Yi Zeng, senior director for Asia and global commodities at the Saskatchewan Trade and Export Partnership (STEP), said the area has high population and strong purchasing power.

China and India each have markets of 1.4 billion people, and 12 other major countries have about 600 million combined.

Zeng said the markets are there, as long as exporters know what they are getting into.

WHY IT MATTERS: Canada exported about $685 million worth of organic products in 2023 and continues to seek additional markets.

He includes Japan, South Korea and Taiwan as “Tier 1” countries because they have organic equivalency agreements with Canada. However, in South Korea, that includes only retail packaged foods and not commodities.

Japan presents an interesting proposition for organic exporters because of the health-conscious, aging population and the concept of living an organic life.

“They’re not only eating organic, they use everything organic,” he told the recent Advancing Organics conference in Regina.

They favour clothing made from organic cotton and silk, for example.

“Organic grain and organic pulses and also the organic ingredients for bakery purposes are the major products we can sell into Japan,” Zeng said.

Consumer cultures differ

However, he said exporters should keep in mind that Japanese consumers shop differently than those in North America. They shop daily after work instead of stocking up for a week or more. Packaging requirements are different because the purchases are carried home.

Honey is a good example.

In Canada, someone might buy a kilogram or more of honey. In Japan, “they are packing honey like we do cosmetics,” he said.

Small packages of 30 to 100 grams are better suited to the market. Similar packages would be required in Singapore and Hong Kong, he said.

Japan does not accept flax for human consumption.

Regardless of whether the flax is organic or conventional, the genetically modified content has to be zero. Japan also requires cyanide and glyphosate levels lower than 10 parts per million, Zeng said.

“All naturally grown flax in Saskatchewan, in Canada, cannot meet this safety standard,” he said.

Roasting the flax can be a way around this because it lowers those levels, but most imported flax is used for industrial purposes.

Hemp is another product to be cautious about when exporting.

Only Japan and South Korea accept it under their own national standards.

To meet Japanese specifications, the seeds must be treated so they don’t germinate. In South Korea, hemp seeds are considered a super food, but they must be hulled to be accepted.

Zeng said organic wheat, oats and barley are widely imported. Barley tea is popular, and both Japan and South Korea look for an organic pearl barley to make this product.

South Korea does not accept wild rice or quinoa and considers them both rice, even though neither of them are.

It also has a honey import quota of 200 tonnes from Canada, and Zeng said he knows of one major company that takes the majority of that quota. It would be difficult for an individual organic honey producer to gain much of the market.

Both countries have free trade agreements with Canada and rely on it for food security, he added.

Taiwan does not accept hemp, and none of the other countries aside from Japan and South Korea do.

Other markets, different challenges

Zeng considers the two city state countries of Singapore and Hong Kong as the second tier. Singapore has about five million people and Hong Kong seven million, and neither has farmland to produce what they need.

They will accept Canadian organic certification, although they don’t have official agreements, he said.

“Because they are more like cities, they are more interested in retail packaged organic products or the ingredients which they can use for bakery purposes,” he said.

Organic demand is small, and pretty much any product can enter except hemp.

Tier 3 markets include China and South Korea for commodities. Products have to be recertified to enter these markets.

Zeng said China should not be ignored because it already buys a lot of organic products from Saskatchewan, particularly for making plant proteins for beverages, starch and ingredients for the health industry.

He classifies emerging markets as Tier 4, saying the organic market hasn’t reached the same level as other countries in the region due to economic levels. These countries, which include India, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Pakistan, need food and they aren’t necessarily picky when it comes to conventional or organic.

Zeng encouraged potential exporters to participate in trade missions with STEP and said the organization can help with things such as paperwork.

He also said they can meet international buyers at the Saskatchewan-Asia Trade Conference in Regina in September.

The post Indo-Pacific seen as potential organics market appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Organic producers continue to be at the mercy of recommendations and results from conventional variety testing.

That’s according to Michelle Carkner, a research associate in the natural systems agriculture department at the University of Manitoba and speaker at the 2025 Advancing Organics conference in Saskatoon.

“Organic farmers are under a lot more pressure than conventional,” she said. “But the data that is shared in the Seed Manitoba guides are all under conventional management, so then we have to think independently of, ‘What combination of plant traits do we want in the organic system’?”

WHY IT MATTERS: Organic cropping is much different from conventional farming, but organic producers are often left with data based on conventional production.

Carkner has been researching the adaptability of different wheat varieties for organic production.

Based on her experiences and research, correlations between yield and organic sought traits, as well as other organics research from across the Prairies, she’s developed a list of what’s most important for organic producers to look for in variety selection:

• fast germination,
• ability to positively interact with the biological nutrient supply,
• early season vigour,
• plants that can withstand mechanical weed control,
• height,
• strong biomass accumulation, and
• good disease and insect resistance.

Early season vigour, height, and biomass accumulation are all important in a crop that will be competing against weeds without the help of chemical control. But conventional wheat crops have been moving away from the tall stalks that might be better for organic. Lodging concerns have instead made semi-dwarf crops more on-trend.

Furthermore, not all of those qualities appear in seed guides. For farmers looking at their seed guide, Carkner has a shorter list of things they should be looking at:

• disease resistance
• height
• seed size
• variety blends
• Sm1 genes that indicate wheat midge tolerance
• yield

“One thing that you can think about is highlighting some traits that are of interest first, and then narrowing it down to the varieties that yield just as well, or even better than the check,” she said.

When looking for these qualities, she recommends using several colours of pens or highlighters to narrow down the options: one colour for varieties with two valuable traits, another for three, and so on.

One disease warning was regarding bunt and smuts. For organic producers, it could be a breaking point, as the seed-borne disease is extremely difficult to eliminate without chemical treatment, she noted.

Another consideration for weed competition is kernel weight and seed size, she said. A larger seed relates to early vigour and weed competitiveness.

“We did some preliminary research on this in Manitoba,” Carkner said. “We looked at wheat seed size effect on the final yield. And so essentially, what we did was we took farmer-saved seed and we sieved it to different sizes and, at least in wheat, we saw a 23 per cent yield increase with larger seed size and then a 26 per cent docking decrease.”

They saw similar positive results when the research was replicated in barley and oats.

The post THROWBACK: Optimizing crop selection for Prairie organic producers appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The Organic and Regenerative Research Program, led by Myriam Fernandez, was a casualty of the federal agriculture cuts announced last month that included several research farm closures.

Fernandez started looking at low-input farming and organics about 20 years ago.

SaskOrganics said the long-term field trials and data provided value that can’t easily be replaced. It was the only program of its kind within Agriculture Canada.

In a joint statement, Canadian Organic Growers and the Organic Federation of Canada said the decision to close research centres and wind down programs is alarming.

They urged agriculture minister, Heath MacDonald, to stop the closures, preserve and protect ongoing research, invest more in research and extension and continue to fund the Organic Science Cluster 4.

WHY IT MATTERS: Organic crop research doesn’t attract as much financial backing as conventional crops, and Fernandez’s program was seen as meeting a strong need for the industry. The program also had plots at other locations, including Lacombe, Alta., which is closing.

SaskOrganics said Fernandez’s work on such areas as intercropping, biocontrol and living mulch was relevant to more than just low-input and regenerative producers because it sparked innovation.

“Closing a program focused on these production approaches at a time of growing interest and adoption is short-sighted and counterproductive,” it said.

President Will Oddie said the data from the program can only be obtained through applied research on land managed organically for the long term. Program plots at Swift Current have been in organic production for 19 years.

The associations said public research is critical for the organic sector because it doesn’t have a check-off system to raise research funds.

They are also concerned about the effect on public plant breeding, which is key for the organic sector to deliver region-specific, low-input and climate-resilient varieties.

“Efficiency does not come from dismantling the very programs designed to help farmers do more with less,” said COG executive director Karen Murchison.

“At a moment of strong organic demand in Canada and globally, we need more, not less, public research to ensure Canadian farmers can succeed.”

The organizations also noted the uncertainty about multi-year research trials that might be abandoned mid-cycle and how that will affect future scientific work.

“Research on agroecosystem resilience is essential infrastructure; cutting frontline capacity now will cost far more in the long term,” they said.

Meanwhile, Fernandez said she hoped to somehow save her program.

She said she wasn’t worried about her own job but that of young colleagues who had just begun what they thought would be a career in organic research.

The post AAFC organic research program cut appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Why it matters: The Canadian organic market is a $9.75 billion industry as of 2024, making it the fifth largest in a global market now worth more than $200 billion.

“Organic agriculture represents one of Canada’s most underused economic opportunities,” said Karen Murchison, executive director of Canadian Organic Growers, in a news release.

“This plan gives the government a clear roadmap to unlock billions in net farm income and help Canadian farmers and processors compete globally while driving growth here at home.”

The Canadian Organic Alliance, which includes the Canada Organic Trade Association, Canadian Organic Growers and the Organic Federation of Canada, announcing the launch of their Organic Action Plan for Canada on Wednesday.

The plan is organized around three pillars:

• Accelerating growth and innovation in organic production. This includes expanding research, training, and transition supports to increase domestic productivity and supply.
• Growing organic markets and demand, including by strengthening domestic and export markets through improved processing and distribution infrastructure, public procurement and education of organic and ensuring affordable consumer access.
• Strengthening policy, regulatory and data infrastructure. The plan calls for establishment of policy directions, modernization of regulations and improved access to data to guide organic development and uphold organic integrity.

“With shifting global trade dynamics and strong consumer demand, organic policy must shift from an enforcement-based approach to a strategic driver of economic growth,” said Canada Organic Trade Association executive director Tia Loftsgard.

“Canada has the standards, certification system and international credibility to lead. With the right policy framework, Canada can build supply, attract investment, and strengthen the organic value chain–while delivering the environmental and social benefits that consumers increasingly seek.”

According to the Alliance, the Canadian organic market reached $9.75 billion in 2024, making it the fifth largest organic sector in the world. However, the group said domestic organic production has stagnated, imports are rising, and Canadian processors are struggling to source Canadian organic ingredients.

The post Organic groups release public-private action plan for sector growth appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“Without enforceable standards and transparent labelling, consumers cannot be certain the pork they purchase hasn’t been altered through genetic engineering,” said duBreton president Vincent Breton in an Aug. 27 news release.

WHY IT MATTERS: Pigs are the latest agricultural product, and one of the most visible livestock species, to become a crux of the gene editing debate in Canada.

This summer, the federal government completed public consultation around regulation of pigs that are resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) due to gene editing.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared the pigs for use in the American food supply earlier this year, saying the edits are safe for pigs and for humans who consume pork.

However, according to a duBreton survey, 74 per cent of consumers are “concerned about gene-edited pork in their food supply and demand total transparency,” the news release said.

The problem of PRRS

The company behind the porcine gene editing technology has different numbers.

Survey results released by the Pig Improvement Company in early 2025 found that, following being given a description of both gene editing and the PRRS-resistant pig, almost half (49 per cent) of the surveyed were positive or very positive about the concept, 38 per cent were neutral and only 14 per cent were negative.

PRRS is among the disease issues that the pork sector would love beat out of their barns, particularly in breeding and farrowing operations, where the disease hits at an animal’s reproductive ability and causes stillbirths, mumified piglets, abortions and, in general, a steeper rate of piglet mortality.

One Unviersity of Guelph study in 2024 put the cost of a PRRS infection in a Manitoba 1,200-sow farrow to finish operation at $588,709-$631,602.

Clear standards

Pork company duBreton sells three lines of pork, according to its website: organic, humanely raised, and raised without antibiotics. It also holds certifications like Certified Humane Raised and Handled, and Global Animal Partnership.

The Canadian organic standards don’t allow gene-edited crops, livestock or material to be used in production. However, duBreton has been seeking clarity from other certification bodies and calling for them to take a clear stance against gene-edited pigs.

“Not being clear to the consumer and not giving him a chance to make a choice is wrong,” Breton said in an interview.

“We’ve not necessarily went to requesting a ban (on the use of gene editing), but at least, I mean, consumers should be aware.”

Breton said government-mandated labelling would be preferred, but at very least they’re looking to other certification bodies to take a stance against gene-edited animals.

Organic sector concerns

The Canadian organic sector has previously decried the lack of mandated transparency and traceability for gene-edited crops.

Health Canada deemed gene-edited crops safe for the food supply in 2022, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency released its guidance the next year. Federal guidance put most gene-edited crops on the same plane as conventionally bred varieties, as long at there’s no foreign DNA involved. No special labelling is required, though the government pledged a transparency steering committee and database.

A significant portion of the organic sector’s concern revolved around contamination of organic food supplies — for instance, due to cross-pollination or inadvertent purchasing of gene-edited seed varieties.

It argued that if it couldn’t guarantee food was free from gene-edited materials, it would lose credibility with consumers and trading partners.

Less risk of contamination

In the case of gene-edited livestock, the risk of cross-contamination is lower with livestock than with crops said Karen Murchison, executive director of Canadian Organic Growers.

Animals are less mobile than seed crops and are easier to track, Murchison said. However, the Canadian Organic Growers would still like to see mandatory labelling within the supply chain.

“We cannot see that livestock move into our production system,” she said. “Again, it’s really about that transparency and labelling.”

Breton said that since duBreton is largely vertically integrated, inadvertent use of edited genetics isn’t much of a risk for them. They can request guarantees from their genetic suppliers.

However, he said if certification bodies don’t take a firm stance on gene editing in their protocols, meat sold under those labels could include gene-edited pork.

It could confuse consumers or dilute claims like “natural,” he said.

“Here I have a natural product at a dollar a pound less, and I have this Certified Humane. What’s the real difference? … They can’t become specialists on everything they eat.”

The post Canadian company calls for transparency on gene-edited pigs appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“Without enforceable standards and transparent labelling, consumers cannot be certain the pork they purchase hasn’t been altered through genetic engineering,” said duBreton president Vincent Breton in an Aug. 27 news release.

This summer, the federal government completed public consultation around regulation of pigs that are resistant to Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) due to gene editing.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared the pigs for use in the American food supply earlier this year, saying the edits are safe for pigs and for humans who consume pork.

However, according to a duBreton survey, 74 per cent of consumers are “concerned about gene-edited pork in their food supply and demand total transparency,” the news release said.

Clear standards

DuBreton sells three lines of pork, according to its website: organic, humanely raised, and raised without antibiotics. It also holds certifications like Certified Humane Raised and Handled, and Global Animal Partnership.

The Canadian organic standards don’t allow gene-edited crops, livestock or material to be used in production. However, duBreton has been seeking clarity from other certification bodies and calling for them to take a clear stance against gene-edited pigs.

“Not being clear to the consumer and not giving him a chance to make a choice is wrong,” Breton said in an interview.

“We’ve not necessarily went to requesting a ban (on the use of gene editing), but at least, I mean, consumers should be aware.”

Breton said government-mandated labelling would be preferred, but at very least they’re looking to other certification bodies to take a stance against gene-edited animals.

Organic sector concerns

The Canadian organic sector has previously decried the lack of mandated transparency and traceability for gene-edited crops.

Health Canada deemed gene-edited crops safe for the food supply in 2022, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency released its guidance the next year. Federal guidance put most gene-edited crops on the same plane as conventionally bred varieties.

No special labelling is required, though the government pledged a transparency steering committee and database.

A significant portion of the organic sector’s concern revolved around contamination of organic food supplies — for instance, due to cross-pollination or inadvertent purchasing of gene-edited seed varieties.

It argued that if it couldn’t guarantee food was free from gene-edited materials, it would lose credibility with consumers and trading partners.

Less risk of contamination

In the case of gene-edited livestock, the risk of cross-contamination is lower with livestock than with crops said Karen Murchison, executive director of Canadian Organic Growers.

Animals are less mobile than seed crops and are easier to track, Murchison said. However, the Canadian Organic Growers would still like to see mandatory labelling within the supply chain.

“We cannot see that livestock move into our production system,” she said. “Again, it’s really about that transparency and labelling.”

Breton said that since duBreton is largely vertically integrated, inadvertent use of edited genetics isn’t much of a risk for them. They can request guarantees from their genetic suppliers.

However, he said if certification bodies don’t take a firm stance on gene editing in their protocols, meat sold under those labels could include gene-edited pork.

It could confuse consumers or dilute claims like ‘natural,’ he said.

“Here I have a natural product at a dollar a pound less, and I have this Certified Humane. What’s the real difference? … They can’t become specialists on everything they eat.”

The post Quebec pork company calls for transparency around gene-edited pigs appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Stefan Graner, an organic farmer near Paddockwood, Sask. has been utilizing FarmDroid, an autonomous seeding and weeding robot, for four years. Its efficiency and accuracy have proven to have strong economic benefits for him.

At between $150,000 to $180,000 they’re not cheap investments, even with federal funding available. But for Graner’s operation, the technology has been such a great addition that he now has three of the robots.

WHY IT MATTERS: A farm robot is proving to be an economical investment.

Graner and his wife made the switch to organic farming in 2018, after beginning their farm in the 1990s.

“We’re relatively small-scale,” he shared at the Saskatchewan Organics field day on July 31.

“I probably do a total of 750 acres myself. Of that, some is in cover crops, and maybe four to 500 or 450 are in crop this year.”

Typically, Graner seeds a crop for two years and follows with two to three years of cover crops. But the field he showed off at the field day had been cropped for four years, starting with mustard, then hemp, oats, and now black lentils.

The lentils were seeded by the FarmDroid, and have been weeded by it too. The robot has had its work cut out for it, though, as Graner shared there’s been plenty of volunteer oats in the crop and alfalfa — which was his cover crop from five years ago.

Weeding and seeding

It works best when weeds are smaller, since the machine has arms which act like “knives” to eliminate any weeds between the plants. But if the plants are too large, they can catch on the arms and be pulled out.

The best part of this for organic and horticulture producers is that, not only does it get between the rows but between the plants themsleves.

This severely limits the robbing of moisture that weeds typically do in a crop.

Additionally, the arms only go into the soil about a half inch, so deep rooted weeds aren’t easily eliminated. Because of this, Graner typically pairs it with and interrow cultivator to limit large weeds between the rows.

When it comes to seeding, the machine works pretty smooth. It will seed approximately 1.25 acres per hour — as it has a max speed of one kilometre per hour — only stopping if seed is empty, battery is low, or weather conditions prevent seeding.

“These can have an additional battery pack and run 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” said Mark Weber, FrontLink territory manager and a FarmDroid distributor.

“The solar panels, typically, especially at this time of year, they’ll easily fill up the batteries and keep you running. Most guys, if they’re running two batteries, they’re getting till two, three in the morning, it stops and then, usually within half an hour of the sun being up, it’ll fire itself back up, and away it goes.”

The seed hoppers, of which there is four, each holds six liters. With this capacity, if Graner is seeding mustard, lentils, or hemp he’ll fill it in the morning and once at night.

More efficient

He’s noticed that with the robot, less seed is being used. After seeding his lentils, he was still left with a partial bag, even though he’d done his calculations correctly.

Weber added that this has been noticed by other producers as well, both small scale and horticultural producers. He explained that due to the advanced precision, the FarmDroid is able to ensure greater accuracy resulting in less seed.

And, thus far, there’s been no effect to yields. Rather, Graner and Weber’s other clients have all said they’ve seen an increase when compared to conventional seeding practices. Between the accuracy of seeding and precision of weeding, there’s an overall better use of both land and moisture.

But there are problems with the robot when it comes to larger seeds like oats, peas, and even wheat. The largest possible seed size, currently, is eight millimeters. Last year, Graner tried to use it to seed wheat but ran into some issues.

“I wanted to seed it just like I’d seeded the lentils in pods of one to three seeds every six inches, roughly, or so,” he said. “I would have seeded one little pod of seeds, just so I get, for sure, a plant growing. And after a few meteres or so, it plugged. The seeds were too big, the valve didn’t open, and the robot said, ‘no, not going to do it.’ It sent me a text message and stopped.”

After going back and unplugging it three times, Graner fully opened the seed valve and set it to a two-inch seed placement. While this got the seeding done, it didn’t allow for the robot to go back to weeding between the plants since the rows were no longer even.

Setting it up

Graner has had quite the learning curve with the robot, but he’s figured out the best ways to utilize his equipment for his operation.

On a smart phone, producer’s can use the machine’s camera to watch what’s happening, turn it on and off, receive notifications when it stops, and are told the reason for stopping.

Once he got the hang of it, Graner said it’s been super easy to program. If a producer know how to set up an auto-steer program, they’ll be able to do this.

It’s also very simple to input “obstacles” such as bush, sloughs, or driveways. These can even be added in after the initial programming, such as in cases of heavy rains that leave standing water.

The post Robot seeder and weeder efficient for organic crops appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Drafts of the proposed update and updated permitted substances list have circulated since spring. The Canadian General Standards Board launched a 60-day consultation period on the update May 30. Anyone wanting to comment has until July 29.

The changes come out of a two-year review process after industry called for a rule revamp in 2023, according to a July virtual event later posted to YouTube by the Organic Federation of Canada.

Various organic industry groups, including Manitoba Organics, joined forces July 4 for a virtual question and answer event outlining the draft rules.

Big changes include newly permitted use of a previously banned fertilizer, new thinking on treated fenceposts and new considerations on the required window between conventional management and organic.

“If there are changes that a bunch of farmers or industry people have that were not considered, those comments can be sent in and it will go back for discussion, where they’ll either have to change the wording, scrap it entirely until the next standard (review) or modify it before this standard is pushed into place,” said Manitoba Organics executive director Marika Dewar-Norosky.

The standards — based on recommendations from the producer organization’s technical committee — are reviewed every five years, said Dewar-Norosky.

“If this affects your farm in a way that’s not been anticipated, then we need to know about it so that we can change it.”

Should the new standards go ahead as written, organic producers would gain better access to struvite as a phosphorus fertilizer.

Struvite is the end result of crystallizing phosphorus from waste water to create a phosphorus product. But while struvite from municipal waste water has garnered attention as a possible win-win for agriculture and water nutrient loads, organic standards until this point have nixed the potential for human-sourced struvite.

That would change under the new draft rules.

The full list of viable struvite sources would include liquid animal manure or anaerobic digestate, biofuel waste and “municipal waste water that has undergone advanced treatment processes/systems capable of reducing impurities to levels below those attainable through conventional secondary or biological treatment.”

As of March 2025, there were no commercially available sources of manure-derived struvite in Canada, according to a Canadian Organics Standards backgrounder document. Industry could only get struvite sourced from municipal waste.

“The hope is that struvite from multiple sources will eventually become available,” it read.

“Permitting struvite from municipal waste water provides a source of phosphorus, which is greatly needed for alkaline P-deficient soils.”

Furthermore, the document noted, struvite from municipal waste water is already approved in the European Union.

“This decision was made after extensive study by the Expert Group for Technical Advice on Organic Production and the EU general fertilizer commission, which found this form of struvite to be safe for humans, animals and the environment (subject to purity restrictions),” the document read.

That’s a major change, said Dewar-Norosky. Organic standards in Canada have traditionally disallowed the use of municipal or human sources for organic products. It’s currently allowed in conventional agriculture.

“This has been changed to allow struvite as a phosphorus input on organic farms and for farms like my own in western Manitoba, where we don’t have manure readily available,” she said.

“It’s going to be a game changer in being able to buy a renewable source of phosphorus.”

It will also benefit adjacent water bodies, she noted.

“This is essentially taking phosphorus out of our waste system that is contributing to things like algae blooms in Lake Winnipeg and allowing farmers to use it in their fields as fertilizer.”

Last year, the City of Winnipeg and fertilizer company Ostara announced that the city waste-water plant upgrades would include nutrient reclaiming technology to generate struvite agricultural fertilizer.

The announcement was pitched as good news for nutrient overloaded Lake Winnipeg, which is a perrenial hot button topic in the province and an often-cited schism between agriculture and environmental policy.

Most organic farmers in Manitoba approve of the change in direction, but there is still some hesitation based on possible negative consumer reaction and international trade implications.

“We’re doing a lot of work to really reinforce the education around this being allowed,” said Dewar-Norosky.

Ian Cushon with the Moose Creek Organic Farm Partnership in Oxbow, Sask., is the producer who first proposed bringing struvite to the table. There’s “very little opposition” to this amendment, particularly in parts of Western Canada where low soil phosphorus is a problem, he said.

“There is some concern (about struvite) from Quebec, where there is lots of animal manure available and less issues with low P,” Cushon said via email.

“Quebec and Ontario are unlike the Prairies, where we have a shortage of animal manure for the relatively large amount of organic acres. Of course, that depends on the region and where the organic acres are.”

Prairie soils have abundant phosphourus in some places, but much is unavailable to plants for a number of reasons, he wrote, “and it is a relatively slow process to make P more available without the addition of manure or other outside sources.”

He also pointed to phosphorus trials done in co-operation with the University of Manitoba. Those included struvite, and the fertilizer performed well, he said.

In another change, treated wood fence posts would be allowed as perimeter fencing to keep out wildlife and non-organic livestock. This was previously disallowed based on the toxicity of older wood treatments.

That’s changed somewhat, said Dewar-Norosky. Modern treatments are “far less caustic” than they used to be, and there are also few alternatives for farmers.

“It’s really prohibitive in the Prairies to get non-treated posts such as metal, plastic and concrete,” she said.

“This has been under review for a few years, and this year, (the technical committee) decided that there’s enough evidence to support that fence posts that are treated are allowed as perimeter fencing.… (It’s) going to make installing fencing on organic acres significantly easier.”

The change would only go as far as the perimeter, however. Treated posts would not be allowed for cross-fencing.

Under the draft standards, treated fence posts still cannot come into contact with organic crops, including roots.

“Realistically, your machinery is not going close enough to your fence posts that any contamination in the direct soil won’t be touching your crops,” Dewar-Norosky said.

A slide presented during the virtual Q&A noted that some wood perservatives are still toxic, although less so than the old products.

However, “due to the importance of livestock on an organic farm, and the fact that many organic farms don’t certify their livestock, the allowance for perimeter fencing was made under certain conditions.”

Another amendment increases allowed time for a producer to go back to organic farming after shifting to conventional — from 36 months to five years.

Those who have accidentally broken some organic rules still have 36 months before they can transition back to organic.

“The goal of the system is to have sustainable organic farms that are trying to farm with good, healthy crop rotations — not just gaming the system essentially and threading in and out,” said Dewar-Norosky.

The amendment is intended to make it “a little more difficult” for producers who have gone conventional to regain their organic-certified status, she said.

There are exceptions in cases of accidental non-compliance. Dewar-Norosky would have been among those looking for that exemption at one point.

”I, as a farmer, lost our certification because we were accidentally sprayed. That’s an exception where we waited 36 months. We still had to do the full process, but there was no further penalty. If you intentionally take your crops out of organic, you can’t just wait 36 months and go back to organic.”

The draft copy of the new standards forbids alternating between organic and non-organic management, but with exceptions for “catastrophic” or “uncontrollable factors.”

In these cases, “the operator may take land out of organic management, provided that … the operator submits written notice to the certification body of the intent to alternate and justification of why organic status cannot be maintained, and receives conditional approval prior to the use of substances or methods prohibited by this standard.”

Approval will be based on a written action plan. It must include details of substances and practices to be used, a timeline for transitioning the land back to organic management and a description of how the organic plan will be amended to avoid the issue from happening again, if possible. It also calls for compliance with requirements to transition land back to organic standards.

According to a survey on the exception put out by the Organic Federation of Canada, 59 per cent felt it should be allowed “only in certain situations.” Five per cent thought it should be allowed once and 23 per cent thought it should never be allowed.

Only 12 per cent felt organic farmers should be allowed to switch back and forth between conventional and organic production with a 36 month window in between.

“So generally, the producers that responded to surveys felt strongly that people shouldn’t be moving in and out of organic production,” said Dewar-Norosky.

Anyone wanting to comment on the standards changes can do so on the Organic Federation of Canada website at organicfederation.ca.

“That’s also where you can read the organic standard draft. It goes over all of the changes in another column with rationale explaining why this change was made for every single change,” Dewar-Norosky said.

She also feels consumers and conventional farmers don’t understand how much work and oversight goes into becoming — and remaining — organic producers.

“It includes a field inspection, a grain truck inspection, a signed affidavit that the truck is properly cleaned out by a certified organic holder, so anyone that is holding organic grain also has to be inspected and certified to a processor that is inspected and certified,” she said.

“Every step of the way, everyone that touches that grain has to be inspected and certified to ensure there’s no cross-contamination within our food chain.”

The post Producers wrestle over organic standards draft appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Drafts of the proposed update and updated permitted substances list have circulated since spring. The Canadian General Standards Board launched a 60-day consultation period on the update May 30. Anyone wanting to comment has until July 29.

WHY IT MATTERS: Canada’s organic sector is looking for rules that preserve the integrity of their differentiated products while also supporting farm production.

The changes come out of a two-year review process after industry called for a rule revamp in 2023, according to a July virtual event later posted to YouTube by the Organic Federation of Canada.

Various organic industry groups, including Manitoba Organics, joined forces July 4 for a virtual question and answer event outlining to draft rules.

Big changes include newly permitted use of a previously banned fertilizer, new thinking on treated fenceposts and new considerations on the required window between conventional management and organic.

“If there are changes that a bunch of farmers or industry people have that were not considered, those comments can be sent in and it will go back for discussion where they’ll either have to change the wording, scrap it entirely until the next standard (review) or modify it before this standard is pushed into place,” said Manitoba Organics executive director Marika Dewar-Norosky.

The standards — based on recommendations from the producer organization’s technical committee — are reviewed every five years, said Dewar-Norosky.

“If this affects your farm in a way that’s not been anticipated, then we need to know about it so that we can change it.”

New struvite sources to be allowed

Should the new standards go ahead as written, organic producers would gain better access to struvite as a phosphorus fertilizer.

Struvite is the end result of crystallizing phosphorus from wastewater to create a phosphorus product. But while struvite from municipal wastewater has garnered attention as a possible win-win for agriculture and water nutrient loads, organic standards until this point have nixed the potential for human-sourced struvite.

That would change under the new draft rules. The full list of viable struvite sources would include liquid animal manure or anaerobic digestate, biofuel waste and “municipal wastewater that has undergone advanced treatment processes/systems capable of reducing impurities to levels below those attainable through conventional secondary or biological treatment.”

As of March 2025, there were no commercially available sources of manure-derived struvite in Canada, according to a Canadian Organics Standards backgrounder document. Industry could only get struvite sourced from municipal waste.

“The hope is that struvite from multiple sources will eventually become available,” it read. “Permitting struvite from municipal wastewater provides a source of phosphorus — which is greatly needed for alkaline P-deficient soils.”

Furthermore, the document noted, struvite from municipal wastewater is already approved in the European Union.

“This decision was made after extensive study by the Expert Group for Technical Advice on Organic Production and the EU general fertilizer commission, which found this form of struvite to be safe for humans, animals and the environment (subject to purity restrictions),” the document read.

That’s a major change, said Dewar-Norosky. Organic standards in Canada have traditionally disallowed the use of municipal or human sources for organic products. It’s currently allowed in conventional agriculture.

“This has been changed to allow struvite as a phosphorus input on organic farms and for farms like my own in western Manitoba, where we don’t have manure readily available,” she said. “It’s going to be a game changer in being able to buy a renewable source of phosphorus.”

It will also benefit adjacent water bodies, she noted.

“This is essentially taking phosphorus out of our waste system that is contributing to things like algae blooms in Lake Winnipeg and allowing farmers to use it in their fields as fertilizer.”

Last year, the City of Winnipeg and fertilizer company Ostara announced that the city wastewater plant upgrades would include nutrient reclaiming technology to generate struvite agricultural fertilizer.

The announcement was pitched as good news for nutrient overloaded Lake Winnipeg, which is a perrenial hot button topic in the province and a often-cited schism between agriculture and environmental policy.

Farmers ready to embrace struvite?

Most organic farmers in Manitoba approve of the direction change, but there is still some hesitation based on possible negative consumer reaction and international trade implications.

“We’re doing a lot of work to really reinforce the education around this being allowed,” said Dewar-Norosky.

Ian Cushon with the Moose Creek Organic Farm Partnership in Oxbow, Sask., is the producer who first proposed bringing struvite to the table. There’s “very little opposition” to this amendment, particularly in parts of Western Canada where low soil phosphorus is a problem, he said.

“There is some concern (about struvite) from Quebec where there is lots of animal manure available and less issues with low P,” Cushon said via email.

“Quebec and Ontario are unlike the Prairies, where we have a shortage of animal manure for the relatively large amount of organic acres. Of course, that depends on the region and where the organic acres are.”

Prairie soils have abundant phosphourus in some places, but much is unavailable to plants for a number of reasons, he wrote, “and it is a relatively slow process to make P more available without the addition of manure or other outside sources.”

He also pointed to phosphorus trials done in co-operation with the University of Manitoba. Those included struvite, and the fertilizer performed well, he said.

Relaxed stance on treated fence posts

In another change, treated wood fence posts would be allowed as perimeter fencing to keep wildlife and non-organic livestock out. This was previously disallowed based on the toxicity of older wood treatments.

That’s changed somewhat, said Dewar-Norosky. Modern treatments are “far less caustic” than they used to be, and there are also few alternatives for farmers to turn to.

“It’s really prohibitive in the Prairies to get non-treated posts such as metal, plastic and concrete,” she said. “This has been under review for a few years, and this year, (the technical committee) decided that there’s enough evidence to support that fence posts that are treated are allowed as perimeter fencing … (It’s) going to make installing fencing on organic acres significantly easier.”

The change would only go as far as the perimeter, however. Treated posts would not be allowed for cross-fencing.

Under the draft standards, treated fence posts still cannot come into contact with organic crops, including roots. “Realistically, your machinery is not going close enough to your fence posts that any contamination in the direct soil won’t be touching your crops,” Dewar-Norosky noted.

A slide presented during the virtual Q&A noted that some wood perservatives are still toxic, although less so than the old products, but “due to the importance of livestock on an organic farm, and the fact that many organic farms don’t certify their livestock, the allowance for perimeter fencing was made under certain conditions.”

Tightening leash on organic-conventional switching

Another amendment increases allowed time for a producer to go back to organic farming after shifting to conventional — from 36 months to five years.

Those who have accidentally broken some organic rules still have 36 months before they can transition back to organic.

“The goal of the system is to have sustainable organic farms that are trying to farm with good, healthy crop rotations — not just gaming the system essentially and threading in and out,” said Dewar-Norosky.

The amendment is intended to make it “a little more difficult” for producers who have gone conventional to regain their organic-certified status, she said.

There are exceptions in cases of accidental non-compliance. Dewar-Norosky would have been among those looking for that exemption at one point.

”I, as a farmer, lost our certification because we were accidentally sprayed. That’s an exception where we waited 36 months. We still had to do the full process but there was no further penalty. If you intentionally take your crops out of organic, you can’t just wait 36 months and go back to organic.”

The draft copy of the new standards forbids alternating between organic and non-organic management, but with exceptions for “catastrophic” or “uncontrollable factors.”

In these cases, “The operator may take land out of organic management, provided that … the operator submits written notice to the certification body of the intent to alternate and justification of why organic status cannot be maintained, and receives conditional approval prior to the use of substances or methods prohibited by this standard.”

Approval will be based on a written action plan. It must details of substances and practices to be used, a timeline for transitioning the land back to organic management, and a description of how the organic plan will be amended to avoid the issue from happening again, if possible. It also calls for compliance with requirements to transition land back to organic standards.

According to a survey on the exception put out by the Organic Federation of Canada, 59 per cent felt it should be allowed “only in certain situations.” Five per cent thought it should be allowed once and 23 per cent thought it should never be allowed.

Only 12 per cent felt organic farmers should be allowed to switch back and forth between conventional and organic production with a 36 month window in between.

“So generally, the producers that responded to surveys felt strongly that people shouldn’t be moving in and out of organic production,” said Dewar-Norosky.

Submitting feedback

Anyone wanting to comment on the standards changes can do so on the Organic Federation of Canada website at organicfederation.ca.

“That’s also where you can read the organic standard draft. It goes over all of the changes in another column with rationale explaining why this change was made for every single change,” Dewar-Norosky said.

She also feels consumers and conventional farmers don’t understand how much work and oversight goes into becoming — and remaining — organic producers. “It includes a field inspection, a grain truck inspection, a signed affidavit that the truck is properly cleaned out by a certified organic holder, so anyone that is holding organic grain also has to be inspected and certified to a processor that is inspected and certified.”

“Every step of the way, everyone that touches that grain has to be inspected and certified to ensure there’s no cross-contamination within our food chain,” she added.

The post New rules for organic farming on the table appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

If Canadian food manufacturers can’t count on a domestic supply of organic crops, it could mean more imports from foreign markets at a time when Canada’s trade future is already volatile. But to bridge the gap, producers will need more support than they’re getting, industry members say.

Why it matters: If Canadian companies can’t source enough organic Canadian crops, American or other foreign imports may be needed to fill the demand.

The demand for Canadian organic products is growing, both domestically and abroad said Katie Fettes, Director of Policy and Research at Canadian Organic Growers (COG).

“On the global and macroeconomic level, we’re seeing there’s an opportunity here,” Fettes said. “At the same time in Canada, our production has kind of stagnated.”

The Canadian organic market was valued at $9 billion in 2023, up from $6.3 billion in 2019, according to statistics from the Canada Organic Trade Association. In that four-year period, the numbers of certified organic acres and operators have stayed relatively the same.

This means the gap between Canada’s demand for organic goods and capacity to produce them is only widening.

Other countries investing more

Fettes said other world economies have seen economic and environmental potential in organic growing.

“G7 countries are seeing, you know, this is an opportunity and a kind of ready-made tool that we can take up and advance both environmental and economic goals at the same time,” she said.

According to upcoming research from Canadian Organic Growers, set to release in July, the U.S. spends eight times more per acre on organic than Canada. Japan spends nearly 80 times more, and the EU spends on average 200 times more. In Italy, it’s close to 900 times more.

Salma Fotovat, Sourcing and Procurement Director at Riverside Natural Foods, said she foresees problems if producers aren’t able to keep up with the processing sector’s demand.

“There’s going to be a supply and demand issue here,” she said, adding it may already be happening.

Fotovat said Riverside has tried to support organic farmers for stability’s sake.

“What we’ve done … is provide that stability of market access or market demand over multiple years,” she said. “We talk to our growers and kind of do multi-year contracts, which is not very common in the organic commodity space.”

“That gives them stability and line of sight that okay, if I continue to be in this space, if I continue to invest, there is home for the commodities that I work hard to grow.”

Organic farmers lack support

Riverside is a 12-year-old company, which has been growing 30 to 40 per cent year-over-year and uses 95 per cent organic ingredients, said Fotovat. With stagnating growth in production, Canadian farmers may not be able to meet that processing demand.

“Businesses can do a lot, and I think we’re trying to leverage our position, our scale, our network, our sphere of influence, to do that,” she said. “The demand is there; I think we need support on the supply side to be able to keep up.”

Extension supports are often lacking for organic growers said Ian Cushon, an organic grain farmer in Oxbow, Saskatchewan and Organic Task Force Co-Chair.

“There’s not very many agronomists that really understand organic agriculture,” he said.

Fotovat said companies like hers are taking those supports into their own hands.

“We support them (with) agronomists with tools, resources, networking around organic regenerative practices and how to adopt … practices that allow them to be more resilient, better soil health, better yields in time of drought.”

Fettes said the sector also needs better data, research and analysis — information government officials request when the sector asks for support.

Support through transition

One of the main barriers to organic production in Canada is the three-year period in which farmers must adhere to organic standards before being awarded organic certification.

Cushon said these short-term pains make it difficult for farmers to make the leap to organic. The organic task force recommends supporting farmers through the additional costs in that phase.

Fettes said the upcoming COG research suggests the financial setbacks of that three-year period almost always pay off eventually.

Cushon’s farm transitioned to organic in the early 1980s, while looking for new opportunities during a time of financial turmoil.

“Organic kind of came along, and that was an opportunity to become a little more resilient economically.”

He said consumer interest fell off during the 2008 financial crisis, but it bounced back significantly in the 2010s. This type of transition won’t be easy for all Canadian farms, though.

“It’s a really hard thing to predict,” he said. “There isn’t the kind of data collection there on supply and demand that you see in the conventional market with organic products.”

“There’s a chicken-and-egg scenario there that we’ve certainly grown the retail side, but we haven’t necessarily grown the production side to a level that attracts some of the bigger processors and some of the bigger retailers.”

Opportunity to invest

Fettes said she sees an opportunity for the government to go beyond its regulatory approach and invest in the sector.

“This is the time when Canada’s talking about investing and building the economy and building a stronger Canada,” she said. “This is the moment to move, for the organic sector, from a regulatory approach into a partnership and investing approach.”

This is an area where Canada can learn from its G7 peers.

“Many jurisdictions in Europe have been supporting organics with organic action like policy plans for a decade or two by now. They’re just a little bit further along,” Fettes said.

“There’s a huge opportunity to invest more, both in production for organics and also in organic market development.”

Cushon said there is potential for organic farming and many benefits many producers may not know about. But it’s a two-way street.

“There’s quite a long list of things I think we can do, and it it’s a matter whether the willingness is there to make that investment and to make sure that producers know that there are opportunities here.”

The post Demand for organic goods outpacing Canadian farmers’ ability to produce appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.