“Flowering is one of the most sensitive stages in wheat development,” says Mikhail Semenov, mathematical modeller and emeritus fellow at Rothamsted Research in the United Kingdom. “It’s when the plant sets grain, which ultimately determines yield. Even a few days of very high temperatures or severe water stress at this stage can reduce grain numbers and significantly cut final harvests.”

The study used advanced climate projections and the Sirius wheat model to estimate how short, intense heatwaves and droughts during flowering could affect global wheat yields in the future.

The results show a clear shift in risk. Drought during flowering currently causes more yield loss than heat. However, its overall global impact is expected to decline slightly in the future.

Heat stress during flowering, on the other hand, is projected to become much more damaging. By 2050, global yield losses linked to extreme heat at flowering could rise by about one-third. By 2090, those losses could increase by more than three-quarters.

While drought remains important, extreme heat at flowering is set to become a growing challenge for wheat growers worldwide.

The researchers say that farmers should:

• Look at varieties with improved tolerance not just to drought, but also to heat.
• Consider planting dates that reduce risk of flowering during peak heat periods.

The post Heat at flowering a big risk for wheat productivity appeared first on Farmtario.

Matt McIntosh, an Essex County, Ont. farmer and conservation enthusiast, recently published a Nuffield Canada report, Conservation in Farm Country: What Makes a Good Farm Environmental Scheme?, which explores the challenging relationship between farmers and conservation efforts.

The report is a culmination of two-and-a-half years of travel, research, conversations and observations in which he explored how governments, local organizations and individual farmers are tackling conservation and restoration efforts. McIntosh travelled across several countries (Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Ireland, Brazil, the United States, Canada and a few countries in the United Kingdom) and met with like-minded individuals to determine best practices to approach agriculture and environmental conservation.

“Farmers are the same, no matter where you are in the world,” says McIntosh. “We all have similar characteristics and want the best for our farms and surrounding environment, and we all want to leave a legacy for the next generation.”

Finding common ground

In his report, McIntosh identifies what works — and what doesn’t — in the design and delivery of agri-environmental initiatives, offering valuable lessons for Canadian policymakers, farm organizations, conservation authorities and farmers themselves.

McIntosh’s takeaway from his experience, and one of his report conclusions, is that on-farm environmental and economic gains do not need to be separate, that farmers can benefit from both — with the right programs in place.

“Nature is messy and what farmers want is straight lines,” says McIntosh. “But as production efficiency improves, we have a little more wiggle room to look at our practices. It doesn’t have to be one or the other, production and profit or environmental conservation; we can have both.”

McIntosh notes another common theme and barrier to conservation efforts here at home and across the globe: the cultural divide between farmers and conservationists. He explains that “as farmers, we’ve been incentivized to do more, to produce more. And sometimes that production-focused mindset trumps environmental or conservation practices.” Culturally, this mentality will require time to change and refocus, and McIntosh believes effective environmental programs that incentivize farmers to make positive changes are needed to make the change.

Cultural barriers to environmental conservation and restoration projects can easily crop up between neighbours, or even farm family generations, especially when one person wants to do something different. McIntosh explains that simply the act of changing a practice or implementing new ideas can be perceived by neighbouring farmers as criticism directed at them for their own farming methods, making it hard to change.

Other barriers to conservation efforts can be attributed to inadequate program funding and overly complex requirements, and the absence of on-the-ground extension support that often provides valuable resources and support to farmers implementing practices and programs.

Lessons from the field

McIntosh shares his observations in a series of case studies within the report. They illustrate a mix of success stories and cautionary tales across an array of on-farm environmental improvement efforts. He notes that the conservation and ecological programs that thrived had similar characteristics: a clear strategic vision, fair compensation for farmers’ ecological services, practical and timely support through extension, and flexible, farmer-driven delivery.

On the other hand, overly rigid or bureaucratic programs often failed to meet their goals, resulting in low participation and undermining the sense of shared purpose that McIntosh says is essential to long-term success.

“I looked for examples where people were winning, or encountering challenges from their programs,” he explains. “Those who were winning were realizing economic and ecological benefits. Those who weren’t had some clear red flags within their programs that restricted success.

Building programs that work

McIntosh believes conservation and ecological restoration success isn’t one-size-fits-all, especially since every farm and regional environment is so diverse.

“The successful outcome of any endeavour depends on the farmer, the program and whatever else you want to use to measure,” he says, citing an example from the United Kingdom where one of the determining factors of farmer compensation was the number and thickness of trees planted.

McIntosh questions the effectiveness of quantifying measurement standards and the unnecessary micromanagement of the program, and notes that other factors, such as increased biodiversity, could have been just as effective in determining the progress of the program.

No matter the standards used to define success, McIntosh offers several recommendations in his report for improving the design of conservation and restoration programs. They include: Establishing a strategic vision that integrates economic, environmental and social resilience before setting targets or metrics.

Compensating fairly for both risk and ecological services and delivering payments in a timely manner.

Investing in extension services and ensuring advisors are well-equipped to support farmers.

Empowering grassroots knowledge by engaging farmers early and often.

Balancing structure with flexibility, allowing room for innovation and regional adaptation.

McIntosh also recommends a shift in thinking when designing programs. He suggests approaching program development and implementation by asking whether a given conservation or restoration initiative truly empowers farmers to make positive change. “If the answer isn’t a clear ‘yes,’ the program may be missing the mark.”

Other practical recommendations include transferring program design and implementation to local levels when possible, striving for simplicity and ensuring initiatives are built for longevity rather than short-term results.

“You don’t need government-scale resources or complicated programming to make real change,” says McIntosh. He uses the example of re-establishment of Burren winterage, an ancient cattle production system in Ireland’s County Clare, which was one of the inspirations behind his Nuffield journey.

McIntosh explains that farmers in the Burren employ a system called “winterage” where cattle graze the region’s uplands from autumn through spring, helping to manage the landscape and regenerate grasslands. Despite the ecological benefits of this practice, the region’s winterage method came under threat from government conservation policy and general economic pressure in the 1990s. The result was the loss of a local grassland ecosystem.

So, farmers and environmental researchers developed a plan to reintroduce the proven winterage system. This regional initiative reintroduced winter grazing to maintain biodiversity and saw the development of a grassroots-led program, BurrenLIFE, established with the national government in 2010.

“Local farm and community efforts, guided by solid planning and farmer buy-in, can strengthen the environment, economy and social fabric of rural regions for the long haul,” says McIntosh.

Farming for the future

Exploring how rural landscapes are being effectively conserved and restored has helped McIntosh gain a deep understanding of what those efforts really involve. His experience also gave him a new perspective on efforts being made here in Canada, from on-farm projects through to how policies and programs are developed.

“Most Canadian farmers are already implementing beneficial conservation practices, but we can take those efforts further by opening conversations about the business and economic benefits of these practices,” he says. “We should also be thinking generationally, not just about what needs to be done now, but how we can leave the land for future use and enjoyment.”

Of course, it will also take the right policy supports, grounded in trust, fairness and flexibility, for farmers to continue as partners in conserving and restoring Canada’s natural landscapes.

A statement in McIntosh’s report reminds farmers that “agriculture may not be Nature’s best friend. It does not, however, have to be its greatest nemesis.” While there are plenty of barriers to the environmental conservation and restoration of ecologically and culturally significant spaces in agricultural landscapes, the solution depends on empowering the people who know the land best to shape its future.

Read Matt’s full Nuffield report Conservation in Farm Country: What Makes a Good Farm Environmental Scheme?

The post Conservation on the farm: Empowering farmers to lead environmental change appeared first on Farmtario.

From April, the threshold for individual inheritance tax relief will rise to 2.5 million pounds (C$4.62 million) from 1 million pounds, significantly reducing the number of farms and agricultural business owners facing higher tax bills, the government said.

“We have listened closely to farmers across the country and we are making changes today to protect more ordinary family farms,” Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds said in a statement.

“It’s only right that larger estates contribute more, while we back the farms and trading businesses that are the backbone of Britain’s rural communities,” she said.

Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers Union, said the original proposals represented a “pernicious and cruel tax” that his organization had fought for 14 months.

“I am thankful common sense has prevailed and government has listened,” Bradshaw said. “From the start the government said it was trying to protect the family farm and the change announced today brings this much closer to reality for many.”

Tractor protests in London

The move represents the latest policy reversal by Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government. In July, it backed down on plans to cut welfare spending, and in June it scaled back a proposal to reduce subsidies on energy bills for the elderly.

Under the revised rules, 100 per cent relief will apply up to the new 2.5 million pounds threshold, with 50 per cent relief on assets above the new level. Spouses or civil partners will be able to pass on up to 5 million pounds’ worth of farm assets between them, the statement said.

The government estimated that around 85 per cent of estates claiming agricultural property relief in the 2026/27 year, including those that also claim for business property relief, will pay no more inheritance tax as a result of the changes.

The original announcement in 2024, which ended an exemption from inheritance tax for agricultural families from next year, triggered protests in London by tractor-driving farmers that have continued regularly.

The government had said the measure was intended to raise revenue to help pay for strained public services. Farmers warned it would destroy family farms and cut food production.

The post U.K. softens stance on farm tax after months of protests appeared first on Farmtario.

“Canada and the U.K. aim to reduce duplication, lessen the burden on industry and facilitate access to important products,” said Canada’s chief veterinary officer Mary Jane Ireland, and the United Kingdom’s Veterinary Medicines Directorate deputy chief executive officer, Gavin Hall, in a joint statement on Wednesday.

Canada and the U.K. will co-operate to streamline the pre-market assessment and approval process for veterinary medicines and vaccines.

This will include sharing scientific expertise and information, discussion common priorities and loking at joint reviews of veterinary products.

In June, Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer also committed to partnering on several issues related to economic grow, including trade, semiconductors, artificial intelligence and biomanufacturing.

The post Canada, U.K. agree to cooperate on veterinary medicine, vaccine approvals appeared first on Farmtario.

The deal, announced by Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in Canada, reaffirmed quotas and tariff rates on British automobiles and eliminated tariffs on the U.K. aerospace sector, but the issue of steel and aluminum remains unresolved.

Other critical industries, such as pharmaceuticals, were not mentioned.

Trump said the relationship with Britain was “fantastic,” as he waved, and then briefly dropped, a document that he said he had just signed.

“We signed it and it’s done,” he said, incorrectly calling it a trade agreement with the European Union, before making clear the deal was with Britain.

Starmer called it “a very good day for both of our countries, a real sign of strength”

What’s included

The U.S. intends to impose a quota on steel and aluminum imports from the United Kingdom that would be exempt from 25 per cent tariffs, but it is conditioned upon Britain’s demonstrating security on steel supply chains and production facilities, according to an executive order released by the White House.

The quota level will be set by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the White House said.

Britain had avoided tariffs of up to 50 per cent on steel and aluminum that the U.S. imposed on other countries earlier this month, but it could have faced elevated tariffs starting July 9 unless a deal to implement the tariff reduction was reached.

The two leaders reaffirmed a plan to give British carmakers an annual quota of 100,000 cars that can be sent to the United States at a 10 per cent tariff rate, less than the 25 per cent rates other countries face.

The plan will go in effect seven days after it is published in the Federal Register, the White House said.

The agreement also eliminates tariffs on the UK aerospace industry, including parts and planes, according to the executive order.

Delayed implementation

Britain was the first country to agree on a deal for lower tariffs from Trump, with the U.S. reducing tariffs on imports of UK cars, aluminum and steel, and Britain agreeing to lower tariffs on U.S. beef and ethanol.

But implementation of the deal has been delayed while details were being hammered out and some issues remain outstanding.

Britain called the deal a huge win for its aerospace and auto sectors, noting the UK was the only country to have secured such a deal with Washington.

“Bringing trade deals into force can take several months, yet we are delivering on the first set of agreements in a matter of weeks. And we won’t stop there,” UK Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said in a statement.

Reynolds said the two sides agreed to reciprocal access to 13,000 metric tons of beef, while making clear that U.S. imports would need to meet tough UK food safety standards.

He said both countries remain focused on securing “significantly preferential outcomes” for the UK pharmaceutical sector, and work would continue to protect industry from any further tariffs imposed as part of Section 232 investigations underway by the U.S. Commerce Department.

Asked if the deal protects the United Kingdom from future tariff threats, Trump responded: “The UK is very well protected. You know why? Because I like them. That’s their ultimate protection.”

— Reporting by Jarrett Renshaw, Suzanne Plunkett and Andrea Shalal

The post U.S. and U.K. announce a trade deal, but steel imports unresolved appeared first on Farmtario.

The USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service issued the report from its attaché in London. In writing the report for the Global Agricultural Information Network, the attaché projected the forthcoming U.K. wheat crop to reach 12.80 million tonnes. That would be an improvement of almost 17 per cent over the 2024/25 harvest, but still short of the 13.98 million tonnes gleaned in 2023/24.

The London desk cited lower yields, less planted area, reduced demand and profitability concerns for the drop in wheat in 2024/25.

The attaché estimated harvest area to increase to 1.63 million hectares from 1.53 million in 2024/25, but lower than the 1.72 million combined two years earlier.

The London desk also wrote U.K. wheat imports are to drop 26 per cent at 3.05 million tonnes in the approaching crop year. The U.K. will export about 560,000 tonnes, up from 440,000 last year.

Total consumption was projected to come in at 15.35 million tonnes compared to 14.40 million last year. However at 3.44 million tonnes, ending stocks are expected to change little from the 3.50 million in 2024/25.

The U.K. is to rank 15th in 2025/26 among wheat producing countries, according to the USDA.

The post U.K. wheat output to swing higher in 2025/26 appeared first on Farmtario.

Some farmers, angry over the new Labour government’s budget measure to make them liable for inheritance tax, have threatened to disrupt food supplies, raising concerns about availability in supermarkets.

“Retailers are closely monitoring the impact of the potential interventions, including strikes, but are adept at dealing with disruption and are working hard to ensure customers aren’t impacted,” Andrew Opie, director of food & sustainability at the British Retail Consortium (BRC), said in a statement.

The BRC represents the country’s biggest retailers, including the major supermarket groups.

Tesco, Britain’s biggest grocer with a near 28 per cent market share, referred enquiries on the matter to the BRC.

The National Farmers Union has said it does not support the idea of withholding produce in protest at the inheritance tax measure but some farmers have threatened disruption.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer indicated on Saturday there would be no change to the inheritance tax policy, telling the Welsh Labour Conference in Llandudno, north Wales, he would defend the government’s budget decisions “all day long”.

Having protested in Wales on Saturday, farmers plan a major protest in London on Tuesday.

On Sunday, transport minister Louise Haigh told Sky News she was not worried about the prospect of food shortages.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has been asked for comment.

— Reporting by James Davey

The post UK retail industry plays down threat to food supplies from possible farmer strikes appeared first on Farmtario.

Canada imported $10.2 million worth of beef from Jan. 1 until the end of April, a significant increase from the same period in 2023, when beef imports from Britain were $3.7 million.

Why it matters: The Canadian livestock sector continues to see no benefit from the CETA agreement and trade talks with Britain stalled earlier this year.

If the pace continues for the remainder of 2024, Canadian beef imports from the U.K. would top $30 million. It would be similar to 2022, when Canada purchased $33 million worth of beef from the U.K.

As for Canadian beef exports to Britain, there are none.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada supplied this data to Glacier FarmMedia in early July. It is significant for Canada-U.K. relations because red meat was a major reason for the breakdown in free trade talks between the two countries.

Britain suspended trade discussions with Canada in late January, claiming the talks had hit a wall.

“We have always said we will only negotiate trade deals that deliver for the British people. And we reserve the right to pause negotiations with any country if progress is not being made,” a U.K. government spokesperson said Jan. 25.

A sticking point was exports of British cheese to Canada. Prior to Jan. 1, British cheese makers had tariff-free access to the Canadian market for a certain volume.

That tariff-free quota ceased when a temporary free trade deal, a continuity agreement between Canada and Britain, ended on Dec. 31. Canada imposed tariffs on U.K. cheese in January.

On the Canadian side, Britain’s ban on beef from Canada is considered unacceptable. Since 2022, Canada’s beef exports to Britain have essentially been zero because the U.K. will not recognize the safety of Canada’s food system or permit imports of beef produced with growth hormones.

The British position on beef raised with hormones goes all the way to the prime minister. In an open letter to farmers, published last year, then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak took a hard stance on imported beef.

“Without exception, we will continue to protect food standards in the U.K. under all existing and future free trade agreements,” Sunak wrote. “There will be no chlorine-washed chicken and no hormone-treated beef on the U.K. market. Not now, not ever.”

The Canadian Cattle Association says the British position is not based in science and is disconnected from Canada’s global reputation for food safety.

“Unfortunately, the U.K. has shown no indication that it is prepared to fully accept Canada’s food safety system, which is widely recognized as one of the finest in the world,” said a CCA news release from Jan. 25.

“Until the U.K. barriers to Canadian beef are resolved, Canadian producers will continue to be at a disadvantage. The U.K. currently has unlimited access for British beef exports to Canada while Canadian beef producers are unable to export into the U.K. market.”

Imports from EU also jump

European countries are also taking advantage of Canada’s willingness to maintain open markets. EU beef exports to Canada were $32.5 million in the first four months of 2024, an increase of 29 per cent from the same period in 2023, when imports were worth $25 million.

Ireland and Italy were the main exporters, shipping $16.5 million worth of beef to Canada.

Meanwhile, Canada’s exports of beef to the EU have declined in 2024. From January until the end of April, Canada shipped $6.3 million in beef to the EU. That’s down from $10.6 million during the same period in 2023.

When the figures are combined, Canada ran a trade deficit in beef with the U.K./EU of $36 million. Extrapolated for a full year, the trade deficit with Europe and Britain could top $100 million in 2024.

The post Beef imports from Britain jump 177 per cent appeared first on Farmtario.

Why it matters: Trade talks between the United Kingdom and Canada fell apart earlier this year.

Sunak listed six principles that he said will protect and assist British farmers. Principle No. 4 was a direct shot at free trade with Canada:

“Protecting U.K. food standards. Without exception, we will continue to protect food standards in the U.K. under all existing and future free trade agreements,” Sunak wrote. “There will be no chlorine-washed chicken and no hormone-treated beef on the U.K. market. Not now, not ever.”

Those words — “not now, not ever” — are clear. They partially explain why Canada-U.K. free trade negotiations fell apart this winter, when the British government suspended discussions and said progress had stalled.

The two countries were trying to negotiate a revised U.K.-Canada free trade agreement to replace a temporary deal based on principles of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. Britain’s participation in CETA and other European trade deals ended because of Brexit.

Canada-U.K. negotiations hit a roadblock in January due to disagreements over the ingredients in a cheeseburger — beef and cheese. Britain has since called a federal election for July, which puts free trade negotiations off the table.

“The U.K. prime minister announced the suspension of the talks in an electoral period … so it’s hard to believe they would change their mind on anything at this stage (before an election),” said Michael Harvey, executive director of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance.

British cheesemakers lost tariff-free access to the Canadian market at the end of 2023. As of Jan. 1, Canada imposed a 245 per cent tariff on U.K. cheese because the three-year interim free trade agreement between Canada and Britain had expired.

British negotiators are frustrated with Canada’s stance on cheese. Cattle producers and meat processors in Canada are angry about Sunak’s words on hormone-treated beef and Britain’s refusal to recognize livestock production and food safety standards in Canada.

“Canadian meat is currently severely disadvantaged in the interim agreement with the U.K. as technical, non-tariff trade barriers have resulted in Canada being unable to access the U.K. market,” the Canadian Cattle Association said last year.

“(Meanwhile), the U.K. enjoys unfettered access into the Canadian (beef) market.”

The federal government and Ralph Goodale, Canada’s ambassador to Britain, have sided with cattle producers.

In an opinion piece published in the Western Producer, Goodale said the U.K.’s ban on Canadian beef has “no scientific justification whatsoever.”

“It’s an entirely arbitrary non-tariff trade barrier that violates the rules of both the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) and the World Trade Organization,” Goodale wrote.

Given the hardened positions over beef and cheese, trade talks are somewhere between comatose and dead.

“It is highly unlikely that negotiations will resume before one or both countries have federal elections,” CAFTA said in April in a trade update published on its website.

Even after the federal election in Britain, it seems improbable that a new U.K. government will change its mind on beef imports from Canada and cattle raised with growth promotants. The Labour Party is favoured to win the election and it has a history of protectionist policies.

“It is not clear that a new U.K. Labour government will be as welcoming towards free trade as the … Conservative government under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak,” wrote David Collins, a professor of international economic law at City, University of London and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

“Indeed, (Labour) may be even more likely to erect barriers to trade in the form of senseless bans on products in the guise of health or protecting the environment.”

– Robert Arnason is a reporter for the Western Producer.

The post Canada-U.K. free trade talks remain comatose appeared first on Farmtario.

It’s going to defend Canada’s beef industry and food production system to the hilt.

“Just because another country does something in a specific way doesn’t mean we have to adopt that,” said Nathan Phinney, CCA president.

“One thing we need to realize is we’re in Canada. We have a world class (beef production) system, a world-class product and producers that do a world class job. We have to stand up for what we do in Canada and be proud of what we do.”

Why it matters: Canada’s beef sector has not benefitted from the CETA trade agreement.

Phinney didn’t mention it directly, but he was referring to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) — the free trade deal between Canada and the European Union.

Over the last five years, European officials have told the Canadian government and cattle industry leaders that they oppose certain practices in Canada’s beef production system.

For example, they won’t accept carcass washes used at Canadian packing plants.

For several years after 2017, when CETA came into force, Canada’s beef sector listened to the Europeans and tried to resolve the technical and regulatory issues so the EU would accept Canadian beef.

But the conversations went nowhere.

So, the CCA has shifted from a conciliatory tone and adopted a direct message — Canada’s beef production system is trustworthy, reliable and safe, full stop.

“We have a lot of trade options… and we have people who accept our systems, and rightfully so. We run a world class system,” said Phinney, who raises cattle near Sackville, N.B.

“Yes… there are always things you can do to improve. But we will 100 per cent stand up for everything we do on the landscape, processing, food safety and so on.”

Phinney and other leaders in Canada’s cattle industry are clearly frustrated, five and a half years into a what they see is a bad trade deal with the EU.

CETA was supposed to open up the massive European market to Canadian beef, but the opposite happened.

Countries like Spain, Ireland and Italy are taking advantage of CETA, shipping tens of millions in beef to Canada annually. In 2022, the EU exported $114 million worth of beef to Canada.

Meanwhile, Canadian exports to Europe have grown slowly since 2017 — even though Europe is a major importer of beef. In some years, it imports nearly $3 billion worth of beef.

In 2022, Canada exported $22 million in beef to Europe but has struggled to get product into major countries. For instance:

• From January to November last year, Canada exported $388,000 worth of beef to Germany.
• In that same time period, Canada exported $2.2 million worth of beef to Bahrain — a country with 1.5 million people.

In 2022, the beef trade deficit with Europe reached nearly $100 million. For pork, it’s even worse. Last year the EU shipped $285 million in pork to Canada and Canada exported $1 million to Europe.

“Five years of data clearly show the imbalance of what’s been (happening),” Phinney said.

“The (United Kingdom), if you look at last year, $33 million worth of (beef) coming in and we essentially sent nothing to (them)…. I think we have some leverage now. This is what we’ve been talking about and we’re not going to… let it continue.”

The CCA employed its direct approach to trade this spring, when the U.K. wanted to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) trade agreement involving Pacific Rim countries.

The association and the Canadian government held up British entry into the deal, demanding the U.K. recognize Canada’s food safety system and open its market to Canadian beef. Eventually, CPTPP countries decided that Canada and Britain should work out a bilateral arrangement, a side deal, to sort out issues with agricultural trade.

The CCA was disappointed with that decision, but it continues to push for fair access to the British market.

“If the Government of Canada brings a ratification bill (for Britain joining CPTPP) to Parliament without addressing the U.K. barriers to Canadian beef, CCA will approach all parliamentarians to defeat that bill,” said Phinney in March.

Speaking to Glacier FarmMedia last month, Phinney said the CCA stance on Britain is the right approach.

“I think it’s one of the hardest stands we’ve taken, in recent times,” he said.

“We made it abundantly clear to the government, until we get full systems approval for some of these regulatory issues… it doesn’t matter what we have for quota because we will not get product in…. Until these issues are resolved, we are going to oppose any assertion of the U.K. joining the CPTPP.”

– This article was originally published at The Western Producer.

Net beef trade with the EU & U.K.

The beef trade deficit with Europe reached $92 million in 2022, but trade flows have changed in 2023:

• In 2022, Canada exported $22 million in beef to the European Union and imported $114 million for a net-import value of $92 million.
• In 2023, as of the end of April, the EU shipped $25 million in beef to Canada and Canada exported $10.6 million to Europe for a net import value of $14.4 million.
• Beef imports from the United Kingdom totalled $33 million in 2022 and $3.7 million from January to April 2023.
• Canada exported no beef to the U.K. in 2022 and 2023.

Sources above: CanFax, Statistics Canada

The post Beef sector demands tougher stance on trade appeared first on Farmtario.