The federal government’s has garnered significant attention from farmers, agriculture organizations and other industry stakeholders.
Some have argued that the emissions reduction target , while others have compared it to the proposed emission cuts in the Netherlands that have driven .
While similar protests could potentially erupt in Canada, it is important to understand the differences between the proposals in Canada and the Netherlands.
Our assessment is that the fears of catastrophic yield reductions and food shortages are exaggerated.
Netherlands vs. Canadian targets
The the significant reduction of excess nitrogen, from both crop and livestock production, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and .
The reduction in nitrogen is to largely happen through a significant reduction in livestock numbers. The Dutch government has allocated 25 billion euros to , while over 17,000 farmers will have to reduce their livestock.
The substantial reductions will be disruptive for many farmers, especially those in the . These targets will undoubtedly reduce the amount of Dutch livestock products.
The Canadian reduction target differs from the Dutch target because it focuses on fertilizer-related emissions in the form of nitrous oxide (), rather than curtailing the use of fertilizers itself.
The use is important because there are ways of reducing emissions that do not necessarily require a reduction in fertilizer, and definitely don’t require a reduction in yields.
The Canadian government has also assured farmers that they will not be taking a to meet the reduction objective.
The 4Rs framework
A useful framework for thinking about fertilizer is of nutrient stewardship: using the right fertilizer source, at the right rate, at the right time and at the right place.
This framework was developed by the fertilizer industry for two reasons. First, it allows farmers to increase the efficiency of fertilizer application by more effectively using applied nutrients.
The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that and incentivizes those who implement them through the Inflation Reduction Act. Second, it is more environmentally sustainable because it .
By applying the 4Rs framework and increasing fertilizer efficiency, farmers will be able to achieve the emissions reduction target without suffering significant losses in production. Fertilizer Canada estimated that increased efficiency through specific 4R practices could .
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada predict . These practices include using enhanced efficiency fertilizers and adjusting the timing of fertilizer application.
The reduction targets are also intended to drive fertilizer innovation in all four areas of the 4Rs framework. Establishing targets is a good way to prioritize areas for research and practice innovation in agriculture. We have the capacity to achieve these emissions reductions.
Change is daunting, but necessary
The Canadian policy approach to achieve reductions in nitrous oxide emissions from crop production is , not specify a cut in fertilizer use. Education efforts are in place to reduce excess nitrogen use.
In addition, the Canadian goverment’s has to increase the adoption of 4R practices that improve fertilizer management. These cost-share programs are voluntary.
The current economic situation will also make it in the best interest of farmers to improve the efficiency of fertilizer use. High oil prices and the conflict in Ukraine are among factors that are . in Europe, as Russia cuts shipments of natural gas.
Nitrogen fertilizers will continue to be expensive and in short supply for some time. Making the most efficient use of what is currently available will make economic sense to farmers, while still contributing to reducing emissions.
The emission reduction targets outlined for Canadian fertilizer use will not lead to food shortages and food insecurity. Canadians generally — and farmers specifically — will have to change to address the .
In many cases, we have the ability to positively reduce emissions without disrupting agricultural production. by optimizing fertilizer usage.
In today’s climate, it makes economic sense to adopt some of these practices to reduce emissions. Change can be daunting, but it is critical that we have a reasoned discussion about what we can do now and in the future. The current polarized debate is not productive.
Michael von Massow receives funding from a variety of organizations including the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Genome Canada, and Protein Industries Canada.
Alfons Weersink receives funding from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Genome Canada, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council, and the Canada First Research Excellence Fund Program.
Claudia Wagner-Riddle receives funding from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Fertilizer Canada, Grain Farmers of Ontario, and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council. She is affiliated with the International Nitrogen Institute.
