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 Grainews.

At Ag in Motion 2025 near Langham, Sask., Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research scientist Shathi Akhtar showcased her work intercropping berry bushes and tree species such as sea buckthorn and buffalo berry alongside annual and perennial crops. The idea is to take shelterbelts beyond their traditional role and turn them into productive systems that boost both biodiversity and farm returns.

The difference between this method of growing trees and bushes and traditional shelterbelts is the additional value for the producer from a fruit or nut crop. As well, certain species are better for moisture conservation and nitrogen fixing.

“We are seeing some enrichment in soil nutrients in terms of nitrogen because both sea buckthorn and buffalo berry are nitrogen-fixing crops,” she said. “And they are close to 10 years old now, so they … could provide maximum benefit to the adjacent crop.”

The site Akhtar referred to is at Agriculture Canada’s research centre at Indian Head, Sask. It has been in production for nearly a decade, and as a result, she is able to see the benefits of this intercropping. It uses sea buckthorn and buffalo berry, alongside annual crops and perennial legumes.

Other trial sites in Saskatchewan are at Carry the Kettle First Nation and Cowessess First Nation. There are also sites in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, with every site growing different species.

The goal is to explore how traditional fruit trees native to different parts of Canada perform when intercropped with annual or perennial crops — whether that’s cereals, oilseeds or forages — and how those combinations are affected by variations in climate, soil type and region.

“We’re trying to actually tackle quite a lot of things in this project,” she said.

At Carry the Kettle, the researchers chose to integrate buffalo berry, saskatoon berry, apple and grape, intercropped with a forage stand for cattle grazing. The site is established but fairly new, with small trees and a forage stand that hasn’t had a strong start yet.

Akhtar was keeping an eye on the site throughout the summer and will be evaluating it in the fall to see if dormant seeding is needed.

“We’ll add some legume and some native grasses to … bring back the forage side of the story,” she said.

“Trees will take time. Trees take, in this case, five to six years to even see any meaningful tree influence on the ground. So I don’t expect to see any drastic difference in the first couple of years.”

She said there is no reason to worry about establishment competition.

“Trees will send their roots much deeper in the soil compared to the forage grass or legume that is there. And so technically, they are not competing for water and nutrients, but it’s more of a mutualistic relationship, where they’re helping each other.”

The expected outcome is to see improvements in soil health and carbon, microclimate modifications such as wind, temperature and humidity, and reduced evapotranspiration, which will be beneficial in persisting drought conditions.

Additionally, the trees help with holding snow for spring melt and protecting crops from wind. This works especially well because in part of Akhtar’s trial, the alleys between tree belts are narrower than traditional shelterbelts.

Instead of a few hundred metres, the alley widths are 15 to 26 metres wide to allow for easy equipment use but maximum crop protection. A few different widths, typically 15, 20 and 26 metres, are used to compare production benefits.

“At the end of the day, it would be the cost and benefit analysis from the farmer’s perspective,” she said.

“Environmental and ecological benefits are important, but unless it checks off on the agronomic side, I don’t think we’ll get much adoption.”

Another environmental benefit is increased biodiversity. Akhtar said that at the well-established site near Indian Head, they’ve been seeing higher numbers of birds, insects and animals, including birds listed as at risk.

Economic benefits have been noticed in the trials that use hazelnuts alongside fruit trees. It is a high-value crop and is in high demand. Akhtar believes it could become a new crop for the province if intercropping trials prove successful.

The post Research studies fruit-forage intercropping appeared first on Grainews.

Among several other changes, a planned new package of federal regulatory amendments will put a gradual end to a “pause” imposed in August 2021 on such proposed MRL increases, which are overseen by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

Federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos and Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault announced the planned amendments Tuesday, in what are billed as Canada’s “next steps toward a sustainable approach to pesticides management, while giving farmers the tools they need to keep providing reliable access to safe and nutritious food.”

The term “MRL” refers to the highest legally allowed amount of pesticide residue that may remain on or in food when a pesticide is used according to label directions. Different MRLs are set for different combinations of chemicals and foods, depending on how a pesticide is applied for a given crop.

Ottawa’s 2021 pause had been imposed in response to public concerns specifically regarding a boost to MRLs for glyphosate herbicide, as was proposed in May that year for certain imported commodities.

That proposal, Bibeau said Wednesday in an interview, was meant to have brought Canada’s glyphosate MRLs in line with revisions laid out by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the body which oversees standards for foods traded internationally.

But for some, she said, the concept of MRLs is “really counter-intuitive, so it’s hard to explain to the public. When you say, ‘You know, we might be increasing that,’ the first reaction is that ‘Oh my God, we will increase pesticides on our cereal,’ which is not the case, which is not how it works, but intuitively, it was not well received.”

Bibeau said the government felt at the time that a pause, to better understand the existing process, was necessary, because PMRA was “functioning under a law that is quite old.”

Health Canada said Tuesday it’s “still reviewing the significant feedback from the public” in response to the proposed increase to MRLs for glyphosate, with the last comments received in April 2022.

Bibeau said the re-evaluation process for glyphosate MRLs won’t resume before 2024, while the pause on evaluations for other, “less complex” MRL proposals will be lifted more quickly.

For glyphosate, key studies on the matter are currently underway in the European Union and elsewhere, Bibeau said, and Canada wants to have access to that information before making its decision.

READ MORE: Canadian grain is safe: Chorney

Otherwise, Health Canada said Tuesday, “lifting the pause is important to allow people in Canada to maintain a reliable access to affordable and nutritious food, provide predictability for farmers to access the required tools to fight against new pests, and facilitate trade, which is central to support food security.”

Health Canada emphasized Tuesday that an MRL will only be increased if the department’s scientists determine it’s safe to do so.

Transparency

Ottawa’s proposed new regulatory amendments stem in part from consultations conducted last year during a “targeted review” of the federal Pest Control Products Act (PCPA).

Health Canada said Tuesday it found that “opening up the PCPA wasn’t necessary, as policy and regulatory initiatives are sufficient to achieve the goals” of the department’s agenda for the PMRA.

To that end, Health Canada on Tuesday filed a notice of intent for proposed amendments to the federal Pest Control Products Regulations, opening up a 60-day public comment period.

The amendments, as proposed, would aim to “increase transparency” for MRL applications for imported food products, and to “facilitate access” by the public to confidential test data (CTD) used in such decision-making, such as for research and re-analysis.

Up until the COVID-19 pandemic, Health Canada said, anyone wanting access to CTD would have to travel in person to Ottawa and apply for access to PMRA’s physical “reading room,” in which a person could review CTD under supervision and could only take notes, subject to PMRA also taking photocopies of those notes.

The government has to acknowledge that the public has an increased interest in these sorts of decisions, Bibeau said Wednesday, adding such methods of disclosure were “not really transparent.” Since the pandemic, access to inspect CTD has been granted remotely, using an encrypted USB key.

The amendments proposed Tuesday would further provide access to CTD “in a manner that would allow an individual to conduct their own data analysis” but while “maintaining the appropriate levels of protection against unfair commercial use of the data” as required by international treaties.

New regulations proposed in Health Canada’s notice of intent would also grant a federal health minister the “explicit authority to require submission of available information on cumulative environmental effects” of a pesticide, and require the minister to consider cumulative effects on the environment during risk assessments. They would also authorize the minister to require any available information on species-at-risk to be submitted during pesticide risk assessments.

Bibeau on Tuesday noted the federal government in 2021 put up $50 million for pest management research, both by PMRA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, with support from Environment Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

That funding would go toward “independent” data-gathering on pesticide safety by PMRA, as well as research into alternative pest control products by AAFC, she said.

Cosmetic curb

The moves Ottawa announced Tuesday also stem in part from international commitments reached in Montreal last year during the Conference of Parties (COP15) on biological diversity, as per the participating countries’ adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).

Specifically, Bibeau said Wednesday, Target 7 of the GBF calls for reducing the overall risk from pesticides to biodiversity by at least half by 2030 — and by that, she emphasized, “I want to insist, the risk, not the use” of pesticides.

Target 7 calls for reducing risk by 50 per cent means such as “integrated pest management, based on science, taking into account food security and livelihoods.”

To that end, Ottawa on Tuesday also announced what Bibeau described as a more “concrete” federal move — namely, a new ban on “cosmetic” or otherwise nonessential use of pesticides on federal lands, such as national parks and around federal buildings, except where needed to protect lands against a harmful infestation.

All that said, Bibeau emphasized Wednesday, “there is absolutely no change” directly affecting pesticide use by farmers in any of the new regulatory proposals announced Tuesday.

“Pesticides are part of the toolbox agricultural producers use to protect their crops from pests and contribute to their productivity,” she said in the government’s release Tuesday. “The measures announced by our government today help to ensure responsible access, framed by reliable data, to these essential inputs, while protecting health and the environment.”

It’s given, she said Wednesday, that when it comes to pesticide use, farmers are trained professionals who are concerned for the environment, incorporate integrated pest management practices and limit their crop chem use to what’s agronomically necessary.

Canada, Bibeau said, has always advocated for trade rules based on science and will lead by example.

“If we are asking other countries, our trading partners, to do trade based on science, we will keep making decisions based on science, but we have to provide more transparency to the public, and cut the risk where it’s not essential, like for cosmetic use.”

‘Conflicting messages’

But the organization representing Canada’s crop protection companies says the government’s proposals miss the mark.

CropLife Canada, in a separate statement, hailed Bibeau’s “strong statements in support of the importance of pesticides in food production and the need for these important tools to help bolster food security in Canada and around the world.”

However, CropLife said, the government plans to “only slowly begin to increase MRLs again where required, despite acknowledging that MRLs do not pose a safety concern and that they are critical to international trade and food security.”

The government’s new plan to ban cosmetic use of pesticides on federal lands also “runs in direct contradiction to its own risk-based approach to pesticide regulation,” CropLife said, noting PMRA “thoroughly assesses all pesticides” for safety.

“For Health Canada to deem pesticides safe and then turn around and ban them for so-called cosmetic purposes on their own lands sends conflicting messages to Canadians.”

Canada Grains Council president Erin Gowriluk, in a separate release, also hailed Bibeau’s recognition of the importance of pesticides to food production and security and of “the connection between crop protection and environmental sustainability.”

However, she said, by persisting with the “pause” on certain MRL approvals, “there is an increasing risk of Canada’s trading partners perceiving it as an intrusion of ideology into policymaking, contradicting our message to other countries.”

That, combined with the ban on cosmetic pesticide use on federal lands, has “the potential to undermine the government’s explicit recognition that pesticide uses in Canada undergo rigorous testing and assessment to ensure they are safe and pose no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment,” the council said. –– Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Feds lift ‘pause’ on increases in crop chemical MRLs appeared first on Grainews.

Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau on Dec. 12 announced the launch of public consultations on strategy development, running from now through March 2023. A discussion document is now available for comment.

The federal strategy “will serve as a guide to support the livelihoods of farmers while growing a sustainable sector,” the government said in a release. “By identifying goals and a way forward, Canada’s agriculture sector will be equipped to recover quickly from extreme events, thrive in a changing climate, contribute to world food security, while also contributing to Canada’s overall efforts to cut emissions.”

The government in its release emphasized that Canadian farmers “have already taken action on sustainability in a wide range of ways” and it wants to “amplify the work already underway and increase adoption of these best practices.”

Farmers’ expertise, the government said. “will be used to identify the best solutions in the development of the strategy.”

An inaugural meeting was held Dec. 12 for an advisory committee, co-chaired by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) and made up of “industry experts” including farmers and representatives of ag associations and non-governmental organizations.

Committee members, the government said, “will collaborate to identify shared challenges and solutions as we take steps towards finalizing the strategy in the next year.”

The federal strategy will look at five specific focus areas: soil health, climate adaptation and resilience, water, climate change mitigation, and biodiversity.

The strategy, Bibeau said in the government’s release, “will pave the way to help us sustain the livelihoods of farmers. Drawing from their expertise and best practices, we can ensure that the sector is more resilient in the face of climate change.”

Winnipeg MP Terry Duguid, parliamentary secretary for Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, cited Manitoba as an example of farmers on the front line of climate change, where they’ve experienced “two back-to-back droughts which have proved immensely challenging.”

Canada, he said, needs to be “strategic in how we contribute to cutting emissions, preparing for and recovering from extreme weather events.”

“This approach, which considers all facets of sustainability — environmental, economic, and social — is needed to ensure we can find pragmatic business solutions that support continued competitiveness and reduce the sector’s environmental footprint,” CFA president Mary Robinson said in the same release.

Other groups with representation on the advisory committee will include Canada Organic Growers, Egg Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, Farmers for Climate Solutions, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Fertilizer Canada, the Canadian Cattle Association, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, the Canadian Pork Council, Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, the Canola Council of Canada, Nature United, Chicken Farmers of Canada, Pulse Canada, Dairy Farmers of Canada, Soy Canada and Quebec’s Union de producteurs agricoles (UPA).

Manitoba’s Keystone Agricultural Producers “has been advocating for the inclusion of farmers when it comes to tackling the challenges affecting our sector, and today’s announcement demonstrates the federal government is listening to ensure Canadian farmers have a seat at the table,” KAP president Bill Campbell said in a separate release.

“It is also important to note that the conversation around sustainability includes not only environmental concerns, but also social and economic, something that KAP has been seeking recognition of from government.”

UPA president Martin Caron, in a separate release, pointed to the “substantial” gains made in agriculture’s ecological shifts in recent years and said further initiatives and programs adapted to “regional and sectoral realities” will help spur further gains. — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Feds open up consultations for sustainable ag strategy appeared first on Grainews.

China first proposed its “red line” scheme in 2011 to put an end to decades of “irrational development” that had encroached on forests, wetlands and other precious ecosystems.

The establishment of national parks and the restoration of ecosystems have now helped bring the total area under protection to more than 30 per cent of China’s territory, said Zhuang Shaoqin, China’s vice-national resources minister.

The figure is in line with a target recommended by the United Nations and supported by more than 100 countries to protect at least 30 per cent of the earth’s land and ocean areas by 2030. China has not yet formally agreed to the target.

The target will be discussed during talks on a new global biodiversity pact set to take place in Montreal in December, which China will lead.

Across China, authorities have been demolishing houses, workshops and hydropower plants in order to meet their own local “red line” targets, with some also cracking down on farmers for illegally expanding plantations onto protected land.

But critics say the enforcement of the scheme has remained uneven, with governments still authorised to redraw “red lines” if they interfere with major development projects.

The latest policy guidelines published in August said that some human activity would still be permitted inside the red line zones, including the cultivation and logging of commercial forests and the exploration of mineral resources.

China also acknowledged earlier this year that its marine ecosystems remained in relatively poor health, with pollution and habitat destruction still not fully under control.

— Reporting for Reuters by David Stanway in Shanghai.

The post One-third of China’s land protected under ecological ‘red line’ scheme appeared first on Grainews.

The EU limited the use of neonicotinoid chemicals, produced by companies including Bayer CropScience and Syngenta , two years ago after research pointed to risks for bees, which play a crucial role pollinating crops.

Crop chemical makers say the research blaming neonicotinoid pesticides is not backed up by field evidence and a global plunge in bee numbers in recent years is a complex phenomenon due to multiple factors.

Farmer groups, meanwhile, say no viable alternatives exist and a full ban would put France at a disadvantage to other crop-producing countries in the EU.

The outright ban on neonicotinoid pesticides was adopted by a narrow majority late on Thursday by France’s National Assembly, as part of a draft bill on biodiversity that also contains an additional tax on palm oil.

The measure, however, would not come into effect until Sept. 1, 2018, later than the January 2017 deadline previously proposed by some lawmakers.

The proposed neonicotinoid ban still needs to be pass before the French Senate, which rejected it in a previous reading, before a final vote in the National Assembly expected in the middle of the year.

The full ban was backed by France’s environment minister, who is also in favour of phasing out glyphosate herbicide in an EU review that has split member countries.

“This decision will prepare us for the future and protect bees and the role they play,” Segolene Royal said in a statement Friday. “Research and development of substitute products has to accelerate.”

Agriculture Minister Stephane Le Foll, who had warned a unilateral French move on neonicotinoids could hurt farmers in the EU’s biggest crop producing country, said he welcomed the deferred 2018 deadline.

Le Foll has been piloting a wider French plan to halve pesticide use. But he put back by seven years the initial target for reaching that goal in the face of rising farm chemical use, partly due to weather patterns such as a wet summer two years ago that increased crop disease.

Bayer said the parliamentary vote was a setback for farmers.

“Some farmers are going to find themselves in a dead end regarding crop protection… and could see their harvests fall by 15 to 40 per cent depending on the crop,” it said in a statement.

— Reporting for Reuters by Emile Picy and Gus Trompiz.

The post France moves toward all-out ban on neonics appeared first on Grainews.

The ecological account

Just as it is important to track our financial position, it is also important to measure and track our ecological position. A lot of times Mother Nature covers our managerial butts with a very good line of credit, but we can’t run a sustainable business while growing an ecological debt. We want a positive balance in our account with Mother Nature’s bank, not bounced cheques.

As the public concerns over natural resource use grows, it is becoming increasingly important to demonstrate a positive and hopefully growing ecological balance that is occurring under our leadership. This is beneficial for the public but it is also beneficial for our own businesses. In many cases the public is actually willing to pay us for some of these ecological goods and services provided from well-managed ranches, but they want verification that they are receiving what they pay for.

This is one of the primary reasons why tracking our ecological bank account is so important. Hopefully we can see the why, but the how can be overwhelming.

Monitoring program

The first step in establishing any monitoring program is determining where and what to measure. Our operation uses a standardized process developed by Land EKG in which we measure rainfall, soil cover, plant growth, species composition and biodiversity. This sounds complicated, but in truth a reading takes very little time and provides a lot of useful feedback.

Ideally measurement locations should be representative of the entire pasture, or in some cases may represent fragile or damaged areas. They also need to be accessible, as the sites will be read on a regular (annual) basis. Recording rainfall, at least in Western Canada is also important, as it is the limiting factor in grass growth and many ecological processes. We also use site specific tools such as riparian health assessments for areas along creeks and wetlands.

Once the locations are set, the next step is to establish a baseline reading. This is an objective measure of where things are at right now. This is extremely important as it is the “opening balance” and lets us know if our management decisions are making ecological deposits or withdrawals.

We use two basic types of readings in our operation. The first is a transect, where we establish a line in the pasture along which we take a series of standardized readings and photographs. The second is a photopoint in which we return to the same spot each year and take a series of documentation photographs in a complete circle. By returning to the same sites and comparing the data and the photos year over year and comparing it with our management and rainfall we get a very clear idea of the impact of our management decisions and whether we are making withdrawals or deposits to our account with nature.

Documentation important

I know many very good range managers that assess conditions as part of their nature, but documented, repeatable measures of our ecological impacts are becoming more important as we face continued pressure from the public to explain our actions as producers, challenges from issues such as endangered species legislation and profit margins that may be under pressure from rising land and input costs.

If you would like more information on Land EKG monitoring please visit www.ekgcan.com. For wetland and riparian tools take a look at cowsandfish.org. If you are interested in learning more about ecological goods and services have a look at alus.ca.

The post Tips for ecological land management appeared first on Grainews.

Denis Tremorin, director of sustainability at Pulse Canada, is the driving force behind the Canadian Field Print Calculator project and says the tool is similar to household resources that would measure a family’s carbon footprint.

“We’ve made the calculator an easy-to-use Microsoft Excel-based tool that is focused on output data and sustainability metrics that are quantitative in nature,” says Tremorin, who has been working on development for the last four years.

He says producers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have successfully piloted the tool in 500 fields covering over 80,000 acres and are continuing to expand the project.

D’Arcy Hilgartner, a grain, oilseed and pulse producer from Camrose, Alberta is a participant and says that he is proud of how sustainable his operation is but is seeing increased demand from buyers and consumers to prove it.

“Just saying that we are doing a good job isn’t cutting it and that’s where projects like this come in,” he says. “The calculator highlighted areas of our operation where we are doing well such as soil heath, water and biodiversity.

Tremorin says there is growing market demand for findings like Hilgartner’s as many retailers announce new policies about sourcing sustainable products.

Kellogg Company, for example, recently published a commitment to responsibly source their top 10 ingredients and materials by 2020. The company’s list of priorities for agricultural suppliers — resilience to climate change, optimization of fertilizer inputs, improvement of soil health and more — closely match the metrics provided by the tool.

“General Mills, Inc. has seen the calculator and is interested in an in-depth pilot project with oat growers who they purchase from so we will be working together with them in Western Canada,” says Tremorin.

Using the tool

Calculator users need to complete an initial data input of equipment used, farm locations and field details such as soil type, tillage practices and drainage. The majority of the input is then required as practices like seeding, fertilizer and pesticide application and harvest are completed.

“When growers provide their records of each activity, equipment used and hours operated to our consultant, they receive individual field performance reports based on five indicators — land use efficiency, soil erosion risk, energy use, climate impact and soil carbon release,” explains Tremorin.

The functions of the tool are closely based on another resource available in the United States through Field to Market: The Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture. Tremorin says this group is working successfully with Unilever and other large companies to share data.

Hilgartner says that he did not find the data collection process to be too onerous, which is key for more growers to participate. Tremorin notes that the pilot project has allowed for refining of the tool which could lead to partnerships with farm management companies to combine the calculator with existing software farmers may be using.

The output reports allow users to monitor improvements and compare management scenarios on their own farms but also compare their sustainability scores to regional averages.

Tremorin sees the output report as a way for growers to know their environmental impact and share information in support of their production methods. “We are realizing that food companies want to understand the agricultural production side and we are working with impact metrics because we want to change the discussion along the food supply chain.”

Hilgartner, a director of the Alberta Pulse Growers, says that if the market is looking to know how products are being produced, farmers need to have a set of measurements to back up their position.

“I have a fear that multiple markets will develop individual sustainability programs with different criteria, different reporting and little producer benefit,” he explains. “We need to stay at the forefront of the creation of these programs to develop one common practice which requires information that is already being collected.”

Tremorin agrees and says he is focusing on the data to reduce overall impact scores through the innovation of farmers, as opposed to purchasers demanding what specific practices are used in the field.

“The goal now is to get the word out and increase distribution,” says Tremorin. Interested farmers are encouraged to contact Pulse Canada or visit serecon.ca.

The post New tool measures farm operation sustainability appeared first on Grainews.