:
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 33 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, February 4, 2021, the committee is commencing its study on the environmental contribution of agriculture.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021, and therefore members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website, and the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee. I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants to this meeting that taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.
[Translation]
To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules. Before speaking, you should wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer. Just a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.
[English]
With that, I'd like to welcome our witnesses for the first hour. We have from Enviro-Stewards Inc., Bruce Taylor, president; and also from Nutrien Ltd., Candace Laing, vice-president, sustainability and stakeholder relations. Welcome.
With that, we'll start with opening statements of up to seven and a half minutes.
We'll start with Enviro-Stewards. Mr. Taylor, you have the screen.
:
Okay, I'll get started then.
Thank you very much for inviting me. It's a pleasure to be here.
Enviro-Stewards is an engineering company in Elmira, just north of Waterloo, Ontario, but we work across North America.
Today I'd like to outline a practical way to get to climate neutral and beyond for the agricultural sector. Our mission is to cultivate resilient business and improve lives. If you're interested, we have a TED talk on the development work we do in East Africa, but our paying work is in North America.
For example, Maple Leaf Foods is the world's first large food company to be carbon neutral. We got them there in November 2019. To do that, we assessed 35 facilities with them for conservation measures. Because they pursued a conservation-first approach, it's actually saving them money instead of costing them money to be carbon neutral. They're not waiting until 2030, 2040 or 2050. They're doing it now. It's actually economically viable to do it now.
I'd like to illustrate, first of all, a challenge I see in the typical procurement process. When people are buying water conservation for agri-food, or energy conservation, or food loss, typically the tendering is low cost. For example, we did 60 factories for York Region, for water conservation. We saved 36% of the water per factory, including many food and beverage manufacturers.
You can win many of the RFQs by saving 0% of the water. It's much easier to provide a quote to save 0% than 36%. As a consequence, anybody who's competent actually loses because they're at a competitive disadvantage in the typical tendering process. People think that the best energy audit to get is the cheapest one. The cheapest one will have the most expense when you get to the implementation, because the only way to do it is to implement what's always been done before.
You'll see in the technical brief I sent that we did one in London, Ontario, where we can heat an entire arena with the heat they're rejecting now by using a different approach from normal. What I want to put in your minds is that when you're doing your tendering, it's not the cost of the audit, it's the value of what's found that you need to do.
There was a bit of a better attempt when Agriculture and Agri-Food put out an RFP for a food waste challenge. It was better because it had the amount, so cost wasn't the issue. It was about who could give them the best proposal, and it gave the three criteria. I'll come back to that challenge in a minute.
I'll give a couple of examples in the food industry. The winery at Southbrook Vineyards is already LEED gold certified. It's organic, biodynamic and regenerative. They had a normal energy audit done. Their normal audit said they could save 5% with a 20-year payback. After that, we found and installed measures that cut the electricity by 40% and the gas by 40%. Interestingly, they had bought solar panels to replace the rest of their energy. They cancelled one-third of them. They didn't need them anymore because they're not using that energy. That saved half an acre of vineyard from getting covered with solar panels.
If you do a cheap audit, you're going to end up with the wrong solution at the end of the pipe. In their case, it was four months. It's two months if you value the wine that would have been lost by covering it with solar panels.
We're advocating this prevention-first approach. It's much more lucrative. That gets into the design of these programs. Most of the programs are designed to put money into capital and to basically make unattractive projects attractive. We did one project where, under one program, it was $2,500 to assess a factory for what should be done and $500,000 to implement it. All it did was implement stuff that would have been implemented anyway because they didn't have time to find what they should do.
If you take the time to find what you should do, you don't even need the capital funding. Our average payback for everything we've ever done is one year. If you find those ones, you don't need the capital, so it's much less expensive to provide the programs, and you can get what you're wanting to buy in the first place. I'm happy to comment on the design of these programs.
On social justice, after you reduce as much as you can.... In our own office, we've reduced our greenhouse gas footprint by 78% per employee through conservation. To get the last bit, you need to offset that. We sustainably offset it, but what are you going to do with that? Most of the programs in Canada are designed to benefit Canadians and Canadian companies instead of the people who are suffering from the climate change that we've caused in developing countries.
For example, we went to South Sudan and repaired solar panels on the roof of an orphanage. We get twice as much electricity, because there's twice as much sunlight in South Sudan. A generator was shut off that used to be running just to run the water pump. Instead of buying fuel for the generator, food is now bought for the kids. Socially, economically and environmentally, it's much better, but we get zero credit on any environmental program in Canada. We would get it only if we put it on our own roof in Elmira and had limited daylight all winter.
We have these XPrizes for carbon. The best way to sequester carbon is to just leave it as coal. It's never going to be more inert than that.
Planting trees is great. We should do that, but how about not cutting down trees in the first place? When you go to developing countries, they're cutting down trees to boil the water to make it safe to drink. If you just gave them safe water in the first place, you don't have to deforest, you don't have to....If we get smart about it, we actually get much better impacts on all of the sustainable development goals, not just one at a time.
On the food loss angle, this is probably your biggest opportunity. You probably know the big numbers, that one-third of all the food on the planet is wasted. If it were a country, the third-largest greenhouse gas emitter would be food loss, after China and the United States. The second-largest water consumer on the planet is the growing of food that's wasted. In Canada, it's $49 billion per year of lost value.
Almost 100% of the effort has been on how we divert that from landfill, because if it gets to landfill, it's going to turn to methane gas. If you divert 100% from landfill, you still waste one-third of the food. It's still the third-largest greenhouse gas emitter; it's still the second-largest water consumer on the planet, and you still lose most of that $49 billion. The only way to not do that is to not waste the food in the first place, and there are almost no programs targeting that.
We did Campbell Soup in Toronto. We first did energy and water, with a process integration. We found savings of $1.6 million per year of energy and water. Then we did food. We found them $700,000 per year of food that didn't have to be wasted. That food was going to a waste energy plant, but it's 4,000 tonnes less greenhouse gas to keep it as food, because it was in that supply chain.
We leveraged that, and the Walmart Foundation co-funded us to do 50 audits across Canada. This was a program administered by CFIA and the Provision Coalition. We went to 50 factories—
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for the invitation to appear.
My name is Candace Laing, and I am Nutrien's vice-president of sustainability and stakeholder relations, coming to you today from Saskatoon. I would like to acknowledge I'm coming to you from Treaty 6 territory and the traditional homeland of the Métis.
As a bit of background for anyone who is less familiar with our company, which is just a little over three years old, Nutrien was created through a merger of equals between Agrium and the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, previously two of Canada's leading agriculture and mining companies. Together, as Nutrien, we've become the world's largest provider of crop inputs and services. Our business spans operating segments including our retail division, known as Nutrien Ag Solutions, and the manufacturing and mining of potash, nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers.
Though our company has grown—we now span 13 countries and three continents—our operations in Canada remain extensive. We have six potash mines in Saskatchewan, four nitrogen manufacturing facilities in Alberta, and nearly 300 ag retail outlets, primarily across western Canada. This is in addition to two corporate offices in Calgary and Saskatoon.
Our purpose as a company is to grow our world from the ground up. With nearly 10 billion people expected by 2050, we have a big challenge in front of us. Feeding this growing population without increasing land use and while tackling climate change is one of our biggest challenges and greatest opportunities. The future of agriculture depends on industry leaders, partners and governments taking concrete actions to support sustainable farming practices. Last month at Nutrien, we launched our feeding the future plan. This includes commitments to help reduce our carbon footprint. We see these commitments as critical in driving the next shift in agriculture. We've set out to decrease emissions directly related to our operations, while supporting growers with our products and services so they can store more carbon in their soil and reduce emissions with better nutrient management.
Some of our commitments, set to be achieved by 2030, include enabling growers to adopt sustainable agriculture on 75 million acres globally; a comprehensive carbon program that empowers growers to accelerate climate-smart agriculture and soil carbon sequestration, where growers are rewarded for their efforts through the generation of carbon credits and assets; and at least a 30% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions per tonne of product produced, while we're also pursuing the transition to low-carbon fertilizers.
[Technical difficulty—Editor] speak to the emissions-reduction and sequestration opportunity in crop production, and what Nutrien is doing to accelerate the nature-based climate solutions from agriculture and reward growers for those efforts.
This growing season we are piloting our carbon program. We targeted 100,000 acres in North America, 20,000 acres of which were in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Interest from growers has been extremely encouraging and exceeds our target for acres applied. We are now executing our pilots on 200,000 acres across North America, 45,000 acres of which are in Canada.
The carbon program empowers growers to accelerate climate-smart agriculture and soil carbon sequestration. At Nutrien we work directly with our growers to build customized crop plans that reduce their carbon footprint. We assist in verifying carbon performance, and currently we are paying growers directly for their participation, anticipating we need to be ready to support [Technical difficulty—Editor] in a compliance or voluntary offset market.
Nutrien's long-term goal is to put learning from these pilots to work and scale the program globally to build real, lasting change and impacts. A significant component of our pilots includes troubleshooting existing offset protocols and their barriers to adoption. The nitrous oxide emissions reduction protocol, or NERP, in Alberta's carbon compliance framework is world leading, yet it has not been transacted on in 10 years due, in part, to the significant administrative burden and relatively low return on investment for growers.
Early findings from our pilots have shown us two things. First is the value of digital tools. They capture and create credible evidence, making it easier for growers to measure their carbon reduction progress. Digital [Technical difficulty—Editor] when most offset protocols, like NERP, were first developed. Embedding them, as we are, with existing and new protocols will make carbon credits more accessible to growers.
Second, we have learned that protocols must be stackable. Our pilots stack soil organic carbon and nitrogen management protocols to deliver the highest emissions reductions. Stacking protocols makes economic sense for the grower, who may not see enough value and return in a single protocol in order to invest in the practice changes.
We are in regular communication with Environment and Climate Change Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on our findings, as well as with provincial governments. The NERP has not been prioritized for development in our federal offset program, but at Nutrien we are hopeful that learnings from our pilots will accelerate this.
Adopting the NERP will also help the federal government achieve its goal of reducing nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer by 30% by 2030. Let me be clear: Reducing N2O emissions by 30% is extremely ambitious and perhaps even unachievable without compromising crop yields and thereby threatening global food security and our position as a global leader in agriculture. However, we believe that by creating a value in carbon assets from agriculture, we can make significant progress. More to the point, we can help Canada tap into the significant opportunity in agriculture to deliver on our nationally determined contributions.
In summary, our recommendations to the committee are as follows.
Number one, partner and work with us. Enable Nutrien’s carbon program by helping create a suite of stackable, accessible agricultural protocols within the federal offset system that combine both nitrogen management and carbon sequestration.
Second, ensure that any policies to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions use the carrot and not the stick. We need policy support to help us scale climate solutions while we maintain productivity and enhance grower resilience.
We have an opportunity to give credit to Canadian producers, who are already among the most sustainable in the world.
With that, I'd like to thank members of Parliament for their time today, and I am pleased to answer any questions.
:
Yes, it works from.... We're doing some right now in a circular food economy demonstration project where there might be half a dozen employees, right up to Campbell's or Molson or Labatt, with thousands of employees. It's the same thing. The percentage is the same but the magnitude is different. Right now we have an offer in. We did the 50 assessments across Canada.
To give you an idea of the scale, if you put a grocery bag beside the CN Tower and another one beside it, you would get to London, Ontario, before you ran out of grocery bags, every year, just with what we found in those 50 factories. Each of those 50 factories would save $230,000 per year on their operating costs with under a one-year payback, which protects every job in those factories from moving to another country.
With Campbell Soup, we implemented some of the stuff, but before we could implement the rest they decided to move their factory to a different country. How much harder would that decision have been if we'd embedded all of that and there was $2.5 million in additional profits on the books when they were making that decision?
What we need to do is embed this efficiency in the factories. The best way to do that is to find that efficiency. Invest in finding that efficiency. That is my advice, whether you're a mom-and-pop or whether you're a multinational.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both of our witnesses for guiding us on this journey with this new study.
Mr. Taylor, I'll start with you. I am very interested in the subject of food waste, and it's been really intriguing to listen to the success you've had with production facilities in reducing their waste.
I have a small organization in my riding called the Cowichan Green Community, and they've partnered with local supermarkets to take their food that has gone past the date but is still quite viable. With a grant from our provincial government, they are repurposing that food and selling it. They're really just tackling this as much as they can and then, when they get to a point where the food is no longer fit for human consumption, they have partnerships with local farms so that it can be used as animal feed. That way, a very small percentage, if any at all, is left over for the landfill.
They are getting close to having it commercially viable. It has taken some government assistance to scale up their operation, but if we wanted to replicate that model to other small communities across Canada, do you have any suggestions about what we could include in our report for the federal government?
:
Yes. We're working with one in Guelph right now, called Our Food Future, I think.
Basically we're working with half a dozen small manufacturers in that town, like a dairy, a brewery, a canning plant and a cidery. The circular economy means, instead of just making stuff and having it end up in landfill later on, it forms a circle, but most people don't think about the size of that circle. You want that circle size as small as possible.
If its beer, keep it as beer; if there's grain left over we'll manage that, but let's first maximize the yield. That's where there's this food loss prevention, and that's where the highest value is, but then with the residuals, how do you make this ecosystem for that? That's a demonstration one right now that the federal government is helping out with, and it's a model of the circular economy, which is a buzzword that's growing. Regenerative is another one, but food loss is a really big one right now. There's a lot of liability.
We talk about feeding the 10 billion people. If you're wasting a third of the food, there's your food right there. Let's not burn down the Amazon; let's just make better use of food we're already growing.
:
Yes, absolutely. When we look at reductions for nitrogen, we look at it from what happens between now and 2030, and then almost from 2030 to 2050. The reason is that there are some technological considerations. If we're going to scale green ammonia, the point at which we'll have enough access to renewable energy is likely more than 15 years out.
In addition to that, as I said, as regards technology, through the International Fertilizer Association we've just put into public consultation a nitrogen technology road map that outlines the time period between now and 2050. It's really interesting, but it's to how far we can get in absolute emissions by 2050 as a sector.
At Nutrien we are committed to setting science-based targets and are engaged in a process with peers and partners, the science-based target initiative, to build out the portion of our carbon budget that makes sense for our company and sector.
While we do that work and develop a sectoral approach, we have set this 30% intensity target by 2030. Between now and 2030, we're focused on abatement—any more abatement we can possibly invest in. As well, we have some carbon capture.
We have some capacity for production of blue ammonia where we have sites co-located with carbon trunk lines. For sites that aren't co-located, we have to look at longer-term options, to get into other options for blue and low-carbon fertilizer.
The 4R nutrient stewardship is really this suite of best management practices: right source, right rate, right time, right place. They really help us reduce nitrous oxide emissions among other things, such as water quality, etc. The role they have to play and how they're linked with NERP protocol is really important.
One of the things we're exploring in our carbon program is engaging growers at all different stages of implementing the practices, from advanced growers to growers who are looking at the basics. The 4Rs are really outlined in that way. There's a basic, an intermediate and an advanced level. We work with all of those growers to see how we can continue to advance on practices.
As I mentioned before, there are some costs when you get into the intermediate and advanced practices. Growers might not have everything they need to calculate variable rates, which is a very good practice, but maybe they don't have all the equipment, etc.
We really help by working through those barriers, making the plan, and then combining that with soil organic carbon protocol work and other products to get the full carbon asset out of the farm operation.
Mr. Taylor, I will continue with you. I know from discussions with several farmers in my riding that their electricity bills can be eye-wateringly huge.
Here in British Columbia, we're very lucky because, of course, more than 90% of our power is generated by hydroelectricity, but I'm looking outside at a beautiful, sunny day. All of this energy is raining down from this big glowing orb in the sky. Look at the price of solar panels, and how they have gone down and down. They are becoming more efficient. I know you talked about helping a grape grower. I look at all of that empty space on barn roofs that could be covered in solar panels.
For jurisdictions where they are relying on fossil fuels for electricity generation, is this something that is becoming increasingly viable for farmers to participate in? I know we have a variable climate. Our winters are not the greatest, but our summers are pretty amazing for power generation.
Is this something that we should also be pursuing? Should we be helping our farmers to get solar panels on their roofs and on their property?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation to appear before this committee.
As stated, my name is Isabelle Rayle-Doiron. I'm the general secretary and general counsel of Danone Canada. I'm here with my colleague Jean-Marc Bertrand, our procurement director.
Danone Canada is a business unit of Danone, a leading global food and beverage company providing essential dairy and plant-based products, water and specialized nutrition products.
[Translation]
Established in Canada in 1930 by the Delisle yogourt company, Danone is now one of the largest manufacturers of dairy and plant-based products in the country. We are proud to have offices in Boucherville, Quebec, and Mississauga, Ontario. Our mission is to provide healthy foods to as many people as possible.
[English]
We are Canada's largest consumer-facing B corporation, a certification that reflects our commitment to meeting the highest standards of social and environmental performance. We at Danone are committed to doing our part in the fight against climate change by implementing carbon-positive solutions and aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, from the farm level to the end of life of our packaging. Agriculture is at the heart of what we do. Danone supports the ability of farmers, as lead actors, to transition to environmentally friendly practices.
I will turn it over to my colleague Jean-Marc, director of procurement and lead of our regenerative agriculture initiatives in Canada. Jean-Marc will speak to our current efforts and share our views on ways the Government of Canada can help partner with industry to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture.
Danone is no stranger to regenerative agriculture practices worldwide. We have defined our vision on regenerative agriculture around three principles: first, protecting soil, water and biodiversity; second, empowering a new generation of farmers; and third, respecting animal welfare. We have been inspired by the impressive work done by our Danone colleagues in other geographies, in partnership with their local farmers.
In the United States, Danone partnered with farmers to launch a soil health initiative. It includes an initial investment of $6 million for piloting soil health management of 100,000 acres by 2022. The goal is to restore the soil's ability to capture carbon and reduce overall GHG emissions across farm operations, such as in manure management and barn efficiencies. This study also serves to quantify and validate the return on investment resulting from the soil health initiative and transition to regenerative agricultural practices.
In Canada, there are limited opportunities to partner with farmers to promote regenerative agriculture practices in a way that drives returns for each partner. That being said, Danone Canada has put in place small-scale but promising regenerative agriculture projects.
[Translation]
Since 2019, Danone Canada has proudly partnered with the cooperative Nutrinor, based in Quebec's Lac Saint-Jean region. Together, we are exploring ways to improve soil health, animal welfare and producer independence.
[English]
As another example, a Danone brand, Silk, a leader in the plant-based product category, announced last year a partnership with the New Acre Project led by Alus Canada.
Silk's involvement will help support the management and restoration of 90 acres of farmland in seven communities in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec over the next seven years. New Acre Project will provide annual progress reports on key performance indicators such as overall biodiversity gain, water quality improvement, and soil organic carbon accumulated in the restored marginal lands.
These projects are an example that show Danone Canada's commitment to partnering with farmers and helping them improve their farming practices.
We believe the government has an important role to play on the following four topics.
First is tools and measurements. To promote regenerative agriculture practices in the country we need to start by measuring the environmental impact of current practices and create a clear baseline. Data collection will also be key to develop tools to measure the outcomes and provide positive impacts of using regenerative practices.
Second is education and technical assistance. To be successful, farmers will also require education, training and technical support to better align their own practices with principles of regenerative agriculture. The government can help support a multitude of farmers by partnering with companies like ours to engage more farms.
Third is financial incentives. To enable a wide-scale transition to regenerative agriculture, strong financial incentives are essential. Incentivizing farmers willing to transition to regenerative agriculture practices could be done by optimizing current programs focusing on the most impactful practices.
Lastly is coordination. We also believe in implementing a coordinated approach between government and all stakeholders, including food processors, to allow the private sector to collaborate and contribute to the effort of promoting regenerative agriculture practices in Canada.
In conclusion, we believe that accelerating the transition of more farms to regenerative agriculture practices will definitely help address several global challenges, from climate change to water scarcity and restoring biodiversity, while driving sustainable, inclusive economic growth.
At Danone we believe that the health of the people and the health of the planet are profoundly interconnected.
[Translation]
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to appear before the committee.
[English]
We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have, in French or in English.
I'd like to thank the committee members, especially my member of Parliament, Yves Perron.
I am very glad that the committee invited me to participate in its study of best practices in agriculture. This is a special opportunity.
Jardins de l'écoumène has been in operation for some 20 years, in the same place we started, the Lanaudière region. We produce mainly seeds, organic heirloom varieties.
In the beginning, when we started the business, we were seen as an outlier. Many people wondered why we would want to get into organic farming and offer heirloom varieties. At the time, the fertilizer world was in full swing; the focus was on technology-based practices involving genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, and hybrids, which were highly sought after by the industry and many gardeners.
Today, the trend is different. Our business is booming. Over the past 20 years, we have watched our sales grow from a few thousand dollars to $2.5 million. We supply organic products to a gardener customer base. We are very proud of what we have accomplished in recent years.
Since the beginning, our company's focus has been twofold: a financial focus—which made it possible to grow the business—and an environmental focus. For us, the environment and ecology really means science, ecological science. As a result, we understand ecosystems, biotopes, niches and ecosystem services, which we work with to produce foodstuffs, or seeds, while always keeping ecosystem health in mind. We work with nature in order to understand how it works and learn practices that respect soil, water and biodiversity health. That is what we do.
When I heard about the committee's study, I smiled a bit. I figured you were expecting me to talk about practices to foster better conditions, both for human health and for soil and biodiversity health. Then, I instinctively thought that there was something about your study I was missing. Are any of the people here today looking for solutions? You already have the solution.
I say that because Canada established a national standard for organic farming. Our practices are based on it. You probably know a bit about how organic standard certification works.
In Quebec, an agency called Québec Vrai is responsible for certification. It's all done in advance in accordance with ISO standards, which require us to apply practices that keep soil and ecosystems healthy. We cannot use pesticides, chemicals or GMOs. Our production has to have the least possible environmental impact.
Today, I'm going to put myself in the shoes of a politician. I want to tell you what I would do if I were you, to ensure Canada had more environmentally responsible practices.
I was interested in what you had already. For the benefit of the committee members and analysts, I want to point out that information is available from the Canada Organic Trade Association. I'm not sure whether the committee will be hearing from association representatives, but it has done a great job of describing all the practices that have been standardized and those that are prohibited [Editor's Note: Technical difficulty—Editor]
For instance, we use practices such as crop rotation and companion planting. We also use compost and beneficial insects for pest control. We work with living soil. We have research and development partnerships with organizations such as Bio-Terre. Currently, we are involved in a three-year project to characterize soil microbiology. In organic farming, we have to make sure the soil food chain provides plants with the proper support.
A moment ago, I named a few products that were prohibited. Synthetic fertilizers, toxic pesticides, GMOs and sewage sludge are all prohibited, as is any product that prevents an ecosystem from functioning effectively.
If the committee members are interested, they can find more information on the Canada Organic Trade Association's website.
Another issue I'd like to bring to your attention is one that makes no sense to me. In order to obtain organic certification, we have to shell out $3,600 a year. That's ridiculous. I can't understand how small and medium-sized businesses can be made to pay a fee to show that they are taking care of the environment and following best practices. We make sure all of our practices comply with the appropriate standards. Every year, someone conducts verifications to make sure of it. It just makes no sense.
:
Yes, and this is key. If we want to continue marketing our great products, we need to make sure these farmers are still going to be around in the next year or in the next generations. That's absolutely essential, and it is key in our definition.
If you recall, the second bullet in our definition is the empowerment of farmers, but it's also to make sure they continue to make a living.
Right now, with the 100,000 acres we ran as a pilot, mostly in the U.S. and some in Canada, basically we helped them by paying for all the studies, to make sure we understood the baseline. We also made sure to run those models long enough to see the payback.
There is a payback. That's the great thing about this. However, to kick-start or to initiate these projects, there is a spend that needs to be taken care of. In the end, after three to four years, depending on the soil and the types of things you grow, for sure, the goal is to get a payback on these projects and a return on investment.
:
Yes. I'll start with the testimony.
I have many examples from the 34 farms that are part of the 100,000 acres in the United States. Closer to us, I've been able to meet with at least two Quebec growers who are into what we call in French “les grandes cultures”. I'm sorry; I am not sure exactly how to translate that, but it's corn, peas and soy.
It took these guys quite a while because they were self-reflecting about all this. In the end, they have 10% to 15% more output, and they have reduced their costs because they no longer use chemical fertilizers. They have not yet arrived at a fully organic product, as Mr. Lévêque just described, but they tend to be closer to this because these practices reduce energy.
You go less often into your fields with your tractor, so you generate less carbon, and you leave the soil to restore itself because the soil has everything it needs to do so. You never leave it bare. By adding cover crops, you capture more carbon, so you don't need the input.
In the end, they're winning on all fronts. They're winning on higher yields and lower costs. However, to characterize it with a real number depends on what you grow and where you are. That's why a testing measurement is required. Whatever we've found works great in Ohio we couldn't apply in Lac Saint-Jean, and whatever works well in Ohio doesn't work in Kansas. Unfortunately I do not have the silver bullet to solve everything today, but we know that the principles work. They just have to be adapted to each region and each type of plant you're growing.
:
Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.
I'll just make a little statement, because I'm also a certified organic grower, but I have been a conventional grower.
[Translation]
I do not want to criticize conventional producers, as I used to be one myself. Moreover, any effort to reduce the carbon footprint is important.
I understand having to pay to gain organic certification. I have worked in organic agriculture and in conventional agriculture, and I think we are all moving toward a better world.
I thank the Danone representatives, Jean-Marc Bertrand, director of procurement, and Isabelle Rayle-Doiron. I also thank Jean-François Lévêque, from Jardins de l'écoumène.
[English]
To all our committee members, thanks for being here. Enjoy the rest of the week and we shall see you, not next week, but the following week.
[Translation]
Thank you, everyone, and have a good weekend.
(Meeting adjourned)