While wetlands sequester carbon, they also naturally release greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere. That means the impact of wetland drainage on net GHG emissions was previously difficult to determine.

Our new study, however, has found that widespread wetland drainage on Prairie farmland releases 2.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂-eq) per year. That’s equal to more than five per cent of Prairie agricultural emissions from the industry as a whole. CO₂-eq is a metric used to to compare emissions from different greenhouse gases by converting amounts of those gases to the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.

Our research team included Darrin Qualman from the National Farmers Union, Sydney Jensen, a then-graduate student at the University of Regina, as well as Murray Hidlebaugh and Scott Beaton, independent farmers in the Canadian Prairies.

Some tout wetland drainage as providing numerous benefits to agriculture. In addition to increasing arable land area, proponents argue that “proper drainage management … reduces the carbon footprint by cutting down equipment operation time, fuel and emissions, reduces the impacts of extreme weather events, and decreases overland flooding and nutrient washouts.”

This assertion of the environmental benefits associated with wetland drainage is not supported by science. Our work highlights a large increase in the carbon footprint associated with wetland drainage rather than a reduction, while other work documents impacts on streamflows and nutrient export, and the loss of ducks and other birds.

The impacts of draining wetlands

To quantify the net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with wetland drainage, our approach was to quantify GHG sources when wetlands are intact, and compare them with sources after drainage takes place to understand the net effect of wetland removal on emissions. The annual rate of wetland loss from existing data (10,820 hectares per year) was used to quantify associated carbon emissions for the region.

Intact wetlands emit GHGs such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, so their removal eliminates these natural emissions from the landscape. The presence of wetlands in fields can also require repeated machinery passes and lead to double fertilization around wetland margins, both of which contribute to GHG emissions.

When wetlands are drained, carbon-rich sediments are exposed to the air, allowing rapid decomposition and the release of carbon dioxide. Drainage also expands cropland area, leading to additional GHG emissions from farming activities on the newly cultivated land. It often requires the removal of rings of willow trees surrounding wetlands, with the resulting debris typically burned or composted, producing further emissions.

Our results show that the amount of carbon dioxide released from exposed soil from drained wetlands far exceeded any other source. This was much larger than emissions when wetlands were intact, including natural wetland emissions and emissions from multiple passes with machinery. Additional emissions from farming the former wetland and the removal of vegetation also made a small contribution to the overall balance.

Overall, we estimate that wetland drainage contributes to an annual increase in emissions of at least 2.1 million tonnes CO₂-eq (recognizing that stored carbon will be released over a multi-year period). It is worth noting that this includes natural emissions from intact wetlands, but emissions that are not human-caused are not typically targeted in an effort to achieve GHG reductions.

For example, reducing methane emissions from livestock is a strategy to reduce agricultural GHG emissions, but emissions from wild animals are not considered or incorporated in the same way. Our estimate swells to 3.4 million tonnes of CO₂-eq per year when we exclude natural wetland GHG emissions; this represents an increase of approximately eight per cent above currently quantified GHG emissions from the agricultural industry in the Prairie provinces.

Canada’s GHG Inventory

Canada uses a National Inventory Report to quantify GHG emissions from different jurisdictions and industries, but emissions associated with wetland drainage are not currently included. Emissions of 3.4 million tonnes of CO₂-eq from a single year of wetland drainage are substantial and exceed several emission sources currently described in the report.

For example, emissions from wetland destruction are greater than agricultural emissions from gasoline combustion in trucks or from poultry and swine manure in the Prairie provinces. Including emissions from wetland drainage in the National Inventory Report would provide a more accurate accounting of total agricultural emissions and better position the country to meet its climate commitments.

Prairie farmers play a key stewardship role in this landscape — preserving wetlands on their land provides a public good. Retaining wetlands would create many additional benefits: maintaining wildlife habitats, groundwater recharge, nutrient retention, as well as drought and flood mitigation. These wetland services help address global and regional crises related to biodiversity loss, climate change, lake eutrophication and flooding.

Research shows there is public willingness to pay to restore wetlands in the Prairie provinces. There is additionally a need to reduce conflict and increase collaboration in conversations on agricultural water management in the Canadian Prairies and develop policies that incentivize and enable landowners to consider the environmental benefits of wetlands in their decision making. By better understanding the costs of GHG emissions resulting from wetland drainage, we can better preserve wetlands in the Canadian Prairies.

—Kerri Finlay is a professor in the University of Regina’s biology department, Colin Whitfiled is an associate professor in the University of Saskatchewan’s School of Environment and Sustainability and Lauren Bortolotti is an adjust professor in the University of Saskatchewan’s School of Environment and Sustainability.

The post OPINION: Draining wetlands produces substantial emissions in the Canadian Prairies appeared first on Country Guide.

The assessment by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, three years in the making and signed off by more than 150 governments, is expected to guide policymaking across multiple sectors.

WHY IT MATTERS: Construction, food, pharmaceuticals and infrastructure are among the sectors most exposed to biodiversity loss, research firm Zero Carbon Analytics said, though most companies face risks through their supply chains.

Written by 79 experts worldwide, the report pointed to “inadequate or perverse” incentives, weak institutional support and enforcement, and “significant” data gaps as key obstacles to progress.

It builds on a 2024 pledge by countries to protect 30 per cent of land and sea by 2030, followed last year by a plan to spend US$200 billion on the effort – still far short of the finance flowing into activities that damage nature.

‘Blind spot’

Despite the need for “transformative change,” US$7.3 trillion in public and private funds was going to nature-harming activities, the authors said, citing 2023 data.

“This Report draws on thousands of sources, bringing together years of research and practice into a single integrated framework that shows both the risks of nature loss to business, and the opportunities for business to help reverse this,” said Matt Jones (UK), one of three co-chairs of the assessment.

“Businesses and other key actors can either lead the way towards a more sustainable global economy or ultimately risk extinction … both of species in nature, but potentially also their own.”

The report said companies can act now by setting ambitious targets and embedding them in corporate strategy; strengthening auditing, monitoring and performance assessments; and innovating in products, processes and services.

Fewer than one per cent of public companies disclose biodiversity impacts, it added.

Construction, food, pharmaceuticals and infrastructure are among the sectors most exposed to biodiversity loss, research firm Zero Carbon Analytics said, though most companies face risks through their supply chains.

Paul Polman, the former boss of consumer goods company Unilever, said business strategy was about managing risk and building resilience, yet nature “has barely featured in that equation”.

“The IPBES assessment shows that this blind spot is now becoming one of the defining economic risks of our time.”

The post Biodiversity loss a risk to global economy, IPBES report says appeared first on Country Guide.

At a panel titled Sustainability Disclosure in Canada: Overcoming the Headwinds, hosted by the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board (CSSB), speakers discussed the challenges and opportunities for Canadian businesses as international trading partners increasingly look for environmental, social and governance (ESG) transparency.

Eight out of Canada’s 10 biggest trading partners either have or will soon have mandatory disclosure rules — including those in the Indo-Pacific region, an emerging market for Canada’s agri-food sector, said Canadian Sustainability Standards Board chair Wendy Berman.

She called Canadian Sustainability Standards the “ticket to play” in a global market which may also be moving toward sustainability disclosure practices.

Canadian standards in the global market

Companies do not need to be perfect, only rigorous, Berman said.

“If you communicate that rigour, and you put sunlight around the main assumptions, which our standards tell you to, then that is what you’re communicating to the market.”

Berman said the standards board is helping Canadian companies address the market’s needs by looking at global reporting baselines and adding changes to reflect the uniqueness of the Canadian market.

“What we also have is a Canadian version of proportionality mechanisms,” she said. “What we’re saying to the market is ‘It’s okay, build capacity on these items and continue to do that so that you’re ready to enter the global market’.”

Ontario Securities Commission CEO Grant Vingoe said Canada will need to follow a global baseline if it wishes to continue on the path of market diversification. He said he hears many investors express frustration at a lack of a consistent global framework, forcing them to rely on private sources.

Disclosure fatigue

Canada is in a “pivotal moment for sustainability in Canada,” one “full of complexity and uncertainty and also real possibility,” said Elizabeth Dove, executive director of the UN Global Compact Network Canada.

“Over the last few years, Canadian companies have stepped up,” Dove said. “They’ve adopted climate action strategies. They’ve incorporated ESG into governance and risk. They’ve built systems to measure, disclose and manage sustainability performance. But let’s be honest, it hasn’t been easy.”

There has been fatigue around disclosure, and some businesses are now asking if the measures are necessary — particularly if they seem to hamper the company’s ambitions.

“We cannot allow ambition to be the casualty of uncertainty,” Dove said.

“Climate change is not waiting for regulatory clarity.”

Adoption of ESG will likely increase as the means of measuring climate risks improve, said Peter Routledge, superintendent of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

“Guess what? As you measure the risk more effectively, boards of directors and senior management teams will make really smart decisions about how to invest to counteract that risk,” Routledge said.

“That’s the beauty of market capitalism at work.”

“It is not a regulatory burden for the sake of increasing costs to in pursuit of some abstract virtue,” Routledge said. “That’s the last thing we’re interested in. What we’re interested in is creating management and risk measurement discipline to elevate and improve and sustain shareholder value.”

The post Sustainability disclosure ‘ticket to play’ in emerging global market appeared first on Country Guide.

The reports, released on March 20, highlight the relatively small environmental footprint of Canadian non-durum wheat, durum wheat, barley, and oats, when compared to top producing countries.

“Canada is a global leader in the production of high-quality, nutritious, and sustainable cereal grains,” said Mark Walker, Cereals Canada’s vice-president of markets and trade. “These reports confirm that Canadian farmers grow some of the most sustainable crops in the world.”

The reports stack Canada up against Australia, France, Italy, Sweden, and the U.S., tracking six sustainability indicators—carbon footprint, soil health, fertilizer use, irrigation, pesticides and erosion. By these measures, Canadian cereals consistently stand out.

For example, the carbon footprint of Canadian wheat is significantly lower per tonne of grain than wheat from the United States or Australia. That’s thanks to soils that lock in carbon. Practices like reduced tillage, diverse crop rotations, and cover cropping have boosted carbon sequestration and cut soil erosion, turning Canadian soils into a substantial CO2 sink.

“Canadian farmers have responded to demands for sustainable food production by adopting technologies and conservation management practices that have reduced the environmental impact of Canadian grain production,” said Walker. “These reports will be a useful tool in helping us communicate the sustainability of Canadian cereals to our global customers in existing and potential markets, and to policy makers here at home.”

The post Reports showcase Canada’s environmental edge in cereal production appeared first on Country Guide.

However, with the federal government in disarray after the Dec. 16 surprise resignation of former finance minister and deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland, the strategy may never see the light of day.

Pundits suggested her resignation, along with several others in recent weeks, indicates non-confidence in prime minister Justin Trudeau, and an election could come sooner rather than later.

Trudeau had not spoken publicly at time of writing.

Freeland resigned just hours before she was to deliver the fall economic statement and days after she said Trudeau asked her to leave finance for another portfolio.

The statement was to be tabled later Dec. 16, but without a speech from the finance minister.

In it, farmers were looking for possible announcements on extended interswitching and capital gains measures.

In the meantime, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Canola Council of Canada, Cereals Canada, Grain Growers of Canada, Pulse Canada and Soy Canada issued a statement Dec. 16 regarding their concerns about the strategy.

They said Canadian agriculture is already the most sustainable in the world, and the strategy must contain measures that are practical, science-based, market driven and beneficial for the entire sector as well as the environment.

“Together, we have consistently voiced that there is a lack of industry alignment regarding the targets and actions proposed in the SAS. As a result, we have collectively decided to step back from the advisory committee, as the strategy’s direction does not fully represent the interests of our members,” they said.

The organizations also said they would continue to work with the government on market access, research, innovation and supply chain resiliency.

None would comment further.

Annie Cullinan, spokesperson for agriculture minister Lawrence MacAulay, said farmers are facing many climate threats, and customers are looking for quality, sustainable products. She said the six organizations said they will not participate in the strategy at large, not just the advisory committee.

“It’s deeply disappointing that these organizations have chosen to step away from this important initiative,” she said. “Every opportunity was taken by minister MacAulay to ensure the voices of grain and oilseed farmers would be heard loud and clear in the strategy. We will continue to work hand in hand with farm groups who believe in the importance of improving environmental sustainability in Canadian agriculture.”

The strategy is supposed to be a roadmap to balance environmental sustainability, profitability and competitiveness, but consultations began two years ago and the plan hasn’t yet been released.

Also Dec. 16, Canada’s premiers met in Ontario to discuss the country’s approach to the 25 per cent tariffs that U.S. president-elect Donald Trump says he will impose on Canadian goods as soon as he is in office.

The premiers said they are concerned that Freeland’s resignation leaves a hole in the negotiating team.

Alberta premier Danielle Smith said Canadians should go to the polls. She said a prime minister with a four-year mandate would have more clout in the negotiations.

Parliament was set to rise for the holiday break on Dec. 17 and return Jan. 27.

The post Farm groups back away from Sustainable Agriculture Strategy appeared first on Country Guide.

At an Oct. 2 panel titled Sustainable Agriculture and the World- Global Perspectives, guests from Australia, the United States, European Union and Latin America spoke about their experiences with sustainable agriculture goals and policy.

Why it matters: With changes like SCAP implementation and a federal election on the horizon for Canada, international markets can offer perspective on the future of ag.

Katie McRobert, Executive Director of the Australian Farm Institute (AFI) opened by speaking about how sustainability initiatives can sometimes cause barriers in an export-driven market.

“Australian agriculture is very export focused,” McRobert said, “and we export more than 70 per cent of the value of what we produce in Australia.”

She explained that the scale of production is a cornerstone of food security, both in Australia and in the import markets dependant on Australian goods. She said this should be considered when drafting changes or legislation.

“It’s important to us to make sure that when we’re talking about sustainability measures, they are ones that are enabling of the trade environment, that are accepting of the way that we produce food differently.”

In 2022, Australia was the world’s largest exporter of wheat, at 28.8 million tonnes. They also rank in the top 10 in the export of beef and dairy.

McRobert said that this tension between export considerations and sustainability goals has made it difficult to create ag legislation.

“In Australia, nobody wants to regulate agriculture,” she said. “But we’re getting to a point where perhaps these more uncomfortable discussions need to happen.”

Like Australia, Canada’s agri-food output is considerable, having exported C$99.1 billion in agriculture and food products in 2023,.

Shari Rogge-Fidler, President & CEO of Farm Foundation, a non-partisan organization focused on improving economic conditions for U.S. farmers spoke to the role external politics can play in sustainability efforts.

“I need to … name the elephant in the room,” she said. “When I think of collision course, I think of the politics of both trade and sustainability in the U.S., particularly right now, with the election going on.”

“So, as I look ahead, I think that is a key challenge, maybe just a few months from now, we’ll have a better view on how significant those headwinds are.”

Though the US election will take place in November of this year, Canada’s own federal election is set to follow not long after, in fall 2025.

Rogge-Fidler identified two factors which have been key to innovation from her perspective: soil health and precision ag technology.

Another insight from Rogge-Fidler was that it will likely be consumer-facing sectors leading the way on sustainability efforts.

“How do these innovations lead to global benchmarks?” She said. “Often, they don’t. It’s not as linked to the consumer-facing market.”

“When it comes to animal ag, like dairy, that link is much clearer for consumers, and there we are seeing more significant change.”

Mark Titterington, Co-Founder and Director of the Forum for the Future of Agriculture (FFA) said he has found that many academics and private sector players are finding sustainability solutions. He said this is something of which governments should be paying closer attention.

“My feeling on this, whether it’s in the EU or anywhere else, the government’s thing to focus on is enablement,” he said.

U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC) Regional Director Carlos Salinas spoke about expanding growing operations and the challenges of markets where expansion can have major environmental impacts.

“We’re producing more per acre, more per hectare, which is great news, but we have also expanded hectares, right?”

He said that while there have been discussions of reforestation in North America, deforestation for agricultural purposes remains a sensitive topic in other parts of the world.

“I think that for the farmers around the world, we’re not in an even keel. I think the outcomes and the outputs are different, and we can see the results.”

Several of the panelists gave the advice to remain practical and realistic in setting sustainable ag goals. Salinas said many countries in Latin America will create goals with good intentions but little regard for the impact on farmers.

In similar veins, McRobert suggested engaging in conversations with compromises on decarbonization and Rogge-Fidler said engaging producers directly to define sustainable measurements would be key.

The post What sustainability lessons can Canada learn from abroad? appeared first on Country Guide.

Demands around the world to restrict greenhouse gas and nutrient emissions from all forms of livestock mean feed formulators need to ensure that animals are efficiently pulling all they can out of both macro and micro-nutrients to reduce the amount of harmful substances that end up in the air, water and soil.

“They look at livestock and see pollution,” said Melissa Dumont, executive director of the Animal Nutrition Association of Canada, summing up widely held public and government attitudes toward agriculture.

Those attitudes result in both scrutiny of and demands upon the feed industry that are relentless and sometimes wrongheaded, some researchers and scientists said.

“The pressure on us … is absolutely immense,” said British feed scientist Emily Burton of Nottingham Trent University.

“It’s the assumptions that annoy me most as a nutritionist.”

Within the livestock and feed industries there is much pride over the ever-increasing efficiency of meat production, with per-kilogram greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impact significantly falling over time.

For example, the U.S. hog industry claims it now has an eight per cent smaller environmental impact, uses 75 per cent less land, consumes 25 per cent less water and runs on seven per cent less energy than 50 years ago, despite producing much more meat.

Each healthy pig or steer today now produces more pounds of gain with fewer emissions than ever before, while preserving grasslands and consuming materials that would otherwise be waste.

However, millions of people around the planet believe livestock production is a primary cause of climate change, water pollution and soil degradation.

While some have pushed back against what they consider misperceptions of net livestock emissions, virtually all feed companies and researchers now include “sustainability” as a key metric when considering advances and characteristics they are trying to build into feed sources and practices.

Before the official opening of the main ANCC sessions, a full morning was dedicated to researchers who are focused on boosting livestock sustainability with better feeding.

Getting to “net-zero livestock production” and turning pledges into concrete sustainability results for pig and dairy cattle producers were the lead-off sessions for the symposium, which drew more than 400 attendees.

American and Dutch experts challenged the feed industry to take more seriously micro-nutrient impact, efficiency and waste, which they said is generally ignored.

“Most of us don’t (pay attention to micronutrient impacts),” said Terry Engle of Colorado State University.

There’s great stress on researchers to improve livestock sustainability, but fortunately for the industry, it appears there is a stream of young researchers keen to get into the industry. Dozens of graduate students from across Canada, many from non-Canadian backgrounds, attended the conference.

The student researcher presentations, both in posters and from the stage, were popular with more seasoned researchers, and the conference sprinkled student participation through the event.

One organization making its appearance at the conference was African Youth in Canadian Agriculture, which is a new national organization attempting to connect African students in Canadian high schools and universities to opportunities in agriculture, which most young urban people are unaware of and have no clue of how to access.

An example of how African-origin researchers are finding places in Canada’s feed industry was seen in University of Saskatchewan graduate student and researcher Roseline Ogory, who presented her work in incorporating Ahliflower seed and cake in chicken diets to produce better omega 3 content in eggs.

The notion that there are still radical gains to be made in livestock feeding efficiency ran through the conference. Micronutrients are not the only element of livestock feeding that is likely being supplied inefficiently and possibly counterproductively. University of Saskatchewan swine nutrition scientist Dan Columbus highlighted the relative lack of study on sow nutritional needs and the crude manner in which sow diets are supplied, mostly ignoring the cyclical needs of the animal.

Engle, an expert in copper, acknowledged his favourite element befuddles him, despite decades of study.

“I love copper, but it confuses me,” said Engle.

Researchers feel much pressure to feed animals more sustainably, but many also feel optimism that feeding sustainability and efficiency have major gains waiting to be discovered.

That tension between demands for sustainability and optimism about sustainability dominated the conference.

The post Sustainability demands pressure livestock feed industry appeared first on Country Guide.

The research hopes to answer questions such as ‘What are the social barriers to sustainable farming and food?’ and ‘How can the burden and benefits of that transition be shared equitably?’

The federal government pledged the cash March 19 to launch the Common Ground Canada Network. The initiative will be led by Dalhousie University’s Karen Foster, Canada research chair in sustainable rural futures for Atlantic Canada.

“Producers are already taking action to make their operations more sustainable … This knowledge sharing network will help amplify the work already underway and increase adoption of these best practices,” an Agriculture Agri-Food Canada news release read.

The hard science of sustainable agriculture, things like improved agronomic practices, are already the purview of other research organizations and government funding streams. The network, in contrast, has a goal to tackle the topic from the angle of sociology, social anthropology, political sciences, economics, the humanities and other lenses.

Foster, who is a social scientist, gathered a group of other researchers and applied for the funding to start the network

“I think it arises from this recognition that in many cases we know the technology is there … but there are some social barriers in the way to adoption,” Foster said.

There are also social processes through which people are assured “that if we adopt a certain policy in the name of sustainability, it’s actually going to work.”

The network is also concerned with the “just transition” towards sustainable agriculture—how both the burden and benefits of change could be equitably shared.

This could include topics like farmland ownership—as is the case in work done by network members Annette Desmarais, Andre Magnan and others, on land ownership in Saskatchewan. That research indicated that investor-owned farmland had increased 16-fold between 2002 and 2014.

In a March 2023 opinion piece, published in the Manitoba Co-operator, Magnan and Desmarais said that by 2018, investors owned nearly one million acres of Saskatchewan farmland.

“Given that, on average, investors pay more for land compared to other buyers, these deep-pocketed buyers have undoubtedly contributed to the rapid increase of farmland prices,” they said.

Network members have also studied what areas of food and agriculture venture capitalists are most likely to invest in; the growing reliance of even small-scale farms in Nova Scotia on temporary foreign workers and the potential social and environmental effects of local food movements and their attempts to compete with big economic players.

The five-year project’s overall goal is to increase access to and use of the social sciences in the pursuit of sustainable agriculture in Canada.

The network says they will gather researchers and agriculture and food system representatives, such as governments, community organizations and Indigenous groups, to hash out shared goals and form connections between social science researchers and other fields.

Their plan also includes the development of holistic sustainability goals and the direction of resources to where they’re most needed within the network.

Foster said the network already has dozens of academic and community partners across Canada. According to the AAFC news release, these include the Arrell Food Institute, Food Secure Canada, the National Farmers Union, Humane Society International, Farm to Cafeteria Canada and others.

The post Teasing out the social angle of sustainable ag research appeared first on Country Guide.

“This funding will improve the National Index on Agri-Food Performance, helping the sector take advantage of market opportunities, and backing up our efforts with concrete data,” said federal ag minister Lawrence MacAulay in a news release today.

The National Index on Agri-Food Performance is a Canadian-made sustainability measurement system under development by a coalition of government and industry groups including agro-chemical companies like Nutrien and BASF, and provincial agriculture departments.

The index spans measures from water stewardship, soil health and greenhouse gas emissions to nutrition, safe food, financial viability and sustainability, work conditions and animal care. It’s been touted as a way for the industry to measure its own performance before it’s measured without any industry say in methods used.

A pilot version of the index was published in May of 2023.

The Canadian Agricultural Policy Institute (CAPI), which houses the project, will use the announced funding to continue to refine the index, fix missing information and create an upgraded version of the index, the federal news release said.

Earlier this month, the Centre for Agri-Food Benchmarking launched.

“The Centre, housed at the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Insitute (CAPI), will accelerate and formalize the work of the unprecedented coalition of 137 partners supporting the National Index,” a Feb. 7 news release said.

The post Canada-made sustainability index gets funding boost appeared first on Country Guide.

The Ontario and federal governments on Thursday opened the intake for applications under what they’re calling the Increasing Deadstock Capacity Initiative, budgeted for $1.5 million over two years.

The program, to be delivered by Ontario’s Agricultural Adaptation Council (AAC), is meant to “help improve the removal handling, and disposal of deadstock” through cost-shared funding of projects that address “immediate and short-term deadstock capacity needs at businesses and municipalities in Ontario.”

Funding is available to:

• new and existing deadstock service providers, including collectors, carriers, renderers, composting facilities, transfer stations and service brokers, among others;
• commercial operations that either “provide or require” deadstock services, such as slaughter plants or livestock sales barns;
• waste management companies such as Waste Management of Canada Corp. that offer “mass carcass emergency” services;
• commodity associations, including Ontario’s three accredited farm organizations as well as livestock producer groups, meat industry groups, animal product groups and county federations of agriculture; and
• municipalities, including both “upper-tier” and “lower-tier,” that either have or are setting up an approved waste disposal site that allows for disposal of dead animals.

Work eligible to be funded under the program includes construction or modifications that increase deadstock disposal and rendering capacity; retrofitting or modifying sites for such facilities; buying, retrofitting, and/or modifying collection, handling and storage equipment; and planning and assessments.

Through the initiative, an eligible applicant can get up to 40 per cent of total eligible project costs, to a maximum of $100,000 per project — and can be approved for no more than three projects, for up to no more than $300,000.

The program’s first intake opened Thursday (Sept. 21) and will remain open until Sept. 15, 2024 or whenever the funding is fully allocated. The deadline to apply for funding just for the 2023-24 program year (Sept. 21, 2023 to March 31, 2024) will be Feb. 1, 2024.

Approved projects can start on Sept. 21, 2023 or on the agreed-upon date in a given funding agreement. The earliest project start date will be April 1 next year for applications submitted after Feb. 1 next year.

To file claims for approved costs incurred between now and next March 31, the deadline will be March 28, 2024, while for costs incurred between April 1, 2024 and Feb. 1, 2025, the deadline will be Feb. 14, 2025. Any eligible projects approved under the program must be completed no later than Feb. 1, 2025.

Funding for the initiative will flow through the federal/provincial Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership (S-CAP).

“Ontario’s livestock farmers are increasingly challenged with the disposal of deadstock in a manner that is economical, sustainable and that safeguards the integrity of our food system” AAC chair Doug Alexander said in Thursday’s release.

“Access to deadstock services is an essential part of livestock management,” provincial Ag Minister Lisa Thompson said in the same release. “This initiative will enable eligible businesses to streamline their operations and improve access to deadstock management solutions across the province.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Funding set to improve Ontario deadstock removal, disposal appeared first on Country Guide.