):
again, I think it's somethingthat, 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. And Ithink the comparisons have
really helped position Canadianagriculture and understand how
we're part of the solution tothe challenges of feeding, not
just ourselves, but moreimportantly, Canada's one of
only five countries that arenet exporters of food. And our
(04:20):
role in feeding the worldsustainably is super critical.
And we also wanted to reallyunderstand the carbon life
cycle of these crops, becauseby measuring this, it provides
insights where there's futureopportunities to improve the
sustainability. And to echoyour comments during the
introduction, sustainability iseconomic, environment and
(04:44):
social, and it's all three.
It's not a trade off of one orthe other.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
So based on the
research that you did, and, and
I know a lot goes into it, whatare some of those factors that
you actually considered in theresearch to, to get that
sustainability factor?
Speaker 3 (05:01):
That's a great
question, and this is one of
the things becausesustainability is such a hot
topic and , uh, in somewhat ,uh, you see certain groups kind
of , it's in the eye of thebeholder. We wanted to make
sure that we followed theaccepted international
practices for understandingcarbon lifecycle analysis. So
all of the components that gointo understanding the carbon
(05:25):
dioxide equivalent productionfrom the beginning of all the
inputs, the manufacturing of ,uh, seeds, crop protection
products, fertilizers, theshipment of these to the farm
on farm practices that aredifferent between how farmers
and our producers inSaskatchewan, Western Canada,
the rest of Canada practiceversus other jurisdictions
(05:47):
around the world, to the , uh,the consolidation and the
ability to ship the grain. Andagain, that full detailed
analysis, we followed thestandard internationally
acceptable protocols. We lookedat contribution from all of
those aspects. One thing in ourstudy that we did do that is a
(06:07):
bit different is we did theconventional analysis, but we
also, because we understandhere in Western Canada by the
adoption of some of the , uh,innovative tools and technology
such as no-till and minimumtill that the land in
Saskatchewan and Western Canadasequesters carbon. And that's
(06:28):
builds on previous work ofother researchers here at the
University of Saskatchewan,like Dr. Lana Wata . And we
included side-by-sidecomparisons of how you would
normally look at carbonlifecycle and then carbon
lifecycle plus the contributionthat soil has in the case of
Canada. The contributionactually reduces the carbon
(06:51):
footprint in otherjurisdictions where they do not
practice the same techniques oragronomic practices that we
have here. It's a contributorand adds to the carbon
footprint in those otherjurisdictions.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
So , so for
everybody listening out there
that that's not as comfortablewith, with the terms direct
seeding, minimal tillage , uh,zero tillage. So direct seeding
means effectively you're justseeding directly into the crop
from the previous year . So forexample, we will go and, and
we'll harvest a crop andthere's still the stalks from
the year before that arestanding, and we'll leave them
(07:29):
the , they're great forcatching snow in the
wintertime. Springtime comesaround, we have our, our direct
seeding , uh, planter, or wecall it an air drill or an air
seater, and it actually justcuts a furrow into the ground.
And , and ours are about aninch wide, and it cuts into the
ground, and that's where theseed and the fertilizer are
dropped. So the soil is notbeing disturbed other than that
(07:53):
one inch. And then, you know,you have another , uh, 10 to 12
inches to the next side andanother furrow, and you kind of
keep on doing that. So as aresult, there's very minimal
disturbance of the soil. Thesoil stays where it is, and you
have that benefit of all thatplant matter just staying on
top of the soil anddecomposing, turning into
(08:15):
organic matter, which thenhelps that carbon sequester
back into the soil and benefitfor future years. So it's, it's
a great model, you know,similar to what we talked about
both the environmental side toreduce the amount of , uh,
erosion from wind or water, butalso it, it saves you time and
(08:35):
money. It, it's one pass goingover the crop as opposed to
trying to till up that landnumerous times. So it's a ,
it's a great practice that'sbeen adopted in , in
Saskatchewan and in WesternCanada , uh, to a larger
degree. So based on all thisresearch that was done, trying
to look at these differentfactors, how do we score? Are
we good? Are we mediocre orwhere are we?
Speaker 3 (08:59):
Well, okay, being a
Canadian, I am biased. We're
pretty darn, we are good . We are, we're really
good at the national level whenwe look at Canada versus the
other countries and the commonset of countries that were
looked at in our, our set , uh,Australia, the United States,
France and Germany , um, we didadd other geographies depending
(09:20):
on the specific crop, but inessence, those four comparators
, because again, all of thosejurisdictions have really high
quality data at the nationallevel like we do here in
Canada. So again, the abilityto really ensure that we are
looking at reliable, validateddata sets so that we can make
(09:41):
this comparison wasfundamental. Our track record
is we are better than allgeographies at the national
level, with the exceptionactually of canola when we look
at Australia. However, when welook at subsections of Canada,
because we're a big country andthe way we farm in Saskatchewan
(10:04):
is actually different than withthe way we farm, even in
Manitoba and Alberta. Andagain, when we aggregate at the
Western Canadian level and atthe Saskatchewan level, we have
the lowest CO2 equivalent orcarbon footprint of anywhere in
the world. In fact, ourfootprint is significantly
lower than everyone else's. Soour score is excellent in terms
(10:26):
of our performance. So forCanada's performance relative
to the other countries, andagain, the other countries that
I mentioned are Australia,France, Germany, and the United
States , uh, when you basicallycompare them to wheat produced
here in Canada, they're ,France and Australia are 95%
(10:48):
higher carbon dioxideequivalents produced versus
Canada, Germany is 114% higherthan the Canadian average in
the United States is 98% higherthan the Canadian average. But
when you then pull out what'sSaskatchewan is actually 29%
(11:09):
lower carbon dioxideequivalents versus the Canadian
average. Again, the developmentof these types of, of the
adoption of no-till and minimumtillage here in Saskatchewan
and Western Canada is 13% lowerthan the Canadian average. So
again, you can see thewidespread adoption of these
innovative tools. And what doesthis mean? Wheat produced here
(11:30):
in the province of Saskatchewancan be shipped three and a half
times around the world beforeit has the same carbon dioxide
equivalents as wheat producedin Germany. So again, our
ability to help feed the worldsustainably is because of the
work that our producers do hereand the ability to produce crop
and shift it out here inWestern Canada, we might not
(11:53):
think no-till is new becausewe've been using it for such a
long period of time. But it'sreally illustrates that , uh,
these practices make a positivecontribution to not only the ,
uh, environmentalsustainability piece, but they
make positive contributions tothe farm, adding more, better
soil health, organic mattercontent increases. And again,
(12:16):
the, the adoption for so longis also resulted in, you know,
more land and production.
There's an economic benefit tothese tools and technologies as
well. And even though we'veused it a long time, we don't
see that penetration in othergeographies, even in a Canadian
context. Uh , the census isonly about 61% of the farms in
(12:36):
Canada were reporting use ofno-till, but the percent
penetration of no-till and midtill here in Saskatchewan's
over 95%. So again, it's notsaying it's right or wrong,
it's just it's the besttechnology, the best approach
is adopted for the region thatyou're in.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
So is it fairly then
uniform, like you , you compare
to some of the different cropsthere based on the different
regions within Canada, was itpredominantly Saskatchewan had
a better carbon sequestration ,uh, amount than other
jurisdictions as well? Like wasit always that Saskatchewan
(13:14):
with all those crops was betteror was there one-offs where say
, uh, pulse crops were maybebetter or , or wheat was better
in Alberta versus Saskatchewan?
Speaker 3 (13:23):
So in the crops that
we looked at, in every case,
the rank order wasSaskatchewan, Western Canada,
and then the Canadian average.
And the Canadian average was,like I said, better than, you
know, for non Durham wheat,derham, wheat peas, lentils was
head and shoulders above theother countries that we
compared. It was only theAustralians that were slightly
(13:45):
better than the Canadianaverage in terms of the carbon
lifecycle on canola. But oncewe included soil sequestration
in the analysis, even theCanadian average was, was good.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
Yeah. So, and , and
you touched on it, obviously
the no-till or , or the minimaltillage is , is a big factor in
this. So something thatrealistically my whole time of
actively engaging in farming,we've been always direct
seeding, minimal tillage, butare there other factors that
(14:18):
contribute to our bettersustainability side? So , so
for example, I think of , uh,places like Ontario where , um,
maybe the soil is justdifferent, right? If it's not
maybe as , as common. Is it notas common because it's just not
possible? Or is it like, arethere other factors that
contribute that you can say,well, we're still doing a
(14:40):
really good job in Ontario eventhough we're not using that
practice?
Speaker 3 (14:44):
I think that's a
great question, Clinton ,
because again, I don't want tomake it sound like this is the
only prescription. I think theother thing that the study
shows is that there areregional differences and you
don't even have to go toOntario to see it. You can see
it actually in the data. Whenwe look at the aggregate
Western Canadian data, 'causeagain, we know, you know, my ,
uh, my favorite go-to town inManitoba is Morris Manitoba,
(15:07):
the home of the Stampede. Butit's right on the red . It's
right in the Red River Valley.
And that land there is, it'sheavier, it's wetter. And you
know, direct seeding no-till isreally difficult, but they use
minimum tillage. So again, theyoptimize for the best practice
in their region. And again, Ithink that's the other key
message that is so importantfrom this study, from the data
(15:30):
sets within Canada, that weneed to think not as a one size
fits all , but rather as what'sthe best , uh, approaches for ,
um, the agronomic practicesthat deliver the right
economic, environmental andsocial outcomes and optimize
for the region as opposed toprescribe from Canada. 'cause
(15:51):
you know, you know, Ontario,Quebec, the Maritimes, BC are
very different from what we arein Western Canada and even in
Western Canada. There aredifferences across the west.
Speaker 2 (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 technologiesthat we've had here in Canada,
right? So is there anythingthat maybe they're lagging
behind and , and I, I've neveractually been to Australia, so
(16:22):
I can't, you know, comment onthis, but I would make the
assumption that their practicesare almost identical to what
they are here in WesternCanada. Are they not? Or, or am
I,
Speaker 3 (16:33):
In Australia,
there's a lot more tillage for
weed control that takes place.
So you're seeing, you're seeingthat come through in the data
sets with respect to theagronomic practices, they're
probably the closest to us.
You're right. But there is moretillage there, more field
activity that is part of theoverall carbon footprint of
(16:53):
their crop. I think what's veryfascinating about this data is
that this technology was, youknow, pioneered no-till, I
mean, here in Saskatchewan andits adoption by farmers, like
your own story is a greatexample because it made, it
made sense. I mean, it , itreduced wind erosion, it helped
(17:15):
to serve moisture. Fewer passesover the field meant you were
burning less fuel. There was aneconomic benefit right then and
there. And it wasn't mandated.
It, it was purely, does thismake sense for me? And the
adoption is really high. We'renot seeing that in other
geographies. 'cause maybe someof the constraints that were
driving adoption here inwestern Canada don't exist
(17:36):
there. Now there's I think,some resistance, and we've
heard this a number of times atgifts through interactions that
we have with , uh, you know,international partners, that
how do you incentivize farmersto adopt these practices? They
, how do you bridge the , uh, aperceived decline in yields,
(17:57):
you know, the three or four orfive years it takes to get back
to yield stability with thesenew types of tools and
technologies. I think the otherkey takeaway for me from the
study is when someone asks thequestion, how do you scale
regenerative and sustainablepractices? Or they're worried
about scaling regenerativeversus sustainable practices.
We've been doing that since,like you said, you've been
(18:19):
farming since, you know, themid nineties and there it is.
And you can't get bigger thanwe are in Western Canada, where
these practices, not just thetillage, but also the adoption
of technologies like herbicidetolerant canola played a
significant role not only inthe , uh, the economics, but
also the environmentalfootprint as well.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
If I think back to
when we started, there was a
lot of it was starting to takeplace the direct seeding,
minimal tillage practices. Butyou know, we'd still have the
odd farmer that would drive byand say, boy, you know, what
are you doing there? Like, it'ssupposed to be black when you
seed your crops into it andit's, you , you have that
standing crop from the yearbefore still in there. But then
(19:03):
everything grows through. And,and over time you're right, you
know, that more people saw it.
They, they kind of adopted thepractice. But it gets me to the
question around policy, andyou've kind of mentioned it,
but the policy in Canadianagriculture, did it promote
more of this innovation toactually take place? Is is that
(19:24):
why Saskatchewan actually wasthe birthplace of some of these
direct seeding, minimal tillageplanting systems? Or was it
just sheerly by luck and, andthe fact that there was no
restrictions to policy thatallowed farmers to innovate to
move forward? I see. And , andagain, using the example just
(19:45):
south of the border , um, inthe United States, it's not
that dissimilar to how it is inthe Dakotas and Minnesota
Montana, but yet their level ofadoption to these practices is
not nearly as high as this. Sojust curious your take on the
policy side of things
Speaker 3 (20:01):
From a policy
perspective. I think that it
around tillage, it was more thepragmatic, how do I solve the
problem? And I think, I thinkthe pressure of, and the
challenges of 1988 and thedroughts and looking for
solutions and how do I mitigaterisk, I think really drove it
because again, our farmers arebusinessmen and women, and I
(20:25):
think that really helped drivethe adoption and there was
really no fallback. And again,I think that really helped. I
think the policy side of thingsthat helped us as well was in
the nineties, we were able tobring these new tools and
technologies like the hybridcanolas that are the part of
the innovator program and the,and the herbicide tolerant
(20:46):
canolas, again, which had hugebenefits. And we need to be
thinking about new tools andtechnologies to help solve
today and tomorrow's problemsversus relying on yesterday's
tools and technologies. Andthat's part of why this study
for me is really importantbecause it really articulates
not only how new technology canimpact, but it's the adoption
(21:09):
of that technology that leadsto the impact. Because you
don't see it in these othergeographies. It's not because
they couldn't afford no-till,it's just not been adopted. And
I think overcoming thosebarriers is really gonna be
critical. And again, Canada cantake that leadership position
on that.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
So this brings us to
the fun farm fact of the
segment. Did you know that in20 21, 90 5% of all
Saskatchewan farms use thepractice of zero or minimal
tillage on their farm, which asI mentioned, involves planting
the seed directly into thestanding stalks from the year
before without actually movingaround that soil? Very much.
(21:55):
This is based on researchconducted at the University of
Saskatchewan and published inpeer reviewed publications.
This is in comparison to the2021 census data from Canada
showing that farmers use zerotillage practices on about 61%
of our total land. So we, wekind of alluded to this a
little bit before, and in termsof some of the numbers, and ,
(22:16):
and Steve , you had mentionedthat as well, but I , I think
it just goes to show thatstrong level of support for
these practices, now you'reseeing the takeaway and the
benefits and otherjurisdictions throughout the
globe, you know, trying tomimic this because of the
success here in Western Canada.
Right?
Speaker 3 (22:36):
Yeah. And I think,
again, the adoption in other
places is a lot slower, likewe've talked about before. And
I , I think that we are in aposition to help be a template,
if you will, for, for bestpractices and how to move, move
things in a economicenvironmentally and socially
sustainable way when we thinkabout sustainability and the
(22:57):
three legs of that stool.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
So now that this
information is released, you
have the indication of reallyhow much better Canada is a of
a whole on these crops versusother jurisdictions throughout
the globe. Do you see some ofthe trading partners looking to
Canada now saying, you knowwhat, we wanna actually source
(23:19):
our product, you know, our, ourDurham or our, our canola from
a sustainable, more sustainableproducing country. Do you see
that being, you know, drivingmore demand for our products
here in this country? Or, or doyou see at the this time it's
still more of a commoditymarket. Everybody's just trying
to get cheap grain .
Speaker 3 (23:40):
I think this does
create an economic benefit for
Canadian products. And again,we have a reputation for
quality and safe and nutritiousproducts. Now we can use this
study along with other studiesthat have been done in Canada
to add and sustainable. Soagain, that it's not orated,
(24:01):
but it's and gated . And Ithink it really does create an
opportunity for us todifferentiate ourselves in the
international marketplace.
Whether people will pay apremium for that or not. That's
a different debate. Yeah , . But if there's a
choice , uh, again, getting thesale is good.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
You were at Dubai ,
uh, for COP 28. So just for
everybody out there, there's a, a meeting with all the
different countries, mainlytalking about environmental
policies and whatnot for theworld. So in December of 23,
there was a meeting that tookplace in Dubai. Do you feel
that there are sometimes mixedmessages when it comes to the
(24:42):
terms sustainably produced foodin that, you know, you've done
this, this carbon lifecycleassessment and kind of went
through these different crops.
Do you feel that sometimes someof the countries have differing
views around thissustainability discussion?
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Well, I think the
COP 28 event in Dubai was a
really important event for usto participate at. And I think
it was also a very , uh, it wasalso a very important event for
the province of Saskatchewan tohave a presence at , because it
was the first one of themeetings and there was 27 of
them before, you know, this scop 28, where agriculture
(25:19):
actually was at the table. Allof the other times around the
environmental climate changediscussions that had been
taking place, that industry didnot really have a seat at the
table. It was talked about onthe periphery, but this was the
first time we were actuallyagriculture and food were right
at the table. It was afantastic meeting. There's new
(25:40):
business opportunities thathave come out of that for the
province of Saskatchewancompanies as well as from a
global institute for foodsecurity perspective, new
opportunities for partnershipsglobally that , that have come
out of that meeting. So again,it was a great meeting to
really showcase and provide aframework that one of the
things that happens at thosemeetings is everybody gets kind
(26:02):
of Debbie Downer about , uh,we're not hitting the 1% or one
degree or two degree target andall of this kind of stuff. I
kind of tend to think that thisstory here and how we are doing
things provides a path forwardthat's economically viable,
environmentally and sociallyviable. So I kind of really
(26:22):
liked the opportunity to sharethat 'cause it was an
eye-opener. It goes againstthe, the narrative that a lot
of people see agriculture aspart of the problem. And this
study here shows it's clearthat agriculture's part of the
solution, but it's also aninnovation story. It's new
tools, new technologies, and wecan't stay where we are. We
need to continue to innovateand make sure that our farmers
(26:46):
who are very pragmatic and theyadopt tools and technologies
that make sense on the farmfrom both an economic and
environmental standpoint, andthey, they use them. And how do
we make sure that we give ourfarmers the best tools and
technologies as a focus we wehave for gifts And something
that we try to influencethrough our policy and
regulation piece. Because evenhere in Canada, we need new
(27:09):
tools and new technologies.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
Sometimes we're
maybe not as loud as we should
be about the practices thatwe're doing to, you know, get
out onto the rooftops and, andsay what a good job we're doing
in terms of producing the foodhere in Canada. And so you
touched on five differentcrops, but I I know with the
Global Institute for FoodSecurity, you're looking at
(27:32):
doing more in the future. Doyou wanna just touch on some of
the, what you're looking at forthe future in terms of
sustainable , uh, research?
Speaker 3 (27:40):
Sure, Clinton ,
thanks for that question.
Again, we've got a study goingon right now looking at , uh,
the practices of beefproduction here. Again, the
same kind of looking at aSaskatchewan, Western Canada,
Canada comparison to othergeographies , uh, perspective
on beef. We have, after we'vereleased this , uh, report,
(28:01):
we've had lots of other cropsgoing, are you going to , you
know, they want to see theircrop right done on this. And,
and again, I think , uh, one ofthe key things that I points
that I would like to make isthat , um, the benefit of that
we see in the performance ofCanadian crops is due to how
our farmers produce the crop.
So it's those, those principlesthat we practice, like you
(28:25):
mentioned, right product, rightplace, right time, the minimum
soil disruption at seeding, thefocus around keeping, keeping
the land covered either withthe crop residue or, you know,
in the future, maybe even inOntario, for example, cover
crops and stuff like that. Soagain, where we can continue to
(28:46):
innovate is something thatmakes every crop that we
produce sustainable. Andanother winner for Saskatchewan
and Western Canada and Canadaon the international scorecard.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
A lot of the
research that you do at the
Global Institute for FoodSecurity is kind of on the
cutting edge. And, and I'mcurious, as you know, you move
forward into new research, newtechnology, new robotics. How
do you see some of thatimpacting agriculture in , in
terms of just, just an overviewand, and maybe specifically on,
(29:19):
on the sustainability side too,because you, you already
mentioned that, you know, thatwas one practice in terms of
the direct seating, minimaltillage, whatnot , but it's not
what , like we're standingidle. We're , we're always
looking for new technology and, and trying new things. How do
you see some of this newresearch? The institute is
looking at progressing thatagriculture industry.
Speaker 3 (29:40):
So at the Global
Institute for Food Security, we
have, we have three programsand , uh, they're all pointed
at market opportunities. Youknow, the program that's the
most advanced is ouraccelerated breeding program.
And that is, we're not abreeding organization, but we
do enable accelerated breeding,which is, you know, genomic
(30:01):
selection with , uh, speedbreeding again for crops, but
also for, for livestock likebeef, have not enjoyed the same
benefits that the dairyindustry hog industry is, has
had in terms of the genetics,accelerated breeding really
represents the ability to , uh,shorten the time between across
(30:23):
and new varieties being in thehands of growers. So for
example, we'll take inAustralia, they're using this
for pea breeding. They've beenable to, through breeding and
variety development in fiveyears, deliver new p varieties
that are 30% higher yieldingthan their current incumbent
(30:44):
varieties. And anyone that'sever been in a breeding program
that knows 30% is a big, bigjump. And it's a combination of
being able to select across theentire trait package. This is
technology that has beendeveloped, was originally
pioneered in the dairy industryin the early two thousands when
(31:07):
I was with Corteva. We did thework in corn over a decade ago,
and corn and soybean havebenefited from this crops that
are really important for ushere in Western Canada. Our
breeders are using some of thetechniques, but not at scale
because wheat, the pulses, themarkets are , uh, smaller. The
(31:28):
value captures not there. Andthat's why we need to be
thinking about new approachesto plant breeding. And again,
with the Global Institute forFood Security, we are a , uh,
collaborator, a connector and acatalyst, and we see through
our cutting edge technologyplatforms, we can enable
breeding organizations to beable to deploy accelerated
(31:50):
breeding. Our other areas thatwe're very interested in relate
to maybe new marketopportunities around carbon and
the opportunity to takeadvantage of Canada's unique
position where our soils inSaskatchewan and Western Canada
sequester carbon. How do wedevelop the methodologies to
support the , uh, monetizationof this practice? Again, that's
(32:15):
early days here. And again, atthe national and regional
levels, we can actually seethat. But again, that's gonna
take another level down to thefarm and the field and the
locations in the field to beable to really understand this.
And again, I think all ofthat's good because that gets
(32:36):
more to the full deployment ofprecision agriculture and
again, optimizing the economicson the farm. Again, there's a
benefit for farmers andhopefully a new revenue stream
for farmers as well. And thenthe other program that we have
at gifts is around ourbiomanufacturing. It's not a
replacement for agriculture inany stretch of the mind, but
(32:58):
it's, it's a way for us tothink about how do we bring new
tools for farmers to theforefront through the
application of, ofbiomanufacturing and
fermentation principles likenew biologics, helping
companies with biologicsoptimize their production
systems and new naturalproducts chemistries, because
again, those have , those arereally big opportunities. And
(33:21):
again, at gifts , we're verymuch aligned with our mission
of working with partners todiscover, develop, and deliver
innovative solutions. And wesee that now with our programs
that are focused on thosemarket opportunities.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
Awesome. It really
is interesting to hear about
everything that you're doingand, and we are going to be
looking forward to the newresearch that , uh, you do,
especially on the , uh,sustainability front in the
coming months and years. And,and we look forward to seeing
those results. So I do want tosay thank you very much Steve,
for taking the time to be onthis podcast and, and we wish
(33:56):
you all the best. I wanna thankyou for taking the time to
listen to our Ask a Farmerpodcast. We at Canadian Food
Focus value the input from ourlisteners and ask that you
share the podcast with yourfriends and family. Remember,
(34:19):
this is a two-Way street, so weseek your input for future
segments that are of interestto you about food and farming.
To do this, please click on theAsk us icon at the top of our
website, canadian foodfocus.org . While you're there,
feel free to follow ournumerous social media links and
sign up for our newsletter.
(34:41):
This segment was produced andedited by Angela Larson,
research and Writing by DorothyLong and Penny Eaton, music by
Andy Elson . I'm your hostClinton Uck , and from all of
us at Canadian Food Focus, wewish you good health and great
Eats .