This spring, there is an increase of sales in certain sectors, driven by land stress and owners’ inability to weather another financial or literal storm. Many of these properties are monocultures or singularly focused production units and highly dependent on one source of income from one crop.

Monocultures are great for scaling up and for having one specialized line of equipment, data base, parts inventory, market, husbandry system and storage facilities. These farmers tend to be very good at what they do, are technically advanced and keenly focused on their chosen sector.

However, a monoculture is known to be tough on natural land regeneration if not handled properly and there is no safety net, other than hedging or government intervention through insurance, payout or subsidy.

Risk mitigation has always been important for farmers. Regardless of how nice a day it was when the farm was bought, there will be tough spells before it is sold or transferred.

There is no claim that mixed farms are under less tension from weather events, but something is usually harvestable and saleable. This mitigates crop and financial risk and can also be a labour advantage.

Bringing in several hundred people to harvest cherries and then sending them home is expensive, tough on the employee and does not spread the risk of labour acquisition. A farming operation with a variety of crops can distribute fewer staff over a longer season and, in some cases, create permanent homes for employee families with year-round engagement, especially if any value adding, such as packaging or product creation, occurs on the farm.

Debates around monoculture often focus on loss or lack of biodiversity. There is mounting scientific evidence that highlights the intergenerational advantage of bio-diverse systems. Farmers who like the open fields of a monoculture know the importance of this and practice such actions as no-till to ensure moisture retention.

Those buying land this spring are making a serious investment. The average increase in value of cultivated Canadian farmland was 11.5 per cent in 2023, and there is clear evidence that the cost of owning land in some areas now outstrips its income generation ability.

Regardless of farm size, the operation that uses a model of diversity and maintains and integrates natural landscapes may be more resilient in times of weather and financial stress, as the risk is spread over several enterprises. The big advantages in complimentary biodiverse systems are that water is captured and retained, land is renewed, carbon is sequestered, beneficial insects, birds and wildlife live in a harmonious ecology and there is cash flow in intervals.

Although the system might be stressed, it is not often destroyed when exposed to a series of extreme weather events. It’s something to think about when restructuring the farm for the future.

The post Opinion: Diversity model may buffer risk of farmland buys appeared first on Farmtario.

It brings to light the complexity of understanding Canadian consumers and their varying wants and needs. Protein in all sources is good for us, and indeed the majority of the global population derives their protein from plants, but meat and poultry still play an important role, especially in Canada.

Despite our historical cultural preference to meat-based meals, this is changing There is a growing population in Canada, one in six persons, who identify as flexitarians or those that eat meat on occasion. I see this often with my friends who prefer a plant-based diet yet enjoy ordering meat or poultry when eating out.

The plant-based food industry in Canada is worth nearly $1 billion, with an expected growth of eight per cent per year. Globally, the concept of plant-based foods and plant-based economies are gaining political traction and sales are expected to reach $161 billion by 2030.

In some areas of the world, this growth has spilled over into policy.

My favourite treat as a child was canned bacon from Denmark. A family friend would gift us a couple of tins each Christmas and we savoured these tiny strips of heaven.

The protein came from a country that has produced pork for export for 125 years and the primary supply of pork for the European Union still comes from Denmark’s 28 million pigs.

In terms of economy, pork sales make up nearly six per cent of the Danish export economy and the sector employs 60,000 people.

It sounds like a secure industry and it has published its vision, which includes climate action, to 2050, but the Danish government has recently committed to agricultural transformation through support of plant-based food growth. The goal is to set Denmark apart as a leader in this field and employ 27,000 people.

The math does not entirely work: to threaten the 60,000 established jobs and 5,000 pork producers to support the employment of 27,000 persons. Reading a little deeper into the press release and the available documents, it became clear that this “transformational” agricultural policy was actually an avenue to climate goals at the expense of the meat and poultry industry. Similar plans to reduce livestock farming to achieve climate goals have recently been launched in Switzerland and Germany.

This is concerning. Rather than address a whole-of-government approach reflective of a circular economy, we see specific areas of focus in the name of climate change.

According to the latest research, the Danes still prefer to eat animal protein. They have sectorial strategies to mitigate climate challenges. The importing clients are buying. This is an industry worth working with and enhancing.

As the sectors in Canada work together on important projects such as the National Index on Agri-Food Performance, the four pillars of environment, economy, societal well-being and food integrity are being addressed. And it helps government and industry to see into the possible without sweeping transformational changes that threaten one sector over the other.

Here at home, the mandate letter of the current federal agriculture minister is broader and does not specifically call for an action plan of plant-based over livestock and poultry-based protein.

Reliance on exports in countries such as Canada and Denmark does give us cause to consider the importance of increased value adding within our borders, keeping the animals in play as an important part of the climate solution.

Shifting out of livestock production in countries that are perfectly suited for it and have high standards of safety and care, simply leaves the barn door open for a nation without the resources, health and safety regulations to fill the gap.

Walking past the shop that was once a growing concern in plant-based meats and seeing its transformation back into animal-based offerings suggests that consumers are not sure, but food safety is a priority.

There is an opportunity to support all of agriculture. It is important that all future directives protect everything from pork to pumpkins.

Consumers have the right to eat what they want and enjoy food that is culturally appropriate.

We cannot judge as contributors to the food chain. But we must work together to ensure that there is resounding climate consciousness, action on farms to mitigate risk and policy that enhances and protects all types of farms and food systems.

– Brenda Schoepp works as an international mentor and motivational speaker. She can be contacted through her website at brendaschoepp.com.

The post Opinion: Circling back to meat appeared first on Farmtario.

Over and over again he would ask his increasingly impatient mother why, how come, how far, how long, when, where and what. But his grandfather would gently smile and say, ‘That is a wise boy; for you are only one question away from being a better person.’

The young man who shared this with me observed that Canadian culture is very individualistic and isolating, and we tend to have a fear of asking questions. Certainly, depending on your background or upbringing, asking was a delightful exploration or a risk.

Too often, people view inquiry or asking for opinions or solutions as weak. A societal refresh on the art of seeking and asking has been long overdue.

As an outgoing introvert (if that makes any sense), I admired those who boldly asked questions. Over time it was clear to me that those who asked questions were wiser and more confident than those who worked at being well informed. Often a good question set the stage for looking at simple things in a little more complex manner or took a complex situation and broke it down into simple parts.

In the world of systems, this is a proven theory. The complex becomes simple and the simple becomes complex. Think about this in terms of asking the questions of all the stakeholders (those who have an interest) in any situation. Rather than being overwhelmed by the complex, break it into segments.

On the farm, an outbreak in a barn of a specific disease seems a very complex situation. But asking questions in each area of production and health management often results in simple changes that avoid a reoccurrence of the problem.

It could have been that the one animal that was introduced without having some quarantine and adjustment time triggered a respiratory illness that affected the entire herd. A change in protocol might be a solution. The complex becomes simple.

Now this simple protocol leads to a complex conversation. The curious mind moves forward; asking about the entire event regarding the animal entering the barn. Where is she from? What is her history? What conditions did she come from? Was she ever in a barn before? What about transportation, weather, handling, feed and water availability? Did she eat on arrival? Was she cleared by a veterinarian before going into a closed barn? The simple becomes complex.

If this process sounds like it echoes the questions of a toddler, you are right.

Why that cow? Where is she from? Did somebody hurt her? How do you know? And so it goes for hours and hours.

But like the little boy who was one question away from being a better person, so is the curious mind just one question away from both being better informed and having yet another question.

Being polite rather than inquisitive is admirable, but it does not serve us well when it comes to creative leadership or the creation of learning spaces where challenge is invited. Taking a conversation out of linear entrenchment needs a process — one in which we learn to ask.

Ernesto Sirolli (an expert in sustainable economic development) tells the story of taking tomato production from Italy to Africa in an effort to ‘help’ the village. The Italians planted the tomatoes while the locals simply advised them against it. Those tomatoes were lovely but the night before harvest the hippos came and ate the entire crop. The Italian team emotionally inquired from the locals why they were not told of this possibility. “You never asked,” was the simple reply.

Sound familiar?

It might be the family dinner that was missed. Or the frustrated child who needs to be asked how he got that bruise. It might have been the holiday that was interrupted or the marriage that failed because we forgot to look at the other person — and ask.

In business how often do we go into a situation of change and put the pressure on ourselves to ‘know’ or to learn quickly without asking? Certainly we are not the only ones in the room with the same question but our fear of appearing without knowledge keeps us from asking the pivotal question that may lead to moving forward.

You have a right to ask. And usually, those being asked are honoured by the question. The soft skills of asking and of listening are critical for social advancement. Breaking the construct of authority and silence and leading toward creative thought and solutions may be just one question away.

The post Opinion: We’re often afraid to ask questions, but it’s a key skill appeared first on Farmtario.