This is not meant to be a criticism of the council.

The decision to replace its agronomy focus with that of market development was made by a well-represented board, and it must be assumed that much thought went into the move.

The council has built up an extensive network of agronomists across the Prairies, and they played a significant role in expanding Canada’s canola acres.

The council says the conditions in which this network was established no longer exist.

Instead of a new industry in which growing canola was an unfamiliar endeavour for many producers, today’s environment is much more mature. Farmers have now been growing the crop for decades, and one could make the argument that they no longer require as much agronomic assistance as they once did.

Instead, says the council, it’s now time to refocus its efforts on increasing the volume of Canadian canola to meet domestic and export markets, developing and defending Canadian markets for canola and canola products and strengthening co-ordination and engagement with industry partners.

These are all worthy goals, and the council makes a compelling argument when it says that a mature canola sector doesn’t need the same level of agronomic information as it did when it was first starting out.

As well, resources are still available to growers when they need them.

While many farmers may be suspicious of agronomic information offered by companies that at the same time are trying to sell them canola seed and other inputs, there is also a thriving independent agronomy sector on the Prairies, although farmers must pay for these services.

As well, some provinces have more independent agronomic services than others.

For example, while Alberta doesn’t have a provincial oilseed specialist, the Saskatchewan government employs a provincial specialist, a pathologist, regional specialists and Agriculture Knowledge Centre staff. As well, SaskOilseeds has its own extension specialist. Manitoba has a provincial oilseed specialist, and the Manitoba Canola Growers are involved in research, agronomy and extension.

All of this is to say that the canola council’s decision to move away from field agronomy isn’t going to devastate the industry.

However, that said, it is still going to leave a gaping hole in the Prairies’ canola landscape.

The agronomists hired by the council and spread out across the Prairies were trusted by growers and seen as a reliable resource to which to turn when they had questions.

As well, an agronomist from Alberta recently told the Western Producer that he leaned heavily on the canola council’s specialists when he needed someone to validate an opinion or diagnosis.

Even this newspaper has relied on the information it received from canola council agronomists when covering the industry.

These top-notch experts had become an integral part of the canola industry, working with farmers and other agronomists and helping take the sector to where it is today.

The canola council’s new focus on markets will surely reap benefits, and growers will just need to be a bit more creative when looking for answers to their agronomy questions.

But make no mistake — the move is going to leave significant gaps in the business of growing canola.

The post Canola council agronomists had big impact on sector appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

A foreign policy analyst recently dismissed musings by U.S. president Donald Trump about the merits of his country annexing its northern neighbour as “trash talk.”

At first, that’s how many residents north of the border approached this bizarre episode in American-Canadian relations.

Prime minister Justin Trudeau has dismissed it as a distraction and even tells an amusing story about the ongoing saga.

According to the prime minister, the United States’ annexation of Canada came up in a conversation he had with Trump shortly after the American election. Trudeau says he responded by suggesting that maybe Canada could trade parts of itself for California and Vermont, and Trump “immediately decided that it was not that funny anymore and we moved onto a different conversation.”

Since that meeting, Trump has doubled down on his annexation argument multiple times.

At first blush, one could easily wonder what would be so terrible about Canada becoming part of the U.S.

We share very similar cultures, largely because of the Americans’ oversized influence in Canada.

Many argue that Canada would be so far removed from the D.C. power circle that it would be left with no voice in government. For farmers, the government support programs might change, but the business of producing food would continue.

And yet, with that said, many of us are still repulsed by the notion of joining the U.S.

Why is that? What makes us distinct from our southern neighbour?

Efforts to define a Canadian identity have been going on for as long as the country has existed.

Former prime minister Jean Chretien took a stab at it in a recent op ed that strenuously rejected merging with the U.S.

“We have built something here that is the envy of the world — when it comes to compassion, understanding, tolerance and finding a way for people of different backgrounds and faiths to live together in harmony,” he wrote.

That may be true, but those attributes can also be found in the U.S. and other countries around the world. They’re not exclusive to us.

What sets us apart is a shared history that is much different from what developed in the U.S. This has its roots in our origin story — one of evolution rather than revolution, two founding colonial cultures (French and English) instead of just one and a much lengthier relationship with Great Britain than what was seen in the U.S.

The results of this may be hard to define in so many words, but they’re real and have forged an identity of which we can all be proud.

Annexation musings may just be “trash talk,” but they should also unite us in our full-throated support for this grand experiment we call Canada.

The post Concept of Canada hard to define, but worth defending appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“With them being located here in our own backyard, KAP will have a unique opportunity to be on the ground and bring forward the perspectives of Manitoba producers to help inform their work,” Brenna Mahoney, general manager of Keystone Agricultural Producers, said during the agency’s official launch in Winnipeg Oct. 16.

“We look forward to engaging with their team in meaningful discussions to highlight the importance of water and environmental stewardship to Manitoba producers’ operations.”

The goodwill shown toward the new federal initiative should come as no surprise, considering the important role water plays in all aspects of agriculture. We hope this amicable relationship continues.

However, a deeper dive into the agency’s mandate raises potential red flags that must be addressed.

The mandate includes protecting Canada from water pollution, and according to the federal government, that includes damaging effects from industrial and agricultural activities.

Farmers should not get a free pass if their activities threaten water quality, but past experience shows that governments can be ham-fisted when it comes to suggesting solutions to a problem.

Ottawa’s targets for reducing emissions from fertilizer are a good example. The policy wonks who came up with those targets probably didn’t realize they were walking into a minefield. From their perspective, who could argue with a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with fertilizer application by 30 per cent below 2020 levels by 2030?

They even added an assurance on a website — and in bold face, for good measure — that “there is no mandatory reduction in fertilizer use on Canadian farms.”

The architects of this initiative likely thought they were golden, but it didn’t work out as planned. Producer response was hostile, and it was obvious that many thought the targets would become mandatory rather than voluntary.

This can be partly explained by the deep suspicion many farmers hold for the current federal government, but it also showed that Ottawa did a miserable job of communicating the voluntary nature of the targets and their overall purpose.

Instead of dictating targets from the top down, government should have worked with farm groups and individual farmers from the start.

There’s a lesson here for the new water agency. Working closely with farmers, which many of them clearly anticipate, is much better than ambushing them with proposals that sound like a done deal.

There is also a lesson for farmers. Of those who participated in online consultations over the fertilizer emissions targets, 54 per cent were from the general public and 38 per cent were producers.

Farmer participation should have been much higher, considering the importance of the targets, voluntary or not.

If the Canada Water Agency holds similar consultations, farmers should ensure they make up the lion’s share of those who comment.

Ultimately, government must remember that farmers play a pivotal role in land and water management. Treating them as part of the solution rather than part of the problem can mitigate future resistance.

Engaging with producers in a constructive rather than confrontational manner doesn’t seem like too much to ask.

Karen Briere, Bruce Dyck, Barb Glen, Michael Robin, Robin Booker and Laura Rance collaborate in the writing of theseeditorials.

The post Canada Water Agency needs farmers at the table appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.