Re: Is this right wing rhetoric or are we reducing farm output at the cost of climate change?

  • From: Don Logan <donhlogan@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2022 16:57:30 -0600

Both Ft McMurrary and Grand Prairie run similar operations driven by methane from their land fills… they joined together to engineer the technologies and share the costs….
When in Toblach/ Dobbiaco Italy I toured a plant that Burt wood chips to fuel a hot water system for two communities to tallying a 14k population. Each home had a heat exchanger in their homes that measure the difference in and out of heat loss and they paid for that heat difference… back at the plant they also created electricity of which the towns used 20% and the other 80% went to the grid for a recovery of $14M usd annually.
The really cool part of this was the chips came from small wood branches dropping out of their forests and collected/ bundled by residents like we collect pop cans…they are paid for the bundles. Their forest floors are pristine! All materials to burn are collected within 50km of site.
The plant is highly sophisticated, uses many level scrubbers as to what goes back into the air, uses 2 furnaces, runs 24/7 on 7 individuals only and at the end of the day produces an amount of ash that would go in the drawer of a small dresser…
All I could think of was our inability to fire safe our forests around communities and all that black spruce in northern Alberta around so many indigenous communities!
It’s all doable with some leadership!D

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2022, at 9:09 AM, Robert Ramsay <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



For many years, Alberta Gas Trunk Line (subsequently Nova and now TC Energy), had a greenhouse operation at its Princess Compressor Station, using waste heat from the compressors. They grew tomatoes all year.  This was an excellent use of energy, and a model that should be considered in much of Alberta. For certain crops, however, the short hours of daylight in Alberta also require an artificial light source. It does require cooperation between growers and operators of facilities that have waste energy; it was a nuisance activity for the compression operations.  Significant on-going hail damage was also a problem.

 

Bob Ramsay

 

From: dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Wynn Payne
Sent: July 31, 2022 10:55 PM
To: dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Is this right wing rhetoric or are we reducing farm output at the cost of climate change?

 

This may have been the website I saw.

https://www.greenhousecanada.com/new-alberta-grow-centre-unveiled-by-cubicfarm-systems/

 

Wynn 

 

On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 2:59 PM Bob Thomlinson <bthomlinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jim,

 

Very good points but I am not convinced that is still the case everywhere. The marijuana market was supposed to be a winner but has been a continual disappointment for investors.  Sales volumes have not materialized according to the optimistic business plans and the retail sales still has to compete with the legalized home-grown products as well as the illegal market which I believe did not disappear as predicted, but just changed their marketing strategies.

 

I also don’t agree that hot houses can not be viable in Albert’s weather. The current major source of fruits and vegetables in the USA and Canada is the Imperial Valley which lies east of the Salton Sea in California and extends down into northern Mexico. The valley is part of the Sonoran Desert and relies on massive irrigation projects fed from water sources that are drying up, like the Colorado River which flows through the valley but is now almost entirely underground in Mexico. Water in the western USA is a bit of a hobby interest of mine and I have commented on it before in this chat group.

 

The difficulties with drought and over consumption have been long predicted. So it’s no surprise that investors have looked for opportunities elsewhere. The area I mentioned east of Gull Lake has at least three successful hot house vegetable operations that have been running for years. Alberta seems to have adopted a Buy Local culture and so Farmer’s Markets boom in the summer. But the successful Alberta hot house vegetable producers are operating year round and their products are on the shelves in Sobeys, Superstore, etc.

 

Maybe the time was not right for your buddy’s operation in the lower mainland. But we are already seeing common fruits and vegetables disappear from the store shelves here. We can’t find our usual apples and our favorite organic Sriracha sauce manufacturer had to shut down this summer because there wasn’t enough water to sustain the hot pepper crops. When we are in California in the winter, we hear about lots of businesses trying to adapt to these challenges. For the first time California is declining in population as people move out. So there has been a long-standing prediction that we will eventually not be able to get cheap fruits and vegetables from California or Mexican anymore. Worse than that is the forecast that we may not be able to get any of these products anymore if US domestic consumption takes them all first and the export market collapses.

 

Although I may be totally wrong, it makes me very happy to see greenhouses being built in Alberta. The builders may have considered a future switch to marijuana as a hedge on the vegetable risk, but I think year-round vegetables could be a pretty good cash crop that’s time has come. Maybe marijuana will be switching to Vegetables where there is less over supply, less government regulations and no complicated sin taxes.

 

Just my thoughts,

Bob T

 

 

 

From: dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Jim Mann
Sent: July 31, 2022 1:12 PM
To: dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Is this right wing rhetoric or are we reducing farm output at the cost of climate change?

 

I find it interesting to hear about the increasing number of hot house buildings/green houses coming into production in Alberta.  I am assuming that virtually all of them use natural gas.

 

I have a friend who was the largest producer of bell peppers in Canada (green, red, yellow and orange).  He had many greenhouse operations in the lower mainland/Fraser Valley as well as in California.  He was driven out of business by the cost of fuel to heat the greenhouses and by the massive importation of cheap bell peppers from Mexico.  He eventually had to sell his operations to one of Canada’s largest marijuana producers and now are dedicated to producing medical grade marijuana for export to the United States which is kind of ironic.

 

I highly suspect that the individuals that are constructing and operating massive greenhouse complexes in Alberta have NO INTENTION of remaining in the vegetable production business for very long and, if they did, as the cost of fuel rises, their operational financial statements will be swathed in red ink.  I would suggest that the owners of these facilities plans are actually to get licenses for the production of marijuana as soon as they can satisfy regulatory requirements.  There is NO long term financial viability for the operation of greenhouses for growing tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers in Alberta.

 

Cheers, Jim

 

From: dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Wynn Payne
Sent: July 31, 2022 11:40 AM
To: dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Is this right wing rhetoric or are we reducing farm output at the cost of climate change?

 

 

The point is,  reducing production ( by reducing fertilizer use,  for climate change does not appear to be a reasonable approach to agriculture.

 

There is a growing operation up toward Westlock that produces a significant volume of fresh produce in hot house buildings. I'm hesitant it saying numbers but very large.

Wynn 

 

On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 12:29 PM Bob Thomlinson <bthomlinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Wynn,

 

Your comment about “… lower food production means reduced exports and hence a poor country in the world of trade” would immediately be attacked as an Economic Greedy Bugger defense. If your support for this endeavor used the justification “ … would allow Canada to grow food for the world’s desperate and starving peoples” then you would either be a marketing genius, or a politician. Either way Greenpeace would have a hard time attacking the position as they so love to attack our energy sector.

 

On a side note, over the past year I have watched the construction of a massive greenhouse complex on the east side of Gull Lake, Alberta.  I have been told, but have not verified, that Alberta’s gas export woes have made heating greenhouses with natural gas for food production a viable business. Wouldn’t it be funny if eventually we were exporting lettuce to consumers in California’s drought stricken Imperial Valley.

 

Cheers,

Bob T

 

From: dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Wynn Payne
Sent: July 31, 2022 9:11 AM
To: dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Is this right wing rhetoric or are we reducing farm output at the cost of climate change?

 

Hi Bob

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

You are right there are  two issues being addressed. I was more concerned with the regulation to use less fertilizer to satisfy a climate change target. As mentioned lower food production means  reduced exports and hence a poor country in the world of trade.

Wynn 

 

On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 7:48 AM Bob Thomlinson <bthomlinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From reading the responses I am wondering if we are not confusing two different things that are going on here.

 

Firstly, my understanding is that Canada has put tariffs on the import of Russian nitrogen, which is one of the three primary ingredients in fertilizer. The reason given was to “punish” Russia for its war in Ukraine. The use of a tariff has been widely criticized because a tariff is not an embargo, so it does not punish anyone other than domestic consumers. Tariffs are primarily used to protect domestic producers of products from foreigners “dumping” cheaper products into our market. The term “dumping” is subjective, but it is the common government marketing term applied to make consumers think they should stop benefitting from cheaper prices to support our hard-working Canadian brothers and sisters who are getting squeezed out unfairly. So Canada is “punishing” Russian by forcing our farmers to pay more for fertilizer ingredients. It really doesn’t matter if Russian producers pay the tariff and pass on the increase, or Canadian fertilizer produces switch to other sources of Nitrogen, like from the USA. As Peter points our, the USA is our primary source of fertilizer and Russia is a small player, so the tariff impact will not be massive. However, farmers are already calling for subsidies. On the surface subsidies sound easy, we just take the tariffs collected and distribute them to the affected Canadian producers. Subsidies could be paid to the small number of fertilizer manufacturers but of course there are better political optics if the government sets up a complex administration and application process to distribute payments directly to our beloved farmers. The small problem is that if market conditions change, Russian producers just stop selling nitrogen to Canada, or we switch to buying from other higher cost sources, there are no tariffs collected to pay the subsidies. When subsidies are introduced, it’s really hard to stop paying them and eventually falls on the Canadian taxpayers to fund the subsidies (sometimes long after the original justification conditions have disappeared).

 

Secondly, I understand that Trudeau is proposing to put targets on reducing fertilizer use in Canada, as part of our climate change action plan. As Don Hoyda pointed out there has been a dramatic increase in crop yields from fertilizers. However it is not just fertilizer use that should get the credit. The move to “precision agriculture” means farmers are doing upwards of 20 soil samples per 40 acres (instead of one test per field) and using computer and GPS controlled tractors and spreaders to improve the effectiveness of fertilizer application to reduce waste. This fertilizer reduction proposal is what is causing widespread protests in the Netherlands and the appearance of farm equipment in downtown Ottawa.

 

I think we are all starting to realize that Climate Action will translate into direct impacts on our own daily lives. It will affect our incomes, our cost of living, the conveniences we take for granted (and thereby assume are some protected right) and, above all, our individual rights and freedoms. Yes, the reduction in fertilizer will reduce crop yields and farm profits in Canada. However Canada has abundant water supplies and a vast area of productive agricultural land where other places in the world are experiencing droughts, insect infestations on top of poor soil conditions to begin with.

 

I believe Canada should be stepping up to help feed the world, not going in the other direction. It is something we know how to do and are already good at. I believe if we wanted to punish Russia, we should have imposed an embargo and not wimpy tariffs. I also believe Canada needs to be at the forefront of effective and efficient food production. We should also recognise global climate efficiencies too. If other countries have already reduced the use of fertilizers because of droughts (including the western half of the USA) then perhaps we should be creating and trading Fertilizer Carbon Credits internationally to make more food production to Canada politically acceptable.

 

Wynn asked for our thoughts, and these are mine,

Bob T  

 

 

From: dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Peter Aylen
Sent: July 30, 2022 4:27 PM
To: dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Is this right wing rhetoric or are we reducing farm output at the cost of climate change?

 

The amount Canada imports is not large.  This was one of a many items that were sanctioned because of the Ukraine invasion by Russia.

 

My understanding is that it was selling at low prices to get foreign exchange.

 

Fertilizer improves the yields and reduces costs of food.  Like most people the lower price is an attraction.  Canadian fertilizer is more expensive so the farmers were looking for some economies in the production cycle.

 

The chemical fertilizers are much more efficient than manure so, again it becomes a matter of economics.

 

I did a lot of work on fertilizers at one time when I was developing a patent for the production of urea prills without the use of urea formaldehyde. Got a patent but the urea formaldehyde helped prevent the prills from sticking together so people continued to use the existing formulations.

 

 

Canada imports Fertilizers primarily from: United States ($1.08B), Russia ($74.1M), Netherlands ($62.4M), Morocco ($49.1M), and Germany ($22.7M). The fastest growing import markets in Fertilizers for Canada between 2019 and 2020 were Turkmenistan ($7.87M), Poland ($5.05M), and Indonesia ($4.56M). Latest Trends April 2022

Fertilizers in Canada | OEC - The Observatory of Economic Comple…

oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/fertilizers/reporter/can?redirect=true

 

 

From: dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Chessor, Edward
Sent: July 30, 2022 11:09 AM
To: 'dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx' <dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Is this right wing rhetoric or are we reducing farm output at the cost of climate change?

 

Okay, I am not advocating a sudden elimination of all fertilizer use.  I am asking how much of the fertilizer Canadian farmers use comes from Russia.  I remember there being phosphate mining in Saskatchewan, and exports from there through Vancouver.  I also remember a fertilizer plant in BC, using sulphuric acid from the Trail smelter, and I understand Nutrien is producing urea in Alberta.  I doubt we are totally dependent on Russian fertilizers. 

 

I am also old enough to remember a time when crop land was fertilized with manure from livestock. What yields did that produce?  Were input costs lower?

Spatial separation of livestock and grain production has made that more difficult.

 

Ed

 

From: dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Donald Hoyda
Sent: July-30-22 10:12 AM
To: dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Is this right wing rhetoric or are we reducing farm output at the cost of climate change?

 

[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]

Gentlemen: At Fort Saskatchewan, which has some of the best soil and rainfall in Alberta if you plant a cereal crop without fertilizer the yield will be 12 to 15 bushels per acre. With currently applied amounts of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer the yield will be 90 to 100 bushels per acre. This has been true for many years.

Regards, Don Hoyda

 

Sent from my iPad


On Jul 29, 2022, at 12:13 PM, Chessor, Edward <echessor@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Looks like over the top rhetoric to me.  How long have we been importing fertilizer from Russia?  Were Canadian farmers able to grow good crops for many decades without it?  Can they figure out how to do it again?

 

Ed Chessor

 

From: dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of DSP.EA.Large.Messages@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: July-29-22 6:29 AM
To: DSP-EA-General@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: Is this right wing rhetoric or are we reducing farm output at the cost of climate change?

 

[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]

 

 

From: Wynn Payne <wynn.payne@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: July 28, 2022 5:20 PM
To: DSP.EA.Large.Messages@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Is this right wing rhetoric or are we reducing farm output at the cost of climate change?

 

Thoughts?

Wynn 

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/07/trudeaus-fertiliser-ban-threatens-to-create-a-food-crisis/

 

PNG image

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. dsp-ea-general
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2022