In late September, Fertilizer Canada and Meyers Norris Penny (MNP) released their report Implications of a Total Emissions Reduction Target on Fertilizer.
That report is a response to the December 2020 federal government announcement that it would “set a national emission reduction target (for 2030) of 30 per cent below 2020 levels from fertilizers and work with fertilizer manufacturers, farmers,” and others to meet that target.
The MNP and Fertilizer Canada report presents a model that assumes that a 30 per cent reduction in fertilizer-related emissions requires a 20 per cent reduction in fertilizer tonnage (especially nitrogen) and that, in turn, would lead to a 20 per cent reduction in crop yield. The report calculates that this yield reduction would lead to billions in lost revenues.
Read Also
OECD lauds Canada’s low farm subsidies, except supply management
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development says Canada’s farm subsidies are among the lowest, but still criticized supply management industries like dairy, poultry and eggs.
Unfortunately, the report is based on simplistic, flawed assumptions and seems intended to stoke fear among farmers, rather than contribute to fruitful discussions regarding pathways to agricultural emissions reduction. The following examines some of the report’s false assumptions:
Less fertilizer must equal less crop. False. The report disregards the sophisticated management capacities of farmers, the potential for innovation and adaptation, and the many ways that farmers can reduce fertilizer requirements, including better soil testing, variable-rate application, enhanced rotations, split application, or biological nutrient sources. The report assumes that a 20 per cent reduction in fertilizer use will result in a 20 per cent reduction in yields. To the contrary, research indicates that farmers could significantly reduce fertilizer use with little or no impact on yields. This is because there is now a tendency to calculate fertilizer requirements based on target yields rather than actual or profit-maximizing yields, because not all rates are based on soil tests, and because factors other than nutrient availability (e.g. precipitation) are often the limiting factor in plant growth. Fertilizer Canada’s report repeatedly refers to a fixed ratio between fertilizer and grain in terms of “pounds per bushel.” In effect, the report assumes that fertilizer is being used with maximum efficiency, rates are optimized, soil testing is universal, and that every unit of reduced fertilizer input must result in a unit of reduced crop output. Such assumptions are false.
Reducing fertilizer use by 20 per cent is necessary to reduce emissions by 30 per cent. False or unduly pessimistic. The report assumes that a 30 per cent reduction in fertilizer-related emissions requires a 20 per cent reduction in tonnage, and that just 10 percentage points in emission reduction can come from non-rate-related measures such as more accurate placement, optimized timing or split application, coated or enhanced-efficiency fertilizers, or cover crops (which can “catch” nitrogen that might otherwise be released as nitrous oxide). Though fertilizer companies promote the emission-reducing potentials of 4R methods, Fertilizer Canada seems to see only limited prospects for emission reduction from most of the 4R practices — just 10 per cent overall.
Reducing fertilizer use will reduce farmers’ net incomes. False on most farms. The report claims to measure “direct financial impacts” on farmers but does not do so. It quantifies alleged negative impacts on gross revenues but omits cost savings from reduced fertilizer purchases. Contrary to the report’s assertions, it is very likely that a well-managed transition to optimizing fertilizer use via better placement and timing, etc. will enable farmers to reduce fertilizer rates, emissions, and costs; maintain yields and revenues; and thus increase margins and net incomes.
Business as usual (BAU) is an option. False. Fertilizer Canada utilizes a BAU scenario incompatible with Canada’s emission-reduction commitments and incompatible with the stable climate farmers need. Its BAU scenario projects a crop tonnage increase of 34 per cent by 2030. By the report’s own logic, this must mean that fertilizer tonnage must also increase by 34 per cent. It follows that greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer would increase by a similar percentage. Canada, however, has committed to cut economy-wide emissions by 40 per cent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. Fertilizer Canada’s BAU scenario of ever-rising emissions is simply impossible as we move toward 2030 and beyond.
In conclusion, the interface between climate, farm economics, global prices, emission-reduction commitments, input-use efficiency, soil biology, plant genetics, adoption of agronomic practices, government policies and programs, and other factors is complex.
Unfortunately, Fertilizer Canada and MNP ignored these complexities and produced a simplistic, self-serving model that does nothing to illuminate the actual path that farmers must follow to reduce emissions in line with the requirements of Canada’s international commitments and the maintenance of a stable climate.
This report provides no useful insights into how farmers might contribute to Canada’s low-emission future and prosper as they do so.
Darrin Qualman is the National Farmers Union director of climate crisis policy and action.
