Leading up to that day, media outlets reported “workforce adjustment” notices coming for multiple departments, with AAFC among them. When, and how many jobs lost for agriculture? The closest thing to an answer I could find the night before appeared to be a letter to AAFC staff from the department’s deputy minister, copied and posted to Reddit by a third party on the CanadaPublicServants subreddit.

There was no reason to doubt its accuracy, but the idea of relying on Reddit as a sole sources makes any good journalist squirm. Fortunately, our national affairs reporter, Jonah Grignon, was able to get confirmation from an AAFC source on Jan. 22 that the letter was correct: about 665 positions were to be cut, with notifications going out to affected employees that day.

Later the same day, though, we began seeing more posts from third parties on social media, this time that federal research farms and facilities would be closing. From the federal government itself though? We got only crickets.

Most of our staff were still out Jan. 23 confirming where job cuts and facility closures are to happen at all.

A single federal press release or public statement up front would have made our jobs way easier and freed up time to ask the deeper question: How will these cuts affect farmer-facing services and research?

More to the point, it would have given some much-needed certainty rather than abdicating the conversation to spiral into speculation and rumour.

This isn’t necessarily to suggest there shouldn’t have been spending cuts. After the last federal budget rolled in November, we all knew there would be cuts — just not the where, when or how.

Nor is it to suggest federal officials had nothing else important to do. That week in the news included the prime minister’s remarkably consequential speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, and the cabinet retreat in Quebec right afterward, ahead of the House of Commons coming back Jan. 26 from adjournment.

But Canada’s government is a big organization and can do more than one thing at a time. On Jan. 22 alone, it publicly announced a funding extension for the Manitoba Farmer Wellness Program, funding for subway train manufacturing in Quebec, a new Competition Bureau report on businesses’ use of “algorithmic pricing,” seizures of contraband at the federal penitentiary in Kingston and that a National Film Board-funded short film is up for an Oscar.

My point is, the Liberal budget firmly declared a dual agenda of building a more versatile Canadian economy while “spending less to invest more” and pursuing responsibility through this “comprehensive expenditure review.”

Yet when workforce adjustment and closure notices went out nationwide, affecting thousands of workers’ lives and communities, the government chose not to get out in front of its cuts at all — even if just to try and keep control of its own messaging.

The government’s budget trumpeted its commitment to fiscal responsibility by cutting $60 billion in spending over the next five years. It’s not to much to ask that, once a course of action is set, the Liberals at least try to own their own decisions.

The post Government silence loud on AAFC cuts appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Both the November and January canola contracts on the Intercontinental Exchange traded rangebound and closed at $615.60 and $630.10 per tonne, respectively, unchanged from the week before. The December Chicago soyoil contract, which canola futures tend to mirror closely, moved up 0.08 U.S. cents per pound to close at 50.65 on Oct. 21. All three contracts were close to their 20-day averages but well below their respective 50- and 100-day averages.

Their steadiness was a surprise considering November Chicago soybeans jumped 24.25 cents per bushel after U.S. President Donald Trump posted on social media last weekend he believes a deal for China to buy U.S. soybeans can be done.

Sooner or later, U.S. soybean growers – and by extension, Canadian canola growers — will be in for a big disappointment.

Weeks after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent teased an announcement regarding a financial aid package for the U.S. soybean industry, nothing has materialized. Instead, Trump and Bessent shifted their focus to a US$20 billion currency swap with Argentina approved last week, with the possibility of another US$20 billion to come later. Some believe the funds are intended for Trump’s ally Argentine President Javier Milei as polls put his Freedom Advances party in second behind the left-wing Homeland Force ahead of legislative elections Oct. 26.

Adding to the indignity upon U.S. soybean growers, Argentina is one of many countries usurping the U.S. when it comes to soybean exports to China. Last month, it made US$7 billion selling soybeans in a matter of days during an export tax holiday.

It’s becoming clear that U.S. soybean growers are being left behind and China seems well stocked for the crop ahead of the South American harvest which begins in January. If China isn’t in dire need for soybeans, then it may not need Canadian canola either.

January canola has stayed between $620 to $640/tonne over the past two weeks and harvest pressure is easing off. But the longer China depends on other oilseeds, there will eventually be a disruption to the downside.

The post Lack of China trade deal threatens soybeans, canola market appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

1. On the better soil, the crops are good or at least better than expected.
2. On the lighter or poorer crop ground, we see half of the crop on better soil.

This all goes to water retention or the ability of the soil to capture and hold moisture in the soil. Certain regions received rain earlier than others, and some types of soil have a limited capacity for retaining moisture. But, we can fix this by adding organic matter. The simplest way to do this is by grazing bales in the lighter soil.

On our farm this year, we have a patchwork of green oasis amid a sea of dried-up forages. It goes to prove the adage that water is the first and most important of the nutrients required for growing plants. You can have all the other nutrients balanced for the plants to grow and be healthy, but we need the right amount of water first.

As producers, it’s easy for us to become focused on the little things that influence our environment. Sometimes, we need to stop and look over the horizon.

Tariffs and farm profit

I follow producers from all around the world online. I enjoy seeing how producers in other areas of the world deal with the same problems we deal with. There is always more than one way to solve a problem.

So far, the new tariffs introduced in the United States haven’t had much impact on us at our farm and others in my network. Hopefully, that remains the case. But, from my take, it has been six months of confusion for nothing.

I recently met and talked with a group of regenerative producers from Australia (they were touring regen ag practicing operations in Western Canada) and they too could not understand the tariff goal on their country. It was one more thing we had in common.

Now, with abundant supply of crops, the price has dropped off the charts and below the cost of production. It is hard for any producer to forward market their next crop for a loss; they are dreaming of locking in a break-even price.

The U.S. can make payments to their crop producers this year to keep them in business, but the crop inventory surplus is still there and still needs marketing, thereby kicking the can down the road.

In Canada, the main cash crop for annual production has been canola; now dealing with tariffs from China. In the last few years, canola has been paying the bills and paying to grow a rotation crop (wheat, oats, barley) to reduce disease pressure. When I sit back and think about the market price on canola, I am pleasantly surprised that it has not dropped further than it has.

There has been talk about using canola and soybeans for biofuel. We already use corn and wheat for ethanol to mix into gasoline. Biofuel is planned to be incorporated into or used as a substitute for diesel fuel. I do have to question the ethics of “Food for Fuel” … do we no longer have hungry people to feed? Do we change the mantra from “farmers feed the world” to “farmers power the world?”

Another question I have about these practices is about the best use of energy: calories of energy going into a product versus calories of energy out of a product. How many calories of energy go into producing canola, to produce biofuel and, in turn, how many calories of energy will that biofuel produce? In my view, diesel fuel will produce cheaper calories of energy. We as Canadians need to have this discussion before we start putting our own and government money into these projects.

The science is out there, but no one is talking about this. I am not against value adding, I believe we as a producers should be encouraging value adding and making use of the byproducts in every way we can. Up-valuing all we can keeps money here in Canada.

Long-term beef planning

The livestock market is hot and getting hotter every day. Now is the time to plan how to stay in the beef business when it cycles back to falling markets, like the annual crop production is now.

All ag products run on cycles of supply and demand, high production and low production, profit and loss. Producers will often say when the returns are high, “this time it will be different” and when it crashes back down will say “Please give me one more chance at a high price and I will not spend it all on new equipment.”

When we look at the beef cycle, we see that we have finished the consolidation phase and have now entered the expansion stage of the cycle.

The demand for beef has been holding out well and should remain strong as long as the economy holds on. If consumers restrict their beef purchases because of personal finances, we will see a new reality.

From my conversations with ag lenders in the area, they are lending to a few young producers for cattle purchases. All these new producers are coming in with cattle experience from home and are adding to the family operation. Overall, we are still seeing many older producers leaving the industry and few producers stepping up to replace them.

Despite the beef market boom, over last five years we have seen many pastures and hay fields broken up for annual crop production. I strongly believe that 20 to 30 per cent of these acres should be put back into forages, primarily to maintain the cow herds and improve soil health, reduce disease and weed pressure. Of course, that raises the other side of the equation: if that put back were to occur, would there be enough forage seeds to plant 20 per cent of annual crop land to forage?

Now is the time to sit down with paper and pencils and work out how you are going to make your operation more profitable and survive the current crop market downturn. Remember that no one has the right answer for your operation, but by reaching out to leading producers in your area, government agencies like Manitoba Agriculture, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada or Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation, and research groups like universities or the Beef Cattle Research Council, you can improve your own knowledge. If you are facing challenges, you cannot expect better results by doing the same thing repeatedly, as many producers tend to do. We must be proactive in our surroundings, not reactive. We need to take charge of our world.

At our local grazing club out of Lenore, the farm tour is always the highlight each year. We travel around our area to see what local producers are doing and trying out. We also visit with neighbours and, of course, consume a few barley pops to avoid dehydration.

A few years ago, I met a no-till producer who, after 25 years, was not happy with his soil health journey. He wanted to see bigger soil health gains and he thought that he needed to add a legume forage to his rotation.

He has since been happy with the soil’s response to an approach where he seeds once and harvests for the next three crops. In his mix he has 30 pounds an acre of fall rye, five pounds of hairy vetch, 20 pounds of oats, three to five pounds of millet, two to three pounds each of meadow bromegrass and orchard grass and three to five pounds of alfalfa.

On the first year, he does a chemical burnoff of spring growth and direct-seeds the blend in with a starter fertilizer. Late July or early August, a neighbour cuts and bales the crop, or cuts it for silage (silage seems to work better). In the second year, rye and hairy vetch are harvested for feed or seed in early July. After three to four years, hay is cut in July, then a chemical burn down is used before planting the following spring when the land returns to rotation. This has been a win-win deal for the annual no-till cropper and the cow-calf producer next door.

Please remember to reach out to others in this busy season and ask how they are doing. If you need to talk to someone, please reach out to the groups in the province that have farmer hot lines. You are not alone dealing with it all.

I hope to see you all at the 2025 Manitoba Forage and Grassland Association Regen Ag Conference Nov. 12-13 at the Victoria Inn in Brandon. It looks like another awesome agenda and the MFGA conference is always a great venue and opportunity for discussions and catch up with farmers interested in learning more about things you want to learn more about.

Larry Wegner is a former board member of the Manitoba Forage and Grassland Association and MFGA Wall of Fame inductee. This article first appeared as a blog post published by the Manitoba Forage and Grassland Association.

The post Farmer musings of post-harvest Manitoba appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

On July 31, 2025, the Israeli army, using bulldozers and heavy machinery, laid waste to Palestinian heritage seeds and key infrastructure belonging to the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UWAC) — a Palestinian farmer organization and member of the global La Via Campesina movement.

As farmers, we share an intimate knowledge of the significance of seeds to a people’s food sovereignty, culture and survival. For generations, Palestinian farmers have carefully selected and saved seeds for their specific traits and ability to continuously adapt to changing conditions. Seeds saved by Palestinian farmers are the bedrock of their national food system. Locally adapted, culturally relevant seeds embody generations of agricultural knowledge. They hold the stories, visions, legacies and hopes of their people.

UWAC’s seed bank held seeds that were the heritage and trust of Palestinian farmers in the West Bank and Gaza. The existence and survival of their heritage seeds are inseparable from Palestinians’ physical and cultural survival. The Israeli government’s deliberate attack on this seed bank is intended to demonstrate to Palestinian farmers and Palestinian society their helplessness as they are pushed toward the brink of total annihilation.

This malicious attack and deliberate targeting of a civilian agricultural facility represents a further escalation of the violence, crimes against humanity and genocide in Gaza.

Israel’s assault on Gaza has resulted in the officially recorded deaths of over 66,700 Palestinians to date. The actual death toll is almost certainly far higher. Farmers and food providers have been devastated by acute bombardment, as well as by the ongoing restriction of movement and access to land and resources. The intentional denial of food and water in Gaza is being used by Israel as a tool of genocide against the Palestinian people, and the resulting mass starvation is a crime against humanity, a violation of international human rights to food and water and a breach of international humanitarian law.

On behalf of the thousands of farmers and farm workers who are members of the National Farmers Union, we denounce Israel’s deliberate attack on Palestinian seeds and agricultural heritage. We renew calls for the Canadian government to do everything in its power, including implementing a two-way arms embargo and diplomatic and economic sanctions, to stop Israeli military operations against Palestinians in Gaza and uphold the principles of the Geneva Convention.

The post NFU condemns seed destruction in Palestine appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The purpose was to bring employees and policy-makers from various federal government agencies to a farm to see equipment and technology in action. What better way to make those that guide policy understand how it affects the boots on the ground?

It also made me think back to the many times my father, a 42-year veteran of the Hamilton steel mill, Stelco, griped about having to deal with policies or procedures put in place by the ‘men in white hats’ — those with broad knowledge from engineering or business degrees, but little or no on-the-ground experience.

The men in white hats were very good at trying to implement what they believed to be more efficient or cost-saving measures. While the objective was sound, the methodology they wanted to use didn’t always make sense to my dad. He often knew they wouldn’t work, or could see other problems that would result long-term.

As an instrument technician, my dad was a fix-it guy and played an essential role in keeping one of Stelco’s rod mills rolling. He knew the nuances of the mechanical systems and furnaces, and how they worked together. He received formal training in instrumentation as a young man, and it’s a skilled trade.

But it was applying this training, week after week, where he learned what was practical and how to realistically solve problems. He had to engage with other employees in the mill who operated equipment so he could understand their problems and what they needed from him.

I used to think my dad was envious of the men in white hats, because when he complained about them he did sometimes say “but what do I know, I’m not paid the big bucks.”

While I think there was some envy on his part, I realized as I got older that my dad was just really frustrated by the fact that he had to deal with the repercussions of decisions made by others. If he had been consulted or included in the process, a lot of time — and money — could have been saved.

As a long-time editor in the agriculture industry, I have read and written about numerous policy initiatives from provincial, federal and foreign governments about what farmers and food processors and other allied agriculture business should or shouldn’t do, or need to do, with respect to a long list of objectives that include things such as improving animal welfare, using less resources, reducing emissions, etc. — the list is long.

It’s obvious at times that these policies, while often created with good intentions, were drafted by those with little or no experience in the agriculture industry. More ‘men in white hats,’ as my dad would say.

That’s why initiatives such as the AEM demonstration day are important.

The post Farm disconnect becomes farm policy disconnect appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

This small foray into agritourism has given us the chance to earn some revenue, tell people who aren’t from farms about agriculture, and to learn from them about society’s vision of the sector that’s so important to most readers of this publication.

Two recent visitors showed clearly that I need to broaden my thinking about the perceptions of some consumers.

A common refrain in the industry is that people are one or two generations removed from the farm. And by farm, we mean a farm that we understand, as it’s the heritage of most farmers on the land today – a respected mixed farm, with a farm family doing the work.

I’m seeing more new Canadians who don’t carry that background. Instead, they have incredibly differing histories with food and those who produce it.

A mother and daughter recently visited our farm, and they are a good example. The daughter had come to Canada from India to complete her education, and her mother was making her first visit to Canada. Friends suggested they visit our farm. The daughter said she had only lived in a large apartment building until she came to Canada. The mother has lived her life in sprawling, urban Mumbai. They were curious and courteous, but one line was interesting to me. We explained that we also had busy off-farm jobs that took up most of our time.

They perked up and said “Ohhh, you’re not just farm people,” and were more engaged after that point.

As someone who’s always had a fair bit of pride in being a ‘farm person’, that was a bit off-putting, but it reminded me about India’s long rural-urban split, underpinned by its caste system, where certain people in society have more status than others.

I’ve also heard stories of Ontario farmers inviting people from India with generations of farming background, watching combines run at the side of a road, to ride around the field with them.

The roots of the other family visiting my farm were in Burundi, the small African country south of Rwanda and sandwiched between the Congo and Tanzania.

The teenagers in this family were like many other Canadian teens, trying to find their way in urban Ontario, with little access to agriculture, perplexed by how my children could survive rural living. The matriarch of the family grew up on a subsistence mixed farm, where nothing was wasted.

“No one would farm if they didn’t have to,” she said of her childhood. However, she continues to grow African vegetables beside her city home and wanted a tour of my vegetable gardens. She was perplexed about why I hadn’t harvested my onions, and they were just lying on the ground (the answer was partially that I was letting them dry and partially that I hadn’t had time).

She valued her food in a way that few Canadians do.

Diverse immigration isn’t new to Canada, but these two experiences had me thinking that as more new Canadians arrive from around the world, especially from India and Africa, the communications to consumers from farms need to consider a more complex set of embedded emotions around food than we’re used to considering.

The post Respecting new Canadians’ diverse food history appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

We watched as the miniaturized, fictional mammals scampered across night-time kitchens in the televised public service announcements of our youth, left peanut butter footprints on plates and had confrontations with house cats.

“That looked really real, but you knew it couldn’t be true, didn’t you?” the narrator would break in as the background faded to an African landscape.

It was a message we got from our teachers, parents, cartoons and, yes, the now nostalgia-laced clip from Concerned Children’s Advertisers: Ask questions. Don’t believe everything you see on a screen.

Given how adept artificial intelligence has become at generating text, photos and video, the message is arguably more relevant today than when it was running between BopIt! ads and the Kool-Aid Man.

Sources who spoke to our reporter Jeff Melchior for his recent cover story on misinformation and disinformation would likely agree.

“There’s so much information available, but what is right and applicable? That’s very difficult to decide, given that so much information is there,” University of Guelph researcher Ataharul Chowdhury said.

The very same day as we were preparing that article for publication, major news outlets reported a police raid on the compound of “Queen” Romana Didulo and her faithful — a movement so successful in QAnon-style misinformation and disinformation they’ve convinced followers that Didulo is sovereign of the “Kingdom of Canada.”

Just days prior, a CBC report noted the growing problem of AI-generated or altered severe weather images, leading to Environment and Climate Change Canada getting erroneous reports. Storm chasers cited in that article noted that the phenomenon was impacting their credibility.

Anyone who has dipped a toe into social media has likely seen the proliferation of fake content floating around online. It ranges from blatantly AI photos with too many fingers to online classifieds listings that are actually scams, to “screenshots” of sensational (and very fake) headlines edited with what appears to be the header and format of major news outlets .

A Google search and 20 seconds of due diligence quickly uncovers that no such article exists. On social media though, many keyboards get tapping and share buttons get clicked for every digital literate who takes the extra effort to verify. Each one of those keyboard warriors can spread the proverbial misinformation infection alarmingly fast.

Social media, by its nature, is prone to echo chambers. It feeds you content similar to what you’ve already engaged with and lets you talk to the people you’ve decided you want to talk to.

It also tends to aggregate people with similar interests or worldviews. That’s great when connecting with other people who like hiking, not so much when the common interest in question is an extremist view or a conspiracy theory.

Cami Ryan, who, in her off hours away from her role with Bayer Global, is an advocate warning against misinformation and disinformation was clear: The people seeding disinformation have something to gain from it.

It’s often rooted in ideology, she noted, but it’s also business looking for recruits to exploit.

“People are making money or getting value from disinformation,” she told Melchior. “That’s 100 per cent how it is.”

It’s her view that farmers’ generally pragmatic approach to life might help them sort fact from fiction, but they still live in the online world, she cautioned.

The unfortunate truth is that some groups that thrive on mis/disinformation dangle hooks in the same spheres that farmers, who may have legitimate criticism and frustrations with the federal government, populate. It’s easy to poke holes in something we’re already inclined to disagree with. It’s much harder if the premise broadly aligns with a political, religious or social perspective that we subscribe to. Disinformation creators are well aware of that vulnerability.

Chowdhury, meanwhile, also pointed to a growing lack of trust in science, which he says leaves more room for misinformation to take root.

In agriculture, he linked that to growing corporate interest in things like agricultural research and extension hitting the perceived neutrality of scientific work.

It’s true that farmers may have some cynicism in that regard, although it’s not just corporate interests. Farmers are also miffed at what they see is a politically driven hyperfocus on climate change in publicly funded research.

He’s also right that farmers have seen a contraction in public or farm-group extension. Only weeks ago, the Canola Council of Canada cut its field agronomy team, saying that farmers could seek those services with private agronomists, companies or provincial extension staff (roles that have also been rolled back in certain provinces in recent years).

So what are farmers to do?

Technology is always adapting, and we are adapting in our interactions with it. Many of us have changed our cell phone behaviour, for instance, to protect ourselves from scams.

It is no longer uncommon for someone to say that they don’t answer calls from numbers they don’t know. They screen their text messages. They don’t click unsolicited links or give out personal information and, if they want to check if a message about a bill or account is valid, they contact their provider independently.

In the same way, as Melchior’s sources argue, we need to develop defences against misinformation and disinformation. That includes digital literacy (there are already farmer-facing programs for that on offer in Manitoba). It also involves a conscious decision to pay attention to what we’re seeing rather than taking it at face value.

Does it make sense? Where did it come from? Can you confirm that it came from there? Are there any details that seem out of place? Does a little independent research (from reputable sources) back up or contradict it?

Just like putting on a seat belt or deleting suspicious emails unread, these defences must be automatic, consistent and something you encourage in those around you as well.

The post Guarding against misinformation: Do you believe in house hippos? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

As grim prospects have become the Canadian oilseed’s central theme, some market participants suggested the front month is likely to retreat to $580/tonne.

Increasing harvest pressure will pull down canola prices. The pace on the Prairies picked up over the week, with Manitoba’s canola 10 per cent in the bin and Saskatchewan at four per cent harvested. The latest Alberta crop report hadn’t been published, but it’s safe to assume more canola came off of its fields.

A much bigger than forecast canola harvest is coming as well. Statistics Canada projected it to be 19.94 million tonnes, with an update set for Sept. 17.

Then of course there’s China. When China doesn’t buy, vegetable oil prices fall and that’s exactly what has happened in North America.

China has its 75.8 per cent tariff on Canadian canola seed and already imposed 100 per cent levies on the oil and meal some time ago.

Besides China often taking years to finally come around on trade issues, this mess with canola is more complicated within Canada. The agriculture industry just doesn’t match up with the country’s auto sector.

Rather, Ottawa seems to think it best to hang on to its 100 per cent surcharges on electric vehicle imports from China in order to prop up the auto industry that lags behind in EV development.

However, there might be some hope as China extended its canola dumping investigation to March 2026. The additional six months may allow for more negotiations between Ottawa and Beijing. The announcement came just as a Canadian trade delegation is headed to China.

Inevitably, there will be change as China doesn’t grow enough of its own canola. There isn’t much to be had from other countries, with Canada and Australia the two top exporters.

But it’s the anguish Canadian canola growers will likely have to endure until something is finally done about the tariffs

Until then, a very large United States soybean harvest is around the corner and there’s that massive bean harvest in Brazil.

The trade kerfuffle the Trump administration created with China has meant the latter isn’t buying much from the U.S. The Sept. 5 Department of Agriculture export sales report showed a near absence of Chinese buying.

If there’s a lesson to be drawn here, it’s that tariffs cause more problems than solutions.

The post Canola price outlook rather grim for Canadian farmers appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

It’s a complex situation, but there are a few facts to keep in mind.

First, Alberta Beef Producers funds more than 50 per cent of the CCA’s budget through the refundable portion of its check-off. Right now, they send $0.53 from the $2 service fee to CCA, based on retained earnings. In the past, ABP’s share of CCA funding was calculated from gross earnings, which was unsustainable, given the refund rate in the province. The current calculation is part of an agreement set to expire July 1 next year.

Also, none of this affects ABP’s funding of organizations like the Beef Cattle Research Council, Canada Beef and the Public and Stakeholder Engagement team. Those get backed by the non-refundable federal check-off.

Since the announcement, I’ve spoken with Doug Roxburgh, ABP chair, its general manager Brad Dubeau and Tyler Fulton, CCA president. I appreciate the media access by all parties.

ABP has forwarded a list of recommendations to CCA it wants addressed. I haven’t seen the list, but the main thing seems to be that ABP wants to see changes to governance and financial structures. For example, ABP has an elected finance chair, as well as a committee that works with a third-party auditor and reports back, Roxburgh said. ABP is asking for a finance chair at CCA as well.

CCA doesn’t have quite the same structure. Fulton said they have a staff member who is the controller, who guides them through the financial nuances at meetings. MNP completes the audit. Each year, CCA strikes an audit committee comprising of CCA members who are not directors or officers for an independent view. Fulton said ABP’s request for a finance chair is reasonable, and he could see it serving a purpose, especially with funding agreements.

Because there are fewer cattle in the country, ABP is also worried about potentially fewer marketings and less revenue, and has started planning accordingly, says Roxburgh.

“When we reached out to CCA to say, ‘What are your thoughts about potentially having less dollars to work with going forward,’ not because of any other reason, except there’s just physically less cattle in the country, we haven’t been able to get a clear path on what that looks like,” said Roxburgh.

Roxburgh said these concerns started percolating a few years ago. There were positive steps after renegotiating their agreement with CCA, but ABP feels there hasn’t been enough meaningful change. The board held a vote wherein delegates opted in favour of withdrawal, he said.

At one point, I asked whether the withdrawal next summer was set in stone. Roxburgh said he’s not guaranteeing they’ll have an agreement in place. But he said they’re “fully committed” to honouring the current agreement, and “essentially have somewhere between eight to 10 months of runway to create a meaningful discussion with CCA.”

I think there’s reason to hope CCA and ABP can come to terms. Fulton said he didn’t see any major hurdles on ABP’s list, and he has a strong desire to return to a “unified, strong voice for all Canadian beef producers, with Alberta fully at the table and confident in the relationship.”

He also noted that he’s got a lot of respect for Roxburgh, and wants to mend the relationship between CCA and ABP.

There’s a lot at stake. Everyone’s got the CUSMA review on their minds.

Roxburgh said trade deal renegotiations should be wrapped before the current membership agreement expires, and I hope that comes to fruition. Beyond that, if CCA requested funds for specific trade issues that would affect all Canadian beef producers, ABP would support them, Roxburgh said.

Personally, I think any national cattle lobby would be a bit hamstrung without Alberta. It’s not just the funding — it’s the perspective from that province’s industry players and the credibility.

I’ve also heard various concerns about the optics of this public disagreement. That’s valid. Readers know there is a vein of scrappiness that runs through cattle country.

That’s an observation, not a criticism. It can be constructive or detrimental, depending on the situation and how it’s handled. I hope beef industry leaders can harness that conflict to address any issues and rebuild, so the industry has a stronger organization in the long run.

I know I haven’t captured everything that is going on (for example, the voting seat freeze ABP is under with the current agreement). I hope readers will use this as a starting point for more discussion and questions, and reach out to their provincial associations, as well as CCA reps, for more insight. After all, it’s your check-off dollars and your industry.

The post Untangling Alberta Beef Producers’ withdrawal from the Canadian Cattle Association appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

When it comes to providing opportunities for Canadians, however, policy matters far more than partisan politics. We have had a federal election and a cabinet has been appointed. We now need a laser focus on the fundamentals of good policy.

I have heard farmers say that agriculture is an afterthought around the cabinet table.

The sector makes up about seven per cent of the Canadian gross domestic product, or $150 billion per year, and employs 2.3 million Canadians, representing one in nine jobs across the country. An acknowledgement by the whole cabinet of that critical economic contribution would be a good way for the new federal government to offset farmer frustration about the placement of agriculture in national policy priorities.

Trade must be the priority issue for the new Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. In 2024, Canadian agriculture and food exports exceeded $100 billion, yet the policies that will support and expand Canadian agriculture and food exports are not always considered when Canada’s trade positions are set. A positive key first step would be explicit inclusion of agriculture in the “Team Canada” missions that are part of our outreach with United States customers and policy makers.

While agriculture, like most Canadian industries, has rightfully focused on the threat of U.S. tariffs in the past few months, protectionism is growing around the world. Canadian pork and seafood exports to China face a 25 per cent tariff. Certain canola products have been hit with a 100 per cent tariff by the Chinese government. Canadian agriculture and food exports have been sidelined by European non-tariff barriers, despite the Canada–European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).

Growing protectionism is compounded by rising political uncertainty, with the war in Ukraine and instability in the Middle East just two examples. Canada needs a strategic plan to deal with these threats.

The new federal ag minister, Heath MacDonald, could hit the ground running if he were to set up — together with representatives from export agriculture — a task group with the mandate to develop a strategic plan for agriculture and agri-food trade. This joint government and industry task group should set out to answer three basic questions:

First, in the short term, how does Canada mitigate the impact of tariffs and potential tariffs on agriculture and food exports?

Second, what is the strategic plan to eliminate non-tariff and tariff trade barriers currently blocking Canadian agriculture and food exports?

Third, what is the strategic plan to diversify markets for Canadian agriculture and food exports?

The overarching goal of the task group should be to set out a clear plan that will preserve the integrated North American market for agriculture and food products and to eliminate tariff and non-tariff trade barriers around the world.

The effort to develop a strategic plan cannot only be carried out by governments. There is also work to be done by farm groups and industry stakeholders.

There are more than 400 farm groups across Canada. This means that governments do not always receive a coherent consensus position from the sector. If the minister receives 400 different opinions, they face a risky policy position where any action would be subject to opposition by somebody. Lack of consensus within agriculture opens the door for governments to do nothing.

It is incumbent upon farmers, those who represent farmers, food processors and manufacturers to develop clear policy proposals aimed at the expansion of agriculture and food exports.

Agriculture and food trade is not just a matter of economic policy, it is also a national security issue, given the increasingly less stable geopolitical environment. This is especially true for the three countries who are signatories to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). Canadian farmers can help deliver a reliable and safe food supply for consumers. This value from Canadian agriculture must be demonstrated in the strategic plan for agriculture and food trade and emphasized in upcoming trade discussions, including the impending review of CUSMA.

The recent election campaign saw the major parties promising a new approach to trade policy to respond to growing protectionism in both North America and around the world. The new federal government, including the new ag minister, has an opportunity to put these promises into action for farmers, processors and the millions of Canadians who work in the sector.

Current disruptions to world trade can be turned into opportunities for Canadian agriculture, but only if we see bold and decisive policy. The alternatives will be bad for farmers, bad for Canadian value-added processing and undermine the potential for growth in the Canadian economy.

Cam Dahl is general manager of the Manitoba Pork Council.

The post Trade policy matters, and Canadian agriculture needs to be on the board appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.