environmental s canadian agriculture - agriculture and agri

ENVIRONMENTALSUSTAINABILITY OF

CANADIAN AGRICULTURE:Report of the Agri-Environmental

Indicator Project

A SummaryT. McRae, C.A.S. Smith, and L.J. Gregorich (editors)

Research Branch, Policy Branch, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2000


CANADIAN AGRICULTURE:Report of the Agri-Environmental

Indicator Project

A SummaryT. McRae, C.A.S. Smith, and L.J. Gregorich (editors)

Research Branch, Policy Branch, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2000

Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada

Agriculture etAgroalimentaire Canada


CANADIAN AGRICULTURE:Report of

the Agri EnvironmentalIndicator Project

A Summary

T. McRae, C.A.S. Smith, and L.J. Gregorich (editors)

Research BranchPolicy Branch

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada2000

© Minister of Public Works and Government of Canada Services 2000

To obtain additional copies:Publications SectionAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaSir John Carling Building930 Carling AvenueOttawa, Ontario K1A 0C5(613) 759-6626

Electronic version available at www.agr.ca/policy/environment/

Catalog No. A22-201/2000-1EISBN 0-662-28492-5AAFC No. 2023/E

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

Main entry under title:Environmental sustainability of Canadian agriculture :

report of the Agri-environmental Indicator Project : asummary

Issued also in French under title: L’agriculture écologiquement durable au Canada, rapport sur le Projet des indicateurs agroenvironnementaux, résumé.

Includes bibliographical references.Cat. no. A22-201/2000-1EISBN 0-662-28492-5

1. Agricultural ecology—Canada. 2. Sustainableagriculture—Canada. 3. Agriculture—Environmental aspects—Canada. I. Gregorich, L. J. II. McRae, Terence III. Smith,C. A. S. (Clifton Andrew Scott) IV. Canada. Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada.

S589.76.C3E58 2000 333.76’16’0971 C00-900101-8

This summary can be cited as followsMcRae, T., C.A.S. Smith, and L.J. Gregorich (eds). 2000. Environmental Sustainability of Canadian Agriculture: Report ofthe Agri-Environmental Indicator Project. A Summary. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ont.

Each chapter can be cited as follows[Name(s) of chapter author(s)]. 2000. [Chapter heading]. Pages [...] - [...] in McRae, T., C.A.S. Smith, and L.J. Gregorich(eds). 2000. Environmental Sustainability of Canadian Agriculture: Report of the Agri-Environmental Indicator Project. ASummary. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ont.

Printed on recycled paper

Contents

A word from the Minister on Sustainable Development iiiA word from the Agri-Environmental Indicator Project Advisory Committee v

Introduction and Background1: Introduction 12: Understanding and Assessing the Environmental Sustainability of Agriculture 23: Driving Forces Affecting the Environmental Sustainability of Agriculture 3

Environmental Farm Management4: Soil Cover by Crops and Residue 45: Management of Farm Nutrient and Pesticide Inputs 5

Soil Quality6: Risk of Water Erosion 67: Risk of Wind Erosion 78: Risk of Tillage Erosion 89: Soil Organic Carbon 9

10: Risk of Soil Compaction 1011: Risk of Soil Salinization 11

Water Quality12: Risk of Water Contamination by Nitrogen 1213: Risk of Water Contamination by Phosphorus 13

Agroecosystem Greenhouse Gas Emissions14: Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Budget 14

Agroecosystem Biodiversity15: Availability of Wildlife Habitat on Farmland 15

Production Intensity16. Residual Nitrogen 1617: Energy Use 17

Summary18: Regional Analysis of Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture 1819: Conclusions 19

iii

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

v

A word from

The Ministeron Sustainable Development

The sustainable production of food is crucial for us all. As Minister of Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada, I am pleased to present Environmental Sustainability of CanadianAgriculture: Report of the Agri-Environmental Indicator Project. In this report, weintroduce a new set of tools, agri-environmental indicators, to help guide and assess theenvironmental performance of our primary agriculture sector.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is pleased to have lead the development of theseindicators, which are based on our best understanding of agricultural ecosystems andtheir interactions with the economy and surrounding environment. Our scientists haveworked together with the invaluable assistance of an external Advisory Committee todevelop the methods and information, and also to analyze the results. We can nowbegin to use the indicators to assess the environmental implications of our actions, andwe will draw on this and related information as we engage our partners in a dialogueaimed at developing a new Sustainable Development Strategy. Many of the underlyingconcepts and methods may well be used by others to track the environmental perform-ance of primary agriculture elsewhere, such as in other countries.

Environmental Sustainability of Canadian Agriculture: Report of the Agri-Environmental Indicator Projectis anotherimportant contribution toward our goal of increasing understanding of linkages between the environment and the agriculturaleconomy. The results clearly demonstrate the progress Canadian agriculture has made in conserving the environment, andalsofocus our attention on where we need to work harder. This publication compliments andintegrates the information pre-sented in related publications from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada:The Health of Our Soil(1995), The Health of Our Air(1999)and The Health of Our Water (2000).

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will continue to work with its partners to encourage sustainable development throughbasic research, and by developing and transferring the tools producers and other decision-makers need to improve environ-mental management in agriculture.

Lyle Vanclief

Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canadaand Minister Coordinating Rural Affairs

Ministrede l’Agriculture et del’Agroalimentaire

Ministerof Agriculture and

Agri-Food

Ottawa, Canada K1A 0C5

A word from the Agri-Environmental Indicator ProjectAdvisory Committee

vii

Agriculture is integral to Canadian society, makingsignificant contributions to our economy, rural

communities, and food security. It is also intimatelyconnected to the environment. Not only are resourcessuch as soil and water vital to agricultural productivity,but agriculture both affects and is affected by the local,regional, and global environment.

In recent years, Canadians have made significant com-mitments toward a more sustainable society. The gov-ernment of Canada has signed international conven-tions; federal and provincial governments have imple-mented environmental legislation, policies, and pro-grams; and municipalities have adopted environmentalbylaws. Citizens and industry have also contributedthrough numerous actions. The challenge of achievinga more environmentally sound agriculture has beentaken up by farmers, and the agriculture industry hasundertaken many initiatives to ensure its sustainability.If more-sustainable agriculture is to become a reality,objectives and indicators of progress are needed toguide these efforts.

Recognizing the need for indicators, and in response torecommendations made by several groups, Agricultureand Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) initiated the Agri-Environmental Indicator Project in 1993. The depart-ment’s Environment Bureau and Research Branch car-ried out most of the work. Many AAFC scientists andanalysts from across the country were involved indeveloping and using the indicators to generate thefindings presented in this report. Many scientists out-side of AAFC also contributed to this work.

An advisory committee was established in 1995 toprovide input from agencies other than AAFC. Severalfarm and farm input-supply organizations, conserva-tion groups, universities, scientific bodies, provincialagriculture ministries, and federal departments wererepresented on this advisory body, which played a sig-nificant role in the process of developing the indicatorsand shaping this report. As a result of the advisorycommittee’s efforts, many indicators were modified,some were dropped, and others were added.

The advisory committee regards the indicator projectas a success. The findings of this report confirm thatthe agricultural industry’s efforts to address environ-mental challenges have yielded many positive results,and also that much remains to be done. This study rep-resents a major step forward in our ability to providenational assessments of the environmental performanceof agriculture, based on available information andresources.

We encourage all users to exercise caution in interpret-ing and using this report. The indicators provide firstapproximations; their limitations are explained inChapter 2 of the full report (EnvironmentalSustainability of Canadian Agriculture: Report of theAgri-Environmental Indicator Project), as well as foreach individual indicator. More research and effort willbe needed to increase the accuracy and scope of theindicators. Also, the utility of the indicators has yet tobe fully tested, and this will be the ultimate measure oftheir success.

We are confident that the indicators will contribute to amore informed debate in Canada regarding the estab-lishment and pursuit of environmental sustainabilitygoals for agriculture, and that this work will contributeto similar initiatives underway elsewhere withinCanada and abroad. We urge Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to ensure the continuous improvementand periodic reporting of the agri-environmental indi-cators in the future.

David Lobb, Marie Boehm, and Jim FarrellCo-chairs, Agri-Environmental Indicator Project

Advisory Committee

IntroductionT. McRae

A. Introduction and Background

1

Need for environmentallysustainable agriculture

Agriculture today must balance a wide arrayof demands and environmental challenges

that are continually evolving in their nature andcomplexity. A major challenge is achievinglong term environmental sustainability of pro-duction. At the same time, agriculture isincreasingly valued by Canadians for its envi-ronmental benefits, including its provision ofsome wildlife habitat; the visual beauty offarmland; and environmental services, such asnutrient cycling and the storage and filtering ofwater. Governments, farmers, and others haveworked together for many years to promoteresearch, programming, and related actions toaddress environmental concerns. However, anenvironmentally sustainable form of agricultureis now more urgently needed. The policy chal-lenge in agriculture — to ensure optimal andsustainable social, economic, and environmen-tal benefits — has become more pressing andcomplex than ever.

Need for information

If we genuinely want to practise environmen-tally sustainable agriculture, we must have

some idea of whether the path we are on isheaded toward or away from this goal.Information is one of the common needs of alldecision makers concerned with sustainability.Decision makers at all levels need informationon the performance of a given system, why thatsystem is behaving as it is, whether that per-formance is satisfactory, and how it is likely tobehave in the future in response to potentialchanges in policies and other driving forces.Decision makers who rely solely on economicindicators risk achieving economic goals at theexpense of environmental and other objectives.Over the past 15 years, considerable effort hasgone into developing new ways of measuringand valuing environmental assets and services,and understanding the links between the envi-ronment and the economy. Environmental indi-cators are one result of such efforts.

Benefits of agri-environmentalindicators

Environmental Sustainability of Canadian Agriculture: Report of the Agri-

Environmental Indicator Projectpresents theresults of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’swork on agri-environmental indicators. Agri-environmental indicators are measures of keyenvironmental conditions, risks, and changesresulting from agriculture, and of managementpractices used by producers. They are expectedto be useful in

• informing agricultural and other decisionmakers about environmental performance inagriculture

• demonstrating the progress being made bythe agriculture sector in adopting stewardshipprinciples and using environmentally soundpractices

• supporting the development of strategies andactions targeted at areas and resources thatremain at environmental risk

• facilitating the environmental analysis ofpolicies and programs in agriculture and pro-viding a means of monitoring their perform-ance

• contributing to international efforts to devel-op agri-environmental indicators.

ReportÕs audience and focus

Environmental Sustainability of Canadian Agriculture: Report of the Agri-

Environmental Indicator Projectis targeted atfarmers and farm leaders, government policymakers, environmentalists, and the interestedpublic. The report offers an overall assessmentof agroecosystem sustainability and considersthe major environmental conditions withinagroecosystems, as well as relationshipsbetween agroecosystems and the broader natu-ral ecosystems and driving forces with whichthey interact. Indicators are presented for sixmain areas: farm management, soil, water, air,biodiversity, and production intensity.

1

Understanding and Assessing theEnvironmental Sustainability of Agriculture C.A.S. Smith and T. McRae


2

Two criteria

Agroecosystems begin as natural ecosystemsand develop under human manipulation.

Even under this manipulation they have muchin common with natural systems, sharing soils,water resources, natural nutrient supplies, andsolar radiation and other aspects of climate.The two main criteria used to judge the envi-ronmental sustainability of Canada’s agricultureare how well it manages and conserves naturalresources that support agricultural production,and how compatible agricultural systems arewith natural systems and processes.

Conceptual framework

Agri-environmental indicators were selectedusing a Driving Force–Outcome–Response

framework, which recognizes three broad areasthat sustainability assessments must consider:

• driving forces that influence agriculturalactivities

• environmental outcomes of these activities,both beneficial and adverse

• societal responses to actual and perceivedchanges in outcomes and driving forces,including producer behaviour, consumerreactions, technological development, andgovernment action.

Agri-environmental indicators

Fourteen agri-environmental indicators weredeveloped within six categories: environ-

mental farm management, soil quality, waterquality, greenhouse gas emissions, agroecosys-tem biodiversity, and production intensity.Some indicators are summaries of nationalCensus of Agriculturedata, survey data, orprovincial data. Others were calculated usingexisting or newly developed mathematicalmodels or formulas and an integration of cen-sus data,Soil Landscapes of Canadainforma-tion, and, in some cases, custom data sets.

Indicator limitations

A ll indicators are subject to various limita-tions, including those related to gaps in

data and our knowledge base, the quality of thedata, and geographical limits. These limitationsconfine the use of the indicators to depictingtrends over time in certain areas and providinga basis for comparison between areas.

Conclusion

The results of this work are encouraging. Theindicators appear sensitive to changing farm

practices and show patterns of environmentalrisk that reflect the intensity of agricultural pro-duction in some areas. They establish a base-line against which future assessments can becompared. And they will be useful in develop-ing and evaluating agricultural policy, directingfuture research, and providing producers with areport card on broad trends in agriculture’senvironmental performance.

2

Driving Forces- Economic/Social (e.g., markets, policies, consumer preferences)

- Environmental (e.g., soil, weather)- Technological (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides,

biotechnology)

Responses- Government policies

(e.g., regulations, research,economic instruments)

- Farmer behaviour (e.g., changes ininput use, farm management practices

- Consumer preferences(e.g., food consumption)

patterns

Outcomes- Environmental (e.g., soil

quality, water quality, biodiversity)

- Economic (e.g., agriculture GDP,farm income)

- Social (e.g., employment, rural development)

Driving ForceÐOutcomeÐResponseFramework for agriculture

Driving Forces Affecting the EnvironmentalSustainability of AgricultureR.J. MacGregor and T. McRae


3

Key driving forces

Agriculture is situated within the broadereconomic, social, and environmental sys-

tems of the world. These systems are inextrica-bly linked to one another, interacting and givingrise to various driving forces that influence thenature and direction of agricultural production,as well as environmental and other outcomes ofagriculture. Key driving forces are the economicand social signals received from the market-place, government policy, and technology. Overtime these have evolved considerably and inrecent years have become more complex.

Market demand and socialpreferences

G lobal demand for agricultural products hasgrown and will continue to do so. The

nature of that demand has also changed.Growth and evolution in demand has beenaccompanied by globalization of markets,increased trade liberalization, and competitionamong countries. Canada’s agriculture hasresponded by increasing output and adoptingnew production methods and technologies toimprove its productivity and competitiveness.Structural changes have also occurred, such asgreater farm size and specialization, and moreintensive use of land and other resource inputs.Many of these changes have increased the poten-tial environmental risks from agriculture. At thesame time, society’s environmental expectationsand preferences have evolved. New environmen-tal regulations and agreements have been enact-ed, placing additional demands on agriculture tomeet environmental as well as economic goals.

Technology

A t the farm level, it is changing technologythat has principally altered the way in

which producers have used resources over the last200 years. This has been particularly true duringthe technology explosion of the last part of thetwentieth century. The environmental effects oftechnological change are the subject of consider-able debate. Some technologies have had unantic-

ipated, adverse effects on the environment. On theother hand, the use of technology has allowedfarmers to produce more food on a limited landbase. Canadian agriculture today is a product oftechnological change, and further developmentswill affect decisions made by producers andenvironmental outcomes from agriculture.

Responses

Government agricultural policy has traditional-ly focussed on economic and production

objectives. More recently, policy reform has beenguided by environmental considerations, alongwith more traditional social and economic crite-ria. The sector has also responded to drivingforces with a wide array of voluntary initiativesand changes in management practices.

Conclusion

D riving forces will continue to evolve andinfluence environmental outcomes in agri-

culture. Potential risks to the environment willcontinue to increase as output expands.Ongoing responses will be required by indus-try, governments, and Canadians so that social,economic, and environmental objectives foragriculture are achieved.

3

50.000

0

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

300.000

350.000

1981 1986 1991 1996

under $100,000 over $100,000

Year

Num

ber o

f far

ms

Number of farms and proportion of small versuslarge farms based on gross farm receipts

Source: Statistics Canada,1997. Catalogue no. 93-358 XPB.

Indicator: Soil Cover by Crops and ResidueE. Huffman

Geographic scope:National, provincialTime series:1981, 1991, 1996

B. Environmental Farm Management

4

Issue

Soil left exposed by various cropping prac-tices is vulnerable to erosion. The canopy

of the crop and crop residues protect the soilfrom wind and water erosion and the resultingconditions of soil degradation. The less soil thatis left exposed, the smaller the risk of erosion.

Indicator description

The indicator was based on an index of bare-soil days that accounted for the number of

days in a year that soil would be bare underspecific cropping and tillage practices in vari-ous regions of Canada. The performance objec-tive is to have a steady trend toward fewerbare-soil days, while aiming for zero bare-soildays, under all cropping systems.

Key results

Between 1981 and 1996 the average numberof bare-soil days in Canada’s agricultural

regions dropped by 20%, from 98 to 78. All

provinces and all ecoregions except the St. Lawrence Lowlands showed a drop in the number of bare-soil days, indicating animprovement in soil cover during this period.

Most areas associated with improvements insoil cover of greater than 20% have less landunder agriculture and less intense agriculture.Areas showing less than 10% improvement insoil cover were the St. Lawrence Lowlands ofCentral Canada, New Brunswick’s Uplands andSt. John River Valley, and Prince EdwardIsland. These regions have large areas in rowcrops, such as silage corn, soybeans, potatoes,and vegetables, which are associated with lowlevels of soil cover.

Conclusion

A lthough the indicator shows considerableimprovement in soil cover between 1981

and 1996, this trend could reverse as economicsignals cause a shift to crops that provide lesssoil cover. More work is needed to promote thebenefits of soil cover and to develop new meth-ods and equipment to provide soil cover, espe-cially in areas of intensive farming of rowcrops.

4

Percent reduction in the average number of bare-soil days between 1981-199644

40

36

32

28

24

20

16

12

8

4

0

British Columbia

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Manitoba

Ontario

Quebec

Queb

ec -

No c

hang

e New Brunswick

Nova Scotia

Prince Edward Island

Newfoundland

Canada

Indicator: Management of Farm Nutrientand Pesticide InputsR. Koroluk, D. Culver, A. Lefebvre, and T. McRae

Geographic scope:ecozonesTime Series:1995

B. Environmental Farm Management

5

Issue

C rop nutrients and pesticides are added toagroecosystems to improve crop produc-

tion. When not used wisely, these amendmentscan reduce the quality of soil, water, and airand affect biodiversity. Indicators are needed toassess how well these inputs are being man-aged in Canadian agriculture.


The following indicators were developed toevaluate the management of nutrient and

pesticide inputs on farms. For fertilizer man-agement: Method of Fertilizer Application,Timing of Nitrogen Application, Reduction ofFertilizers Applied to Offset Nutrient Contentof Manure, and Use of Soil Testing; for manuremanagement: Storage Method for SolidManure, Storage Method for Liquid Manure,Liquid Manure Storage Capacity, and ManureApplication Method; for pesticide management:Timing of Herbicide Applications, Timing ofInsecticide and Fungicide Applications, SprayerCalibration, and Use of Non-chemical PestControl Methods. Indicators were calculatedusing data from a 1995 Statistics Canada sur-vey, except for the indicator on manure applica-tion methods, for which data from a newCensus of Agriculturequestion were used. Theperformance objective is to have all Canadianfarmers using best management practices withrespect to nutrient and pesticide management.

Key results

Nationally, fertilizer application methodsthat reduce nutrient losses were quite

prevalent, although room for improvementexists. Injection was used on 22% of croplandreceiving fertilizer, banding on 43%, and appli-cation with seed on 55%. Broadcasting, themost environmentally risky application method,was still widely used, except in the Prairies andBoreal Plains ecozones. The national figure for

the timing of nitrogen fertilizer application oncropland was largely driven by the situation inthe Boreal Plains and Prairies, where nitrogenfertilizer is applied before planting on 70% and61% of cropland, respectively. Farmers aremore likely to apply nitrogen after planting inecozones where leaching is a problem. Betteraccount should be taken of the nutrient contentof manure when it is applied along with miner-al fertilizer. Soil testing, a useful tool for man-aging nutrient inputs, was carried out by 60%of Canadian farmers in 1995. Results suggestthat manure is the nutrient source most needingimproved management. In general, both liquidand solid storage methods are less than opti-mal, and improvements are needed now and asthe industry expands.

Herbicide application was prompted by thelevel of economic injury to the crop on about20% of cropland receiving these treatments.Farmers were more likely to apply herbicides ata certain stage of crop growth or to use the firstsign of pests (weeds, insects, disease) to timepesticide applications. About 68% of farmersusing their own sprayers calibrated them onlyat the beginning of the crop season. Crop rota-tion was used as a non-chemical control of pestson 56% of Canadian cropland, and tillage on27%. No alternatives to chemical controls wereused on about 33% of cropland treated for pests.

Conclusion

A lthough many good farm input manage-ment practices are being applied across

Canada, there is also room for improvementwhen viewed in terms of environmental protec-tion. As agriculture continues to move to largerand more intensive operations, sound inputmanagement practices will be critical for bothenvironmental protection and farm profitability.In most cases, improving input managementgoes hand in hand with enhancing farm prof-itability.

5

Indicator: Risk of Water ErosionI.J. Shelton, G.J. Wall, J.-M. Cossette, R. Eilers, B. Grant, D. King, G. Padbury,H. Rees, J. Tajek, and L. van Vliet

Geographic scope:National, provincialTimes series:1981, 1991, 1996

C. Soil Quality

6

Issue

Water erosion is a natural process that isaccelerated by various agricultural man-

agement practices. Erosion results in the loss orredistribution of topsoil in a landscape, usuallycausing soil degradation and reducing cropquality and yield on-site. If the eroded sedi-ment is transported off-site into waterways, itcan cause an increase in turbidity and sedimen-tation. Attached to the eroded soil particles maybe nutrients, pesticides, and bacteria, whichalso contribute to declining water quality. Thus,controlling erosion helps to protect both soilquality and water quality.


The indicator expresses the degree to whichCanada’s cropland was at risk of water ero-

sion in 1981, 1991, and 1996. It does notreflect the use of some erosion control practicessuch as grassed waterways and terraces, cross-slope cultivation, strip and contour cropping,

and winter cover cropping, because the landbase on which these practices are used is notreported in the Census of Agriculture. The riskwas expressed in five classes: tolerable (associ-ated with erosion that is offset by soil buildingand is thus sustainable), low, moderate, high,and severe (all of which are considered unsus-tainable). The change in risk between 1981 and1996 was calculated to evaluate the effects ofprevailing land use and management practices.The performance objective is to have all crop-land in the tolerable risk class.

Key results

Between 1981 and 1996, cropping measuresand increased use of conservation tillage

were responsible for decreases in the risk ofwater erosion in Alberta, Saskatchewan,Manitoba, Ontario, and New Brunswick. Therisk remained the same in British Columbia andPrince Edward Island, where the benefits ofconservation tillage and other conservationmeasures were offset by intensified agriculturalproduction in some areas. The risk rose inQuebec, mainly because of the intensificationof cropping practices, and in Nova Scotia,mainly because of expanded potato production.

By 1996, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,Quebec, and Nova Scotia had more than 70%of cropland in the tolerable risk class, while theshare of cropland in this risk class ranged fromabout 50 to 70% in British Columbia, Ontario,Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick.

Conclusion

The overall reduced risk of water erosion onCanadian cropland is a positive trend resulting

primarily from shifts in tillage and cropping prac-tice. However, a large share of Canadian croplandis still at risk of unsustainable loss of soil bywater erosion, especially areas used for intensiverow crop or horticultural crop production andsmaller areas of vulnerable topography or soil.Improved land management is needed here.

6

50403020100-10

Columbia

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Manitoba

Ontario

Quebec

Brunswick

Nova Scotia

Prince Edward

% Change

Island

New

British No change

No change

Change in the area of cropland at risk of tolerablelevels of water erosion between 1981 and 1996

Indicator: Risk of Wind ErosionG. Padbury and C. Stushnoff

Geographic scope:Prairie ProvincesTime series:1981, 1991, 1996

C. Soil Quality

7

Issue

W ind erosion is a natural process thatremoves topsoil from cultivated agricul-

tural lands, contributing to an overall decline insoil health, including a breakdown of soil struc-ture and reduced soil fertility.


The indicator monitors the extent of cultivat-ed land at risk of wind erosion. It is based

on soil, climate, and management factors. Fiveclasses of risk were identified: negligible, low,moderate, high, and severe. The indicator wasapplied to the Prairie Provinces, the Canadianregion most prone to wind erosion. The per-formance objective is to have all agriculturalsoils in the negligible or low risk classes.

Key results

Two-thirds of cultivated land in the Prairies is at moderate to severe risk of wind erosion

without the use of any soil conservation prac-tices.

Between 1981 and 1996, the share of cultivatedland at high to severe risk of wind erosiondropped from 15% (5 million hectares) to 6%(2 million hectares) because of changes in man-agement practices. Implementation of reduced

tillage technologies coupled with a decline inthe use of summerfallow in the Prairies resultedin an overall decline of 30% in the risk of winderosion during this period. The share of culti-vated prairie land at negligible risk of winderosion grew from 41% to 64% in this period.Improvements were greatest where sandy, high-ly erodible lands were converted from annualcrops to perennial forages. Most of the landstill at risk is located in the Brown and DarkBrown soil zones of southern Alberta andSaskatchewan.

Conclusion

I f the trend toward reduced tillage and lesssummerfallow continues in the Brown and

Dark Brown soil zones, the risk of wind ero-sion is expected to decline even further. Furtherreduction in this risk is less likely in the Blackand Gray soil zones, where summerfallow areais already relatively small and the inherent riskof soil erosion is less.

7

50403020100

Alberta

Manitoba

Saskatchewan

Prairies

Cropping system

Tillage practice

Total

Reduction (%) in the risk of wind erosion in thePrairie Provinces between 1981 and 1996

8 Indicator: Risk of Tillage ErosionD.J. King, J.-M. Cossette, R.G. Eilers, B.A. Grant, D.A. Lobb, G.A. Padbury,H.W. Rees, I.J. Shelton, J. Tajek, L.J.P. van Vliet, and G.J. Wall

Geographic scope:Provincial, ecoregionTime series:1981, 1996

C. Soil Quality

8

Issue

T illage erosion is caused when tillage imple-ments loosen soil and move it downslope

with the help of gravity. Over time, this move-ment results in large losses of soil from thetops of hills and knolls and accumulation ofsoil downslope. Tillage erosion is a measure ofthe amount of soil lost from these upper slopeareas.


The indicator estimates the risk of tillage ero-sion on Canada’s cropland and assesses how

this risk changed between 1981 and 1996 as aresult of changes in agricultural managementpractices. The risk of soil loss from hilltopswas expressed in five classes: tolerable, low,moderate, high, and severe. The performanceobjective for this indicator is to have all crop-land in the tolerable risk class.

Key results

The risk of tillage erosion dropped in allprovinces between 1981 and 1996 by values

ranging from a high of 26% in Ontario to a lowof 2% in Prince Edward Island. During thisperiod the amount of cropland at tolerable riskgrew in all provinces except Prince EdwardIsland, which had little overall change. Quebeccontinued to have the largest share of cropland(75%) in the tolerable risk class in 1996, whileSaskatchewan continued to have the smallestshare (35%). Only New Brunswick (9%) andPrince Edward Island (10%) continued in 1996to have a significant share of land at high tosevere risk of tillage erosion.

Areas showing limited improvement or anincreased risk of tillage erosion between 1981and 1996 include British Columbia’s SouthCoastal and Southern Interior regions; Alberta’sParkland and Mid Boreal Upland; Manitoba’sBlack soil zone; Ontario’s Algonquin–LakeNipissing region; the St. Lawrence Lowlands,Central Laurentians, Southern Laurentians, LacTemiscamingue Lowlands, Abitibi Plains, andRivière Rupert Plateau; New Brunswick; NovaScotia; and Prince Edward Island. These areaswere characterized by higher inherent erodibili-ty, intensive cropping, or both.

Conclusion

Lower risk of tillage erosion is associatedwith conservation tillage and no-till prac-

tices, reduced area in summerfallow, increasedarea in forages, and the taking of marginal landout of production. In some cases, intensivecropping and inherent erodibility of the landoffset the benefits of these practices. The riskof tillage erosion is expected to drop further inareas not limited by cropping options and com-plex topography, but may rise with marketopportunities to intensify production of cashcrops, especially on sloping land.

26242220181614

1210

86420

British Columbia

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Manitoba

Ontario

Quebec

New Brunswick

Nova Scotia


Reduction (%) in the risk of tillage erosionbetween 1981 and 1996

9 Indicator: Soil Organic CarbonW.N. Smith, G. Wall, R. Desjardins, and B. Grant

Geographic scope:National, provincialTime series:1970 to 2010

C. Soil Quality

9

Issue

Carbon (C) is the main component of soilorganic matter, the presence of which is a

major factor in soil quality. Loss of soil organicmatter, and thus of soil organic carbon, resultsin the breakdown of soil structure, greater vul-nerability of the soil to erosion, and reducedfertility, all leading to reductions in both yieldand sustainability of the soil resource. Buildingup carbon stores in soils may help curb theaccumulation of carbon dioxide, a greenhousegas, in the atmosphere.


The indicator estimates the change in soilorganic carbon levels in Canada’s agricul-

tural soils from 1970 to 2010. Indicator valueswere generated using the Century model, acomputer simulation model that uses simplifiedsoil–plant–climate interactions to describe thedynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen in variousagroecological zones. The performance objec-tive for this indicator is to stabilize the loss ofsoil organic carbon in all agricultural soils andto increase the amount of stored carbon inthose soils for which this is feasible.

Key results

Canadian agricultural soils as a whole lostorganic carbon at an estimated rate of 70 kilo-

grams per hectare (kg/ha) in 1970 and 43 kg/ha in1990. The declining rate of loss is mainly theresult of greater adoption of no-till, reduced areain summerfallow, and increased crop residues dueto greater crop yields. The model estimates thatSaskatchewan has been accumulating soil organiccarbon since about 1994, but the other provinceswill continue to lose soil carbon at different ratesfor many years. Canadian soils as a whole willstop losing organic carbon in 2000 and willaccumulate it at a rate of 11 kg/ha in 2020.Accumulation is predicted to continue beyond2010, reaching a limit in about 2020. The shareof Canadian farmland accumulating soil organ-ic carbon is predicted to be 52% in 2010.

Erosion has a significant effect on the changein organic carbon in the soils of easternCanada. Assuming that no soil is lost to water-ways because of erosion, the model predictsthat in 2000 eastern Canadian soils would gain94 kilograms of soil organic carbon per hectare.In the same year, if 15% of eroded soil was lostto waterways, soils would lose 19 kg C/ha.

Conclusion

The accurate estimation of the rate of carbonchange in Canada’s agricultural soils is a

difficult undertaking. Still, model predictionsshowed sensitivity to changes in agriculturalmanagement practices during the 1990s, partic-ularly greater use of no-till, reduced area insummerfallow, and increased fertilizer applica-tion in some parts of the country.

60

40

20

0

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100

-1201970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Eastern Provinces

Manitoba

Saskatchewan

Alberta

British Columbia

Canada

Rate

s of

Car

bon

Chan

ge (k

g-C/

ha/y

r)

Rate of change in organic carbon levels inCanadaÕs agricultural soils

Indicator: Risk of Soil CompactionR.A. McBride, P.J. Joosse, and G. Wall

Geographic scope:Ontario, Maritime ProvincesTime series:1981, 1991, 1996

C. Soil Quality

Issue

Soil compaction caused by wheel traffic andtillage is a form of soil degradation. This

process leaves the soil denser, less permeable toair and water, slower to warm up in the spring,more difficult to till, and more resistant to thepenetration of plant roots. Compaction is a par-ticular problem in fine-textured soils and causesmillions of dollars in lost crop yield each year.


The indicator assesses the likelihood thatmajor agricultural soils in Ontario and the

Maritimes will become less compacted, stay thesame, or become more compacted under prevail-ing cropping systems in 1981, 1991, and 1996.It is based on estimates of the actual degree ofcompactness of these soils (low, moderate, orhigh). The performance objective for this indi-cator is to have a decrease over time in the areaof row crops planted on soils susceptible tocompaction, and an increase in the area of for-age crops planted on highly compacted soils.

Key results

Many of the study soils with fine-texturedsubsoils were estimated to be significantly

compacted, especially in southern Ontario. Therisk of further compaction in these subsoils isnot as great as for many other soils in easternCanada. Different cropping systems or othermanagement practices may help to reduce thedegree of compactness in these soils andimprove crop yields.

Between 1981 and 1996, the area of farmland withboth highly compacted subsoils and cropping sys-tems capable of improving soil structure andreducing soil compactness (e.g., forage, pasture)shrank by 15% in Ontario, 21% in New Brunswick,18% in Nova Scotia, and 11% in Prince EdwardIsland. There was little change in the distribu-tion of these areas during this 15-year period.

Between 1981 and 1996, the area of farmlandwith both soils susceptible to compaction andcropping systems likely to degrade soil structureand induce further soil compaction (e.g., corn,soybeans, vegetable or root crops) grew by 61%in Ontario, 47% in Nova Scotia, and 81% inPrince Edward Island, and shrank by 16% inNew Brunswick. Areas of particular concernwere central and eastern Ontario, Nova Scotia’sAnnapolis Valley, and much of Prince EdwardIsland.

Conclusion

A comparison of the estimated degree of soilcompactness used in calculating the indicator

compares well with actual soil survey data, indi-cating that Soil Landscapes of Canadadata arereliable for this use. The increased risk of furthersoil compaction in areas of eastern Canada islargely associated with the expansion of intensive-ly cultivated cash crops. The distribution of areaswhere the degree of soil compactness is likely toimprove over time has not changed significantlythroughout eastern Canada during the past 15years. The overall provincial-level decrease (11 to21%) in the area under crops capable of improv-ing soil structure is a troubling trend.

10

1000-100

Ontario

New Brunswick

Nova Scotia


% change in area with soils susceptible to compaction under cropping systems that cause compaction

% change in area of highly compacted soils under cropping systems that reduce compaction

Change (%) in farmland area under croppingsystems that cause and reduce risk of soilcompaction between 1981 and 1996

10

Indicator: Risk of Soil SalinizationR.G. Eilers, W.D. Eilers, and T. Brierley

Geographic scope:Prairie ProvincesTime series:1981, 1991, 1996

C. Soil Quality

11

Issue

Soil salinity is a state in which soil containsexcess soluble salts in the root zone, hin-

dering plant growth. Moderate to severe salini-ty reduces annual yields of most cereal andoilseed crops by about 50%.


The indicator assesses the risk of soil salin-ization under dryland agriculture in the

Prairies. It is expressed in three risk classes:low, moderate, and high. Components of theindicator include long term average climate,soil and landscape characteristics, hydrology,and land use. Only land use is controlled byhumans. The performance objective for theindicator is to have a declining share of land inthe moderate and high risk classes.

Key results

In the Prairies as a whole, about 60% of crop-land remained in the low risk class in all

three census years. About 3% of cropland shift-ed from the high risk to the moderate risk classbetween 1981 and 1996, showing an overallpositive trend for this indicator. Changes inagricultural practice, including adoption of con-servation tillage and reduction of area undersummerfallow, likely contributed to this gradu-ally declining risk.

About 76% of Alberta’s cropland was at lowrisk of increasing soil salinization during thecensus years, as was about 44% ofSaskatchewan’s cropland. Alberta had littlechange in the share of cropland at moderate orhigh risk between census years, butSaskatchewan had a shift of 4% of cropland outof the high risk class in 1991, maintained in1996. In contrast, in Manitoba the improvementin risk between 1981 and 1991 was reversedbetween 1991 and 1996, and there was a size-able shift of cropland from the low risk to mod-erate risk class.

Differences between the provinces in the distri-bution of cropland in the risk classes mainlyreflect the extent to which summerfallow ispractised. Alberta and Saskatchewan continueto show a downward trend for this land use,whereas Manitoba shows a slight increase in1996.

Conclusion

The indicator gives a snapshot of the risk ofsoil salinization, reflecting annual variations

in weather, markets, and local managementdecisions, as well as the timing of the censusand reported land use. Periodic regional analy-sis of the indicator is a useful monitoring toolthat can also be used to target areas whereincreasing salinization may be a problem underprevailing management practices.

11

100-10

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Manitoba

Prairies

Low risk Moderate risk High risk

No change in low risk

No change in high risk

Change (%) in the risk of soil salinization in thePrairie provinces between 1981 and 1996

Indicator: Risk of Water Contamination by NitrogenK.B. MacDonald

Geographic scope:Provincial Time series:1981, 1991, 1996

D. Water Quality

12

Issue

N itrogen is an essential nutrient that becomesavailable for crop use when it is in soluble

form, such as nitrate. Nitrate can be leached intogroundwater, an important source of drinking water,where it may reach levels harmful to humans.Nitrate can also enter surface waters, contributingto nutrient loading and possible eutrophication.


The indicator assesses the risk of water con-tamination by nitrogen from farmland based

on the Canadian Water Quality Guidelinessafelimit for nitrate-nitrogen in drinking water (10milligrams per litre, mg/L). The indicator wascalculated by dividing the amount of nitrogenthat could potentially move off farmland (resid-ual nitrogen) by the amount of excess water.(Excess water exists only in the humid regions ofCanada, so the indicator was calculated only foragricultural areas in British Columbia (humidportions only), Ontario, Quebec and the Atlanticprovinces.) Risk was expressed in three classes:low, intermediate, and high. The performanceobjective for the agricultural industry is to ensure

that the quality of water moving off agriculturalland to groundwater and surface waters is notseriously impaired by agricultural activity.

Key results

In the coastal agricultural region of BritishColumbia, about 70% of farmland was in the

high risk class. Measures are being taken toremedy this situation, possibly explaining thefinding that British Columbia had the lowestshare of farmland (57%) in the category show-ing increasing risk.

In central Canada, Ontario had the largest share(17%) and total area of farmland at the highestrisk of water contamination by nitrogen. Between1981 and 1996 the estimated nitrogen contentof water increased by at least 1 mg/L on 68%of Ontario’s farmland. Areas at high risk weresouthwestern Ontario, the areas around LakeSimcoe, and the South Nation watershed. InQuebec, 6% of farmland was in the high riskclass, located mainly in the St. LawrenceLowlands region and the area south of QuebecCity. Between 1981 and 1996 the estimatednitrogen content of water increased by at least1 mg/L on most (77%) of Quebec’s farmland.

In the Atlantic Provinces, more than 80% of farm-land was at low risk of water contamination bynitrogen in 1996, but the estimated nitrogen con-tent of water increased by at least 1 mg/L onabout 60% of farmland between 1981 and 1996.

Conclusion

The risk of water contamination by nitrogen isrising in many humid areas of Canada’s crop-

land, particularly where agriculture is intensive.The indicator is subject to limitations of data butis still useful for making regional comparisons,highlighting areas where field testing is advis-able, and providing an early warning that someareas may face greater risk of water contamina-tion by nitrogen if appropriate management prac-tices to curtail this risk are not put into place.

12

8070605040302010

0

Decrease of at least 1 mg N/l

No change (-1 to +1 mg N/l)

Increase of at least 1 mg N/l

British Columbia(Pacific Maritime

ecozone portion only)

Ontario Quebec Atlantic provinces

Share (%) of assessed farmland for which the esti-mated nitrogen content of water changedbetween 1981 and 1996

Indicator: Risk of Water Contamination by PhosphorusM.A. Bolinder, R.R. Simard, S. Beauchemin, and K.B. MacDonald

Geographic scope:QuebecTime Series:1981, 1991, 1996

D. Water Quality

13

Issue

Phosphorus moving off farmland into surfacewaters can cause eutrophication; over-

growth of algae and aquatic plants; reducedoxygen levels in water; and subsequent changesin the species composition of the aquaticecosystem.


The indicator rates sites based on the relativerisk (compared to other sites) of phosphorus

moving through them into neighbouring waters.In the preliminary stage of development, it wascalculated only for agricultural areas ofQuebec. The risk was first expressed in fiveclasses: very low, low, medium, high, and veryhigh. However, because no land was rated atvery low or very high risk, these classes weredropped and the medium risk class was subdi-vided into medium low, medium, and mediumhigh. A performance objective will be definedwhen the indicator has been further developed.

Key results

Ratings were very similar between 1981 and1996, with about 19% of farmland area at

low risk, 72 to 73% at medium risk, and 8 to10% at high risk of water contamination byphosphorus. However, this similarity masks thedistinct drop in the area at low risk (13%) andthe jump in the areas at medium risk (77%),especially medium high risk, in 1991.

Conclusion

The indicator estimated that the relative riskof water contamination by phosphorus in

Quebec rose between 1981 and 1991, and thendropped back to 1981 levels by 1996. Theapproach showed some sensitivity to variationsover time in the census data, particularly relat-ed to the contribution of phosphorus frommanure and mineral fertilizers. Further work isneeded to gather better index data, account forspecific management practices at the farmlevel, and refine the ratings.

13

40

30

20

10

0Low Medium low Medium Medium high High

1981 1991 1996

Shra

re (%

) of f

arm

land

Changes in the risk of water contamination by phosphorus on QuebecÕs farmland between 1981 and 1996

Indicator: Agricultural Greenhouse GasBudgetR.L. Desjardins and R. Riznek

Geographic scope:National, provincialTime series:1981, 1986, 1991, 1996

E. Agroecosystem Greenhouse Gas Emissions

14

Issue

A tmospheric concentrations of greenhousegases — particularly nitrous oxide,

methane, and carbon dioxide — have beenincreasing dramatically in the past 20 years,enhancing the greenhouse effect by which theearth’s atmosphere is warmed. Uncontrolledbuildup of these gases in the atmosphere maycause global warming and other climatechanges.


The indicator estimates the combined emis-sions of nitrous oxide, methane, and carbon

dioxide as a result of agricultural activity.Emissions were estimated for nitrous oxide andmethane using the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change methodology, and for carbondioxide using the Century model. The perform-ance objective for this indicator is to havedeclining net emissions of greenhouse gasesover time (a specific reduction target has notbeen established for agriculture, but Canada’snational goal is to reduce average annual emis-sions over the 2008–2012 period to 6% below1990 emission levels).

Key results

Total estimated agricultural emissions ofnitrous oxide, methane, and carbon dioxide

(the first two expressed in carbon dioxideequivalents) in 1981, 1986, 1991, and 1996were 83, 78, 77, and 86 megatonnes, respec-tively, representing about 13% of total 1996Canadian emissions. These amounts include allsources associated with farming except foodprocessing and transportation. Net emissionsdecreased by 7% between 1981 and 1991, andthen rose 12% between 1991 and 1996. Overall,emissions rose by about 4% between 1981 and1996.

Agricultural emissions of nitrous oxide in1981, 1986, 1991, 1996 were 99, 96, 99, and120 kilotonnes — stable between 1981 and1991 and rising by 21% between 1991 and1996. Agricultural emissions of methane wererelatively constant, at 1045, 927, 949, and 1074kilotonnes. Total agricultural emissions of car-bon dioxide were 30, 28, 26, and 26 mega-tonnes, dropping by 13% between 1981 and1996. This reduction in carbon dioxide emis-sions was mainly the result of adopting conser-vation farming practices. During this period,the increase in nitrous oxide and methane emis-sions was mainly the result of more intensivefarming practices and growing use of nitrogenfertilizer.

Conclusion

Total agricultural emissions have increasedfrom 83 megatonnes of carbon dioxide

equivalent in 1981 to 86 megatonnes in 1996.Because agroecosystems are intensively man-aged, they present many opportunities to adoptmeasures that reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions. To quantify the benefits of these meas-ures, better methods of measuring greenhousegas emissions are needed.

14

30

20

10

0Atl. Prov.Que.Ont.Man.Sask.Alta.B.C.

1981 1986 1991 1996

Mt (

CO2 e

quiv

alen

t)

Agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases, incarbon dioxide equivalents

Indicator: Availability of Wildlife Habitat on FarmlandP. Neave, E. Neave, T. Weins, and T. Riche

Geographic Scope:National, ecozonesTime series:1981, 1991, 1996

F. Agroecosystem Biodiversity

15

Issue

Loss and alteration of habitat is the leadingcause of depletion of the earth’s wildlife

species, and thus of biodiversity. Conversion ofnatural land to agriculture has contributed todeclining wildlife habitat, but agriculture alsooffers better habitat than some other land usesby humans, such as urban development. Wildlifeon farmland offer both advantages (e.g., aesthet-ic appeal, hunting, fishing) and disadvantages(e.g., reduced crop yields).


The indicator was developed for the seven mainterrestrial ecozones in which agriculture is

practised in Canada. It identifies the share (percent-age) of habitat use units (each separate use of aspecific habitat type by a species equals one habitatuse unit) associated with agricultural habitat typesthat have increased, decreased, or remained con-stant in area between 1981 and 1996. The assess-ment is based on habitat use by mammals, birds,reptiles, and amphibians known to occur in theagricultural areas of each ecozone. The indicatoralso notes changes in the distribution of agricultur-al habitat types during this period. The five habitattypes assessed correspond with the five main landuse categories defined in the 1996Census ofAgriculture(Cropland, Summerfallow, Tame orSeeded Pasture, Natural Land for Pasture, and AllOther Land). A national performance objective hasnot yet been established, but some objectives existin specific habitat conservation programs through-out the country.

Key results

Between 1981 and 1996, habitat areaincreased for 86% of habitat use units in the

Boreal Plains, 80% in the Prairies, and 73% inthe Atlantic Maritime ecozones. In contrast,habitat area decreased for 74% of the habitat useunits in the Mixedwood Plains and 75% in thePacific Maritime ecozones. Habitat arearemained relatively constant for 75% of habitat

use units in the Boreal Shield and 79% of habi-tat use units in the Montane Cordillera.

Reduced area in Summerfallow and expanded areain All Other Land and Tame or Seeded Pastureaccount for most increases in habitat availabilitybetween 1981 and 1996. Decreases in habitat avail-ability are mainly the result of the expansion ofCropland through the conversion of farmland moresuited as wildlife habitat, such as Natural Land forPasture and All Other Land.

Conclusion

Agricultural lands offer a variety of habitats forwildlife, but some types are superior to others,

especially All Other Land and Natural Land forPasture. Changes in agricultural land use from lessintensive to more intensive practices create pres-sures on wildlife by making one or more of thehabitat resources they depend on more scarce orotherwise unavailable. In general, from 1981 to1996 agricultural habitat for wildlife shows positiveor neutral trends for some species in all ecozonesexcept the Pacific Maritime and Mixedwood Plains.

15

1009080706050403020100

Prairies

MixedwoodPlains

BorealPlains

AtlanticMaritime

BorealShield

MontaneCordillera

PacificMaritime

Increase (%) Decrease (%) Constant (%)

Ecoz

one

Share of habitat use units for which habitat areaincreased, decreased, or remained constantbetween 1981 and 1996

Indicator: Residual Nitrogen K.B. MacDonald

Geographic Scope:ProvincialTime series:1981, 1991, 1996

G. Production Intensity

16

Issue

Applying nitrogen in excess of crop needsreflects inefficient nutrient management,

incurs unnecessary costs, and poses a threat towater quality. Movement of nitrogen into theatmosphere as ammonia and nitrous oxide con-tributes to poor air quality and potentially toglobal warming.


The indicator estimates the differencebetween the amount of nitrogen available to

the growing crop and the amount removed inthe harvested crop. This difference was calledresidual nitrogen. Canadian farmland wasassigned to one of four classes of residual nitro-gen: Class 1: less than or equal to 20 kilogramsof nitrogen per hectare (kg N/ha) (minimal),

Class 2: 21 to 40 kg N/ha (expected in areas ofintensive agriculture with low-demand crops,such as cereals), Class 3: 41 to 60 kg N/ha(expected in areas of intensive agriculture withhigh-demand crops), and Class 4: more than 60kg N/ha. Classes 3 and 4 may represent areaswhere nitrogen is accumulating and poses anenvironmental risk. The performance objectivefor the indicator is to have all Canadian farm-land in classes associated with no net accumu-lation of nitrogen over time.

Key results

In 1996, the Atlantic Provinces (52%) andBritish Columbia (70%) had the largest share

of farmland in Class 1. Ontario (37%) andQuebec (28%) had the highest shares of farm-land in Class 4. High levels of residual nitrogen(Class 4 in areas with high demand crops andClass 3 in areas with low demand crops) wereassociated with areas where the trend towardcropping intensification is confirmed by otherindicators.

There was a strong trend between 1981 and1996 toward increasing levels of residual nitro-gen in all provinces except British Columbia.The share of farmland showing an increase inresidual nitrogen levels of at least 5 kg/habetween these 2 years ranged from 27% inBritish Columbia to 80% in Manitoba.

Conclusion

The indicator shows a trend toward increas-ing amounts of residual nitrogen on farm-

land, but limitations of the data used to calcu-late the indicator allow only general interpreta-tions of results. The indicator appears to beuseful for regional comparisons and to high-light areas where field testing should be carriedout to confirm actual levels of soil nitrogen.Further development of the indicator dependson refining many data components.

16

806040200

British Columbia

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Manitoba

Ontario

Québec

Atlantic Provinces

Decrease of at least 5 kg/ha

No change (–5 to +5 kg/ha)

Increase of at least 5 kg/ha

Share (%) of farmland for which there was achange in the level of residual nitrogen between1981 and 1996

Indicator: Energy UseR.J. MacGregor, R. Lindenbach, S. Weseen, and A. Lefebvre

Geographic Scope:National, regional Time Series:1981 to 1996

G. Production Intensity

17

Issue

Agriculture requires energy as an input andproduces products that contain energy. To

meet growing world demand we must continu-ally strive to increase output on a relativelyfixed land base. This increase usually meanshaving to use new technologies that need addi-tional inputs, including energy. The issue iswhether these new systems are sustainable.


Two indicators were developed to estimatethe amount of energy contained in agricul-

tural inputs and the amount contained in out-puts used or consumed by humans. The prelim-inary performance objectives for these indica-tors are reduced energy input and increasedenergy output.

Key results

The indicator compares energy inputs andoutputs between the early 1980s

(1981–1985) and mid 1990s (1992–1996).Between these periods, the amount of energyinput into Canada’s primary agricultural pro-duction grew by 8%, from 341 petajoules (PJ)to 368 PJ. Greater use of mineral fertilizersaccounts for this increase. The use of dieselfuel also grew (3% annually), but this changewas largely offset by a drop in the use of gaso-line (–5% annually) as farmers replaced gaspowered equipment with diesel powered equip-ment. Canada’s total energy output in agricul-tural primary products grew by 13%, with largecontributions from major grains, animals, andother commodities. Total energy output canvary by more than 100 PJ from one year to thenext, depending on grain yields.

The Prairies, with their greater emphasis ongrain output (and bulk grain exports), are char-acterized by energy output greatly exceedingenergy input: energy input grew by 14% andenergy output grew by 19% (104 PJ). The non-Prairie regions that specialize to a greater

degree in livestock production and energy-intensive cropping (e.g., horticulture) show agreater energy input than output: energy inputgrew by 3% while energy output dropped by3% (2 PJ) in the same period. Agriculturalenergy output appears to be most affected byfluctuations in climate, but also by improve-ments in crop varieties and farming practicesand by commodity prices.

Conclusion

Nationally, the growth rate of energy outputexceeded that of energy input during the

study period. The situation in the prairieprovinces mirrored and influenced the nationaltrend, whereas in the non-prairie region, energyinputs increased whereas energy outputsdropped. The energy contained in variousinputs is a significant cost, and producers areexpected to try to minimize these costs. Thisindicator provides some support for this propo-sition.

17

700600500400300200100

01981-1985 1992-1996

Prairie region

Inputs

Non-prairie region

Prairie region

Outputs

Non-prairie region

Pent

ajou

les

Total regional annual energy inputs and outputs, 1981-1985 and 1992-1996

Regional Analysis of EnvironmentallySustainable AgricultureT. McRae and C.A.S. Smith

Geographic scope:British Columbia, Prairie Provinces, Ontario,Quebec, Atlantic ProvincesTime series: 1981, 1991, 1996

H. Summary

18

British Columbia

Primary agricultural GDP grew by about 30%between 1981 and 1996 and environmental

risks varied. Improvements were achieved forsoils, but substantial portions of cropland remainat risk of unsustainable levels of water andtillage erosion. Wildlife habitat for a majority ofhabitat use units remained stable in the centralportion of the province, increased in the PeaceRiver region, but declined in the areas of moreintensive agriculture in the Pacific Maritime eco-zone. Greenhouse gas emissions were stable.The risk of water contamination by nitrogenincreased, as did agricultural energy use intensi-ty. Some soils in the Montane Cordillera eco-zone and Peace River region are underfertilized,whereas other areas of the province under inten-sive horticulture and livestock production showincreases in residual nitrogen.

Prairie Provinces

In the Prairie Provinces, strong growth (about59%) in primary agricultural GDP was

accompanied by notable progress in protectingsoil health, increasing the area of agriculturalhabitats for most habitat use units, and reducingenergy use intensity. Environmental costs fromagriculture were mainly the result of greatergreenhouse gas emissions. Increases in residualnitrogen had the mixed effect of conserving soilfertility, contributing to increased greenhousegas (nitrous oxide) emissions, and possiblyincreasing the risk of water contamination bynitrogen. Indicators are currently lacking forimportant prairie issues such as water manage-ment and the effects of irrigation and intensivelivestock operations on water quality.

Central Canada

Ontario achieved only moderate growth inagricultural GDP (about 8%) and mixed

success in reducing environmental risks. Therisk of soil degradation declined, except for that

associated with soil compaction, but substantialportions of cropland remain at risk of unsustain-able levels of water and tillage erosion.Greenhouse gas emissions remained stable.Agricultural habitat for most habitat use unitsheld steady in the northern agricultural area ofthe province but declined in the south, south-central, and southeastern regions. Levels ofresidual nitrogen and risk of water contamina-tion from nitrogen both increased considerablyover much of the province. Agricultural energyuse intensity remained largely unchanged.

Quebec showed moderate growth in agriculturalGDP (about 13%) and environmental risks var-ied. Progress is evident for soils, for which mostdegradation risks remained steady or declined.Most cropland is at risk of tolerable levels ofsoil erosion. Greenhouse gas emissions alsodeclined. Agricultural habitat area for most habi-tat use units remained stable in the northern por-tions of the province but shrank in areas of theMixedwood Plains ecozone where production ismore intensive. Levels of residual nitrogen andrisk of water contamination by nitrogen roseconsiderably over much of the province. Therisk of water contamination by phosphorus rosebetween 1981 and 1991 but dropped back to1981 levels by 1996. Agricultural energy useintensity remained largely unchanged.

Atlantic Provinces

Agricultural GDP grew only slightly (about1%) in the Atlantic region and environmen-

tal risks varied. Improvements were made inconserving agricultural wildlife habitat for mosthabitat use units, in increasing soil cover, and inreducing degradation risks to some soils.However, substantial portions of croplandremain at risk of unsustainable levels of erosion.Estimated levels of residual nitrogen and the riskof water contamination from nitrogen increasedconsiderably over much of the region. Agriculturalenergy use intensity decreased slightly.

18

ConclusionsT. McRae and C.A.S. Smith

H. Summary

19

19Canadian agriculture has made considerable

progress in conserving the natural resourcebase which supports production, although somesoils remain above tolerable levels of degrada-tion risk. With regard to agriculture’s compati-bility with natural systems, performance ismixed. Several environmental risks haveincreased and environmental conditions havesometimes worsened. The main factor responsi-ble has been an intensification of agricultureacross much of the country resulting fromstructural changes in farming and increasedmarket demand for some products.

The agri-environmental indicator study hasmade extensive use of available data, researchand expertise, and revealed key strengths andlimitations in the national capacity to assess the

environmental sustainability of agriculture. Toenhance analytical capacity, additional researchis required to further understand agriculture–environment interactions and processes, andmore work is needed to address data limitationsand gaps.

The findings of this study suggest a need forongoing efforts by policy makers, producers,researchers, analysts, educators, and consumersto achieve a more environmentally sustainableagriculture industry. Examples of how agri-environmental indicators can be used to supportactions are provided and discussed in the fullstudy report,Environmental Sustainability ofCanadian Agriculture: Report of the Agri-Environmental Indicator Project.

Key findings for agricultureÕs environmental performanceFindings (1981–1996, except where noted otherwise)

Globalization and changes in technology, population growth, and market demand have often intensified agricultur-al production, sometimes with environmental consequences. At the same time, social preferences have evolved todemand a more environmentally sound agriculture.

Potential environmental risks will continue to increase as intensification continues, requiring managementresponses from industry, governments, and consumers.

Management of agricultural soils has improved overall.

Overall, sound fertilizer and pest management practices are in use, although there is room for improvement.Manure is the nutrient source most needing improved management (above based on 1995 data only).

Soil degradation risks have been reduced overall. Additional effort is required to conserve soils remaining at riskof unsustainable levels of degradation.

The risk of water contamination from nitrogen has increased overall in most humid areas (the risks were notassessed on the Prairies, but these have likely increased due to intensive livestock operations).

There was a small overall increase in emissions, with most increases occurring from 1991 to 1996. Carbon diox-ide emissions decreased, nitrous oxide emissions increased, and methane emissions remained stable.

Agricultural lands are used extensively by wildlife for their habitat needs. Most habitat uses were supported by anincreasing agricultural habitat area, except in southwestern B.C. and southern Quebec and Ontario, where mosthabitat uses were supported by a shrinking agricultural habitat area.

Levels of residual nitrogen per hectare increased in all agricultural regions except B.C. (where some regionalincreases were evident). Increases on the Prairies are beneficial to soils in production systems with a net nitrogendeficit.

Relative gains were realized nationally and on the prairies, as growth in agricultural energy output exceededgrowth in agricultural energy input. In the non-prairie region, overall energy inputs increased, whereas overallenergy outputs dropped.

Chapter or Section

Driving forces

Farm management

Soil quality

Water quality

Greenhouse gas emissions

Agricultural wildlife habitat

Production intensity

environmental s canadian agriculture - agriculture and agri

Documents