Textless Thursday: Algae bloom due to runoff in Lake Erie Western Basin



Source: AGU Blogosphere, http://blogs.agu.org/terracentral/2011/09/12/lake-erie-algae-bloom/

A Slippery Slope

This sustainability subject is a slippery slope (how's that for some alliteration?) The further I delve into what a triple bottom line means for Ontario agriculture, the further I find myself down the organic rabbit hole.

If you are not immediately familiar with the concept of triple bottom line (I admit I was not before last month), it's the idea that businesses should strive for and be measured not only on profit, but their societal and environmental contributions as well. In short, it's corporate social responsibility.

As business owners, we worry a lot about the profit on the bottom line, but how much do we consider the business' impact on the people and planet around us.

In many ways, farmers are already familiar with this concept. We pride ourselves on being stewards of the land. Participation in conservation programs like the Environmental Farm Plan is as high as 70% in Ontario and adoption of new technologies appears solid. Canadian farmers are proud to produce some of the safest food in the world. Yet, as I peel back the onion of issues, particularly around our field crop practices, my stoic confidence is wavering. There are so many layers, and I quickly regret not taking more science in undergrad. The science behind soil health and plant development should be so basic, no farmer should question what the right thing to do is on their operation.

Yet, in reality it is far more complex than this and maybe more so than necessary? Increasingly, I'm coming to believe social structure is as responsible for the current state of affairs in agriculture, as it is in any other aspect of our culture. If a paper ever evolves from the overwhelming amount of information I've absorbed in the past two weeks, it will still be ripe with questions. In what appears to be simple science, remains a host of speculation, uncertainty, fear and probably even a little distrust. In some ways, I feel compelled to dismiss those conventions I've come to accept, yet I struggle to abandon the steadfast belief there is a balance between technology (of all forms) and raw science. Without any technology we would revert back to pre-Green Revolution, which is also not practical because only 2% of the populations farms to put food on the table.

So, I will continue down the rabbit hole, unsure of what I will find next but certain there is going to be a paper in here somewhere.

Agriculture's Predictable Surprise(s)

I suppose a good way to narrow down a topic for this paper is to consider those issues which one might consider to be predictable surprises.

Predictable surprise: a situation or circumstance in which avoidable crises are marginalized in order to satisfy economic and social policies. (Wikipedia, 2013)

Max H Bazerman & Michael D Watkins reveal 6 characteristics which define a predictable surprise in their book Predictable Surprises: The Disasters You Should Have Seen Coming, and How to Prevent Them.

1) You knew a problem existed and it wouldn't solve itself
2) The problem is getting worse over time
3) Fixing the problem would incur significant costs in the present, while the benefits would actually be delayed
4) Addressing the problem requires incurring a certain cost, and the reward is avoiding an uncertain cost, though one which is expected to be much larger
5) Failure by stakeholders to prepare for the predictable surprise because tendency is towards status quo
6) Small, vocal minority benefits from inaction and is motivated to subvert the actions of leaders for their own personal gain

 In the context of the book and the discussions in my sustainability class, we examined events such as the sub-prime mortgage crash and resulting financial meltdown and the BP oil spill in the Gulf. When this lens is applied to current agri-food system, what comes to mind?

• animal welfare - specifically sow and poultry housing, tie stall barns, feedlots
• pesticide and fertilizer use
• biotechnology - helpful or harmful (I know where I stand, but the camps are so polarized on this one)
• food safety
• human health, obesity, hunger
• ag policy or lack thereof - help or hindrance, depending on industry & geography. Ie. US farm bill, supply management, ethanol policies, global trade agreements, etc. etc. 

Unfortunately, the list only gets longer as you consider all the areas in which agriculture impacts our society. If I were to chart the above issues on Simon Zadek's civil learning tool ("The Path to Corporate Responsibility", Harvard Business Review, December 2004), which measures the degree of organizational learning associated with an issue and its maturity stage, I find most of the issues are clustered where the green "opportunity zone" starts to merge with the "risky red zone".

In this quick, subjective assessment of each issue, I have assigned relative size of the issue also (represented by bubble size). Based on a recent Ipsos study with Farm & Food Care Ontario, we know food safety and health are top of mind for consumers, so they have the largest bubble. The extent to which our industry has indoctrinated the issue (industry learning on y axis) hovers around compliance to managerial in most cases. Whereas most of the issues were probably latent in the past, we have seen a definite shift right towards emerging, consolidation and even institutionalized concerns at a societal level as of late.

So, in all these issues, on what have I chosen to focus for this paper?

None other than the game of diminishing returns - the big N. Nitrogen, specifically in the form of fertilizer, and reducing production agriculture's dependence on it. Here is my game plan as of now. I'd welcome your feedback on it and please get in touch with me (Twitter @savvyfarmgirl) if you'd like to add your input.

My game plan:

1) Examine all stakeholders - producer, consumer, government, suppliers, and processors

• Quantify nitrogen use & costs today - macro & micro (research papers, producer interviews, records)
• Quantify potential savings through technology - theoretical and anecdotal evidence through producer interviews, what is macro impact

2) Examine alternatives management practices and their benefits / disadvantages - cover crops, organic, etc
3) Examine barriers to adoption - producer interviews, manufacturers
4) Identify potential means to overcome & gain wider acceptance

Studies to review:
- Foresight Report (UK 2010)
- Organic vs Convention Carbon Footprint study - Ontario
- Carbon footprint calculation - HBS/Ivey report
- Commercial Fertilizer Study, The Fertilizer Institute

Interviews needed:
- VRT users & non
- Research specialists, Agriculture Solutions, producers using alternative means of N management
- Fertilizer manufacturer

Evolution of an agriculture sustainability paper

For two weeks, I've been pondering and literally lying awake at night trying to find some direction for my MBA sustainability paper. Now, with the pressure mounting - the paper is due in exactly 2 weeks and 26 hours - I finally feel like I'm getting closer to a topic.

You'll see, the problem was not that I didn't know what to write about, rather there was too much. I spent 30 hours immersed in discussion on the role of corporations to create sustainable value, and while only briefly touching the subject, I drew parrallels to the agri-food industry throughout the entire discussion. Our food system is So. Incredibly. Broken.

Where does one start when you want to examine the total value equation on food production? There are so many issues. In a Jerry Macguire-like moment I scribed a state of the union; only to find it made the task of enacting change seem even more insurmountable. If interested, I'll post this document. In truth, it reads more like a summary of "The End of Food" by Paul Roberts.

Since then, I've been on a rollar coaster of agri-food emotion. Too haunted by the Smithfield processing plant horror stories of Food Inc., I numbly stared at the "Only $5" sign hanging above the poultry section at the grocery store. I physically could not pick the chicken off the shelf. Nor could I venture to purchase the sausage or ground beef. My mind flickered back and forth between a conversation with a CFIA meat inspector (ironically re: our class discussion on Maple Leaf Foods), news stories of "pink slime" and my beef and pork farmer friends, working their hardest to make a good living raising quality meat for Canadians. At the same time, I was hard-pressed to have an open and candid conversation with my roommate over why she chooses organic without getting my back up and feeling a need to defend.

How can I be growingly wary of one aspect of the food system and yet embrace seed technology and believe whole-heartedly GMOs are part of the sustainable ag solution? This confusion is only a fraction of that which the general public must feel. I am beginning to understand why the issues become so emotionally charged. When you can't possibly know all the facts, you fill in the void with speculation and belief.

In two weeks, I've come across two young people, speaking out against GMO's.

Their quest is noble, but my resolve is made only stronger when I see the myths on which their arguments are built. The anti-GMO movement has latched onto them to propel their anti-corporate rhetoric, and I wonder, at the tender age of 11 & 13, are they already too far gone to be educated?

When I ventured to comment on an article "The Only Real Way to End GMO's" I was berated by readers who clearly weren't interested in a different perspective. It was deflating, and in retrospect, I should've paid closer attention because I wasn't going to win over any readers in this forum anyway.

So, that was a lesson the GMO vs organic debate is so hot, it probably can not be tackled in one 3000 word paper. So that leaves me to continue to try to narrow the many issues down to something manageable. At present, I'm looking at food waste reduction or the role of technlogy. Looking for reader feedback; if you have a moment to shoot me a comment!

Back With a John Deere Tour

I'm back! It's been 1 whole year (+ a month or so), but I'm back and I'm blogging again. Hopefully, fairly regularly. There is just too much happening in agriculture right now and I have too many opinions and ideas to not voice them somewhere. The challenge, as always, will be to find the time. I tend to be a perfectionist, needing all posts to be perfect. So, I am going to strive to post more and edit less (I hear all you editor-types gasping).

To get back into it, I thought I'd share some pictures from the past week. I had the privilege to tour some of our John Deere factories with a group of fantastic customers from Southwestern Ontario and one of my dealers. 80 farmers, 14 hours on a bus, 2 factories, a few steak dinners and some barley-beverages later and  everyone was thoroughly exhausted, yet more knowledgeable about the goings-on behind the green & yellow.

While I can't share all the inside details, here are a few interesting tidbits:

• Approximately 1 gallon of paint is needed for a large tractor but a combine uses 12
• Both the combine and tractor factories build everything to order, so you can actually see your unit on the line being built
• 3 shifts work 24 hours to keep equipment coming off the line
• The Harvester Works combine factory is 91 acres under one roof
• The combine factory has its own power plant, which has supplied power to area communities when weather has caused major, delayed outages 

Walking 'the bridge' at Deere & Co World Headquarters from the display floor to the main building.

The show floor at Deere & Co. makes this combine & 8R look like kid's toys.

John Deere Harvester Works

Building combines to help harvest food for the world

John Deere Harvester Works built airplane wings and engine mounts during WWII

Visiting the Chicago Board of Trade

My Non-Resolution for 2012

Happy  New Year!

I'm not one to make resolutions. I have tried that in the past. Set goals and track progress. Truth is, if I can keep up with everything going on and make progress on the projects I already have on the go, I will be happy this year.

That being said, I do want to learn how to make infographics. Call it my non-resolution.

I'll explain more below, but first, let me introduce you to the Savvy Farmgirl Twitter-graphic. While the "0% interestingness" was a little depressing (who wants to be told they're not interesting), I've already changed by :l face into a 'geeky grin'. Visual.ly's interpretation does raise some questions; I don't even follow President Obama, much less feel I have a 'strong connection' with him. However, they did hit the foodie and wine obsession on the nose. Want to see your Twitter-graphic? Check it out for yourself.    

Now more about info graphics and my quest to learn to make them.

I am very visual, so a good infographic can 'wow' me in seconds. Add some animation, like the Social Media Revolution and I am completely and totally floored. Isn't this really just a 2-minute infographic?  I think so.

The real motivation behind the sudden interest in design actually stems from work. In an effort to pull together four media plans and several different, but slightly related, data sets into a simple and comprehensible document, I found myself trying to create one, visually appealing slide that would tell the story of many. If only I could show this all in an infographic! I thought. And so the googling began. This is when I discovered Visual.ly and the Twitter graphic. Beyond showing people their Twitter personalities, imagine what kind of kick ass presentations you could do? Buh-bye Powerpoint (FINALLY)!!

Here is one you have all likely seen before (or something very similar):

Finally, a quick Google search on food and 'eating' infographics made it clear who has jumped all over this medium. Of course, Peta was one of the first images that appeared. I was torn between posted the graphic or not. On one hand, I'd rather not send traffic their way. On the other hand, why bother reasoning with the unreasonable? One thing it certain, us agvocates and farmers have some catching up to do!

Best wishes in 2012!

Magazines Over Milk

Very few things get me fired up like a good debate over supply management. Inevitably, the day would come when the debate would be hashed out on the front pages of our national news, rather than over beers with friends & colleagues.

That day has arrived. As the Canadian Wheat Board fate hangs in the throes of parliament, and Prime Minister Harper explores joining APEC, we dairy farmers are being thrust into what may be a pivotal point in history. A point, I fear, we will have very little control and suffer all the consequence. 

Surfing yet another opinion piece in the Globe and Mail, my panic is rising. I am beginning to understand the desperation those Prairie farmers must be feeling as they fight to keep their Wheat Board. (A matter, which being from Ontario, I do not have an opinion.) The media seems unrelenting in their determination to convince Canadians supply management is the thorn in the side of our economic progression. Their pursuit of ideology is not only puzzling but, when paired with their massive reach and the overall lack of consumer understanding in regards to food, it sets me in a state of distress. 

At less than 10 years of age, I vividly recall during NAFTA and GATT that my world, as I knew it, was ending. I equated the threat to supply management as a threat on our home and livelihood. I even lined up friends' homes to keep me off the streets. Yes, streets of the booming village of 800 people where i grew up. Though less dramatic now, at the age of 28, I witness the struggles of farming friends in non-supply managed sectors, and I appreciate the real sense of insecurity that comes with today's global society. Turn on the news; nothing is certain. Not a job. Not your government. Not your food.

Ritz has been vocal, supply management will be protected because farmers want to keep it. While the milk market is primarily domestic and grains exported, there are farmers that wanted the Wheat board also. At the end of the day, the opportunity for greater profits won. Ending supply management may open other trade doors, but make no mistake, the winners will not be consumers. 93% of milk produced is consumed domestically, so the room for competition is small. Additionally, the farmer only receives 10% of the price of a $2 glass of milk, and even still, they are covering the cost of production. What savings might be had will certainly not translate into cheaper grocery store prices. Witness the supermarket price of beef when BSE devastated the beef industry in 2003 as a recent example.

Yet, we've come to measure ourselves against the U.S., where the expectation of more, cheaper food has created a system built on an artificial cost structure. Government subsidization means food is being sold cheaper than it can be produced, creating a global treadmill of nations trying to drive down costs to compete, and eliminating domestic production capacity in the process. If you can't compete, then get out. Possibly, but at what point do you need to ensure your have the ability to feed your own nation?

We've reduced our food producers to campaigning for support on the Toronto nightly news, like the local CUPE chapter. We are in dire straits. Though both important, this isn't your transit system or child's education, this is the very sustenance by which you live.

Sadly, the media only sees the trees. Supply management isn't perfect, but for goodness sake, take a look at what is going on in the broader scope. World population has swelled beyond 7 billion; it's only a matter of time before China and India drive demand, and subsequently prices, so high we will wish we had a national system in place to ensure an affordable, safe food supply for Canadians.

Finally, there is no more entitlement here than in any industry where you work hard for an honest day's pay. When was the last time Andrew Coyne put in an 18 hour day, thawing frozen pipes in the dark, racing the weather to get a crop in or standing in the pit of a parlor on his feet for hours on end. The question no one seems willing to ask in this complex puzzle is how the middleman is doing? But then, it's easier to lay blame to 13,000 farmers than the major corporations taking 90% of the profit in that glass of milk, isn't is. After all, you would hate to lose that advertising revenue in your magazine wouldn't you?