The Alberta vice-president for Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association says government targets for less greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer are misguided..In an interview with Western Standard, Stephen Vandervalk said the government should ask Bombardier to reduce its emissions by 30% before asking farmers..“You've got an industry that realistically is net negative already by nature of what we do, we lower greenhouse gases by our crops. What can we do? We've spent the last 30 years perfecting our efficiencies to the point of ridiculousness,” Vandervalk said..“We spend $50,000 to $70,000 for each piece of equipment on diesel exhaust fluid so [it’ll] burn so clean, we can be in downtown Calgary and clean the air. Some of that equipment we use for 200 hours a year. And farmers spent millions of dollars in the last five years getting everything so efficient. Honestly, what more could you do? There's nothing. The answer is there is nothing.”.The Grain Growers of Canada and Saskatchewan Wheat Development Corporation partnered on a Road to 2050 initiative, trying to preserve farmers’ interests while aligning with federal goals for net zero emissions. Vandervalk, who used to be president of the Grain Growers, says he has told the GGC they are “government pandering.”.“These Roads to 2050, it’s very dangerous because they [in the Trudeau government] aren't working with you, right? So, what they [at GGC] should have been [saying] from day one is, ‘No, we've literally spent this last 30 years getting to the efficiencies. There is nothing left to be done.’ And there isn't,” Vandervalk said..A recent federal decision paper on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer suggested a change in application..“The use of enhanced efficiency fertilizers containing both nitrification and urease inhibitors could reduce emissions by 15 to 35% ... and split applying fertilizer — at seeding and later in the growing season — could provide 15-35% reductions…”.Vandervalk, who has participated in Syngenta’s Grower University and the Cultivate program at the Richard Ivey School of Business, said both approaches are bad for cereal crops because the yield is determined in the early “three leaf” stage of the plant. If soil nutrients are absent at that stage, their addition later can increase protein but not yields..“To have nitrous oxide means that you've lost the fertilizer into the atmosphere. And I don't even know how that's possible on my farm,” Vandervalk said, given he applies fertilizer below the surface now..“The only way for us to lose our nitrogen to make nitrous oxide is if you had to spray it on top of the ground. It reacts with the atmosphere and just vapors off, which is crazy. I don’t spend over a million dollars in fertilizer a year just to have a go up into the atmosphere. And that's your plant food.”.The federal discussion document also said, “Between 2005 and 2019, fertilizer use increased by 71% in Canada, primarily driven by growing fertilizer sales in Western Canada (BC, AB, SK, and MB). Over the same period, N2O emissions from fertilizer application in Canada increased by 64%.”.Vandervalk, who farms malt barley, durum, and canola north of Fort MacLeod, AB, believes federal emissions estimates derive from largely abandoned “decades old” farming practices. He is also skeptical of federal assurances they won’t force less fertilizer usage..“Just like they tested the water with carbon tax and then, well, we're not gonna do it. Oh I guess now we are, but no, we won't do more than $50 a ton, right? Oh, no, now it's $170,” said Vandervalk..“There's nothing more we can do outside of reducing fertilizer use, and it's a direct relationship. For every percent you lose, you're gonna lose at least that or more in yield. You're basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
The Alberta vice-president for Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association says government targets for less greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer are misguided..In an interview with Western Standard, Stephen Vandervalk said the government should ask Bombardier to reduce its emissions by 30% before asking farmers..“You've got an industry that realistically is net negative already by nature of what we do, we lower greenhouse gases by our crops. What can we do? We've spent the last 30 years perfecting our efficiencies to the point of ridiculousness,” Vandervalk said..“We spend $50,000 to $70,000 for each piece of equipment on diesel exhaust fluid so [it’ll] burn so clean, we can be in downtown Calgary and clean the air. Some of that equipment we use for 200 hours a year. And farmers spent millions of dollars in the last five years getting everything so efficient. Honestly, what more could you do? There's nothing. The answer is there is nothing.”.The Grain Growers of Canada and Saskatchewan Wheat Development Corporation partnered on a Road to 2050 initiative, trying to preserve farmers’ interests while aligning with federal goals for net zero emissions. Vandervalk, who used to be president of the Grain Growers, says he has told the GGC they are “government pandering.”.“These Roads to 2050, it’s very dangerous because they [in the Trudeau government] aren't working with you, right? So, what they [at GGC] should have been [saying] from day one is, ‘No, we've literally spent this last 30 years getting to the efficiencies. There is nothing left to be done.’ And there isn't,” Vandervalk said..A recent federal decision paper on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer suggested a change in application..“The use of enhanced efficiency fertilizers containing both nitrification and urease inhibitors could reduce emissions by 15 to 35% ... and split applying fertilizer — at seeding and later in the growing season — could provide 15-35% reductions…”.Vandervalk, who has participated in Syngenta’s Grower University and the Cultivate program at the Richard Ivey School of Business, said both approaches are bad for cereal crops because the yield is determined in the early “three leaf” stage of the plant. If soil nutrients are absent at that stage, their addition later can increase protein but not yields..“To have nitrous oxide means that you've lost the fertilizer into the atmosphere. And I don't even know how that's possible on my farm,” Vandervalk said, given he applies fertilizer below the surface now..“The only way for us to lose our nitrogen to make nitrous oxide is if you had to spray it on top of the ground. It reacts with the atmosphere and just vapors off, which is crazy. I don’t spend over a million dollars in fertilizer a year just to have a go up into the atmosphere. And that's your plant food.”.The federal discussion document also said, “Between 2005 and 2019, fertilizer use increased by 71% in Canada, primarily driven by growing fertilizer sales in Western Canada (BC, AB, SK, and MB). Over the same period, N2O emissions from fertilizer application in Canada increased by 64%.”.Vandervalk, who farms malt barley, durum, and canola north of Fort MacLeod, AB, believes federal emissions estimates derive from largely abandoned “decades old” farming practices. He is also skeptical of federal assurances they won’t force less fertilizer usage..“Just like they tested the water with carbon tax and then, well, we're not gonna do it. Oh I guess now we are, but no, we won't do more than $50 a ton, right? Oh, no, now it's $170,” said Vandervalk..“There's nothing more we can do outside of reducing fertilizer use, and it's a direct relationship. For every percent you lose, you're gonna lose at least that or more in yield. You're basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
