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
<mailto:dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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
<mailto: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>
[mailto:dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Donald Hoyda
Sent: July-30-22 10:12 AM
To: dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
<mailto: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>
[mailto:dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ;
DSP.EA.Large.Messages@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:DSP.EA.Large.Messages@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: July-29-22 6:29 AM
To: DSP-EA-General@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto:wynn.payne@xxxxxxxxx> >
Sent: July 28, 2022 5:20 PM
To: DSP.EA.Large.Messages@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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/