Evan Berger says he couldn't have picked a better time to be named Alberta's agriculture minister.

Blessed by near-perfect weather, the harvest finished ahead of time, yields were plentiful, quality was strong and prices robust - all combining for that rarest of commodities: happy farmers and ranchers.

Berger can scarcely believe the good times. "It's fantastic," Berger says, leaning back in his new legislature office.

"Both grains and oilseeds as well as livestock are all good right now and the harvest was good," says Berger, who's also a Nanton-area mixed producer.

"Usually one is up and the balance tips the other way on the other side of the industry, and right now we're at a point that's probably historic in the fact that all these commodities are in a higher state than normal."

But while agriculture appears to be basking in good times again after a stormy decade of droughts, disease and low prices, some industry observers point to what they call serious flaws that compromise Alberta's long-term ability to be a low-cost global supplier of commodities.

Already, the warning signs are there, says Jerry Bouma, of Toma & Bouma Management Consultants, a firm specializing in agriculture.

Alberta's agricultural production has fallen nearly across the board since peak values reached years or decades ago, according to Statistics Canada figures Bouma has gathered.

The acreage of wheat estimated for 2011 of 6.9 million acres has fallen 14 per cent from a high water mark of eight million in 1992. Projected barley acreage in 2011 of 3.68 million is down 44 per cent from a peak of 6.55 million in 1981.

In livestock, beef cow counts are forecast in 2011 at 1.69 million, compared with 2.2 million in 2005.

There are expected to be 145,000 sows in Alberta in 2011. That's down from a peak of 209,000 in 2002.

"When I see those numbers I say 'holy smokes!'" Bouma says.

"Why in this situation where everyone talks about increased demand and opportunity, why are our big numbers going in a different direction?

"It's not just market conditions. It's more than that."

Bouma says the problems are long-held, ingrained institutional and structural systems under which agriculture operates, which no longer meet today's global and faster-moving challenges.

He uses Alberta's pork industry as an example of a sector whose competitiveness has lagged over the past 10 years mostly because of the way it is organized as a business. Producers and processors operate independently from each other, and often at cross-purposes. When one side makes positive margins, the other doesn't, he says.

"We haven't developed the kind of integrated business relationships that our competitors have developed, and until we do that we are fundamentally in an uncompetitive situation."

Despite having the attributes to be a major global player, the industry lacks the volume, resulting in higher costs of bringing hogs to market, he says. "We're a one-shift industry competing in a two-shift world."

Bouma says Alberta should look to Triumph Foods, a producer-owned pork processor whose state-of-the-art plant in Missouri handles 5.5 million hogs a year.

"The producer group owns the plant and contracts with a processor to run the plant and market the product. The producers own the plant, so they're not selling hogs, they're marketing pork.

"The proceeds are based on the sale of the pork back to the producer, not on the selling price of just the hog. And they've got enough volume where they can maximize the use of that plant."

The beef industry lacks a distinct brand identity to differentiate it from U.S. beef. "It's not so much a capacity issue; it's a marketing issue with beef."

Meanwhile, Alberta's wheat and barley sector is held back by the Canadian Wheat Board, Bouma says.

"It's acted as, quite frankly, a major disincentive for innovation and growth."

Agriculture in Alberta also suffers from "industry fatigue" from years of drought, disease, low prices and the prolonged feud of wheat and barley marketing. "People have got worn out and discouraged, and the next generation of producers are saying this is a waste of time."

Talk of a potential "lost generation" and an aging workforce is being raised on Alberta's farms and ranches.

"One of the key issues we see at Wild Rose Agricultural Producers is a lack of new entrants to farming," says Humphrey Banack, a Round Hill-area farmer and the president of the producers' group.

"The new entrants have to be there because they're part of everybody's retirement plan and they're needed to move the industry ahead. These new entrants are going to have to be sophisticated in marketing and business."

Government can lend a hand in encouraging a new generation to work the land by changing tax laws to make it easier to roll farms over to new entrants, family members or not, or allowing a new operator to buy a farm over 10 years instead of one big cash hit, he says.

Rancher Dave Solverson, the finance chairman for Alberta Beef Producers, said a shrinking number of producers is a concern for another economic reason.

"If we lose too many more producers, there's a chance of losing some more infrastructure. Now we have two major packing and processing plants at Brooks and High River, and if the numbers continue to decline, their margins are very tight, we're sure hoping we can arrest the decline."

In 2009, during a recession, the gross domestic product for primary agriculture industries in Alberta plunged 20.5 per cent to $4.9 billion.

The GDP recovered in 2010 with a gain of 14.8 per cent.

Agriculture's shrinking proportion of Alberta GDP suggests the once-dominant sector is steadily losing ground and influence.

Not exactly, says Peter Boxall, a professor in the University of Alberta's faculty of agricultural, life and environmental sciences.

He says one part of agriculture - the production side - is in flux, but the industry as a whole is still growing.

"The production side is undergoing structural change, and yet the food processing and food side is growing, I suspect, in its contribution to GDP.

"The elephant in the room in all of this is the energy sector which, of course, is the major contributor to the GDP. Agriculture could be ticking along but as GDP is growing, I'm not convinced that a lot of it is the contribution of agriculture. Most of it is energy."

Bouma says Alberta is suffering from "Dutch disease," an economic phenomenon in which discovery of natural resources puts other industries at a disadvantage.

"It drives up the cost of all the inputs, notably labour. Most farm businesses and food processors have a difficult time keeping labour because they can be attracted at much higher rates to the energy sector."

A strong loonie buoyed largely by the energy sector has also diminished the competitiveness of Alberta food exports, Bouma says.

Some of the keys to agriculture's future involve the industry playing a bigger role, along with forestry, in positioning the province as a cleaner energy producer, including its role as a carbon sink and potential bio-digesters to process waste, he says.

"Agriculture as a solutions provider also has the potential to generate new sources of revenue for agricultural producers and rural communities," writes Bouma in a discussion paper.

Bouma also suggests more strategic research and development and upgrading technology to offset costly labour, fuel and materials.

Agriculture Minister Berger already has marching orders from Premier Alison Redford in a mandate letter that include some of those directions.

Redford wants Alberta Agriculture to work with the ministries of energy, environment and sustainable resource development "to design and implement an initiative to make Alberta the national leader in energy efficiency and sustainability."

At the provincial Crop Diversification Centre North and the University of Alberta's Agri-Food Discovery Place, scientists are already working, with industry funding, to develop high-yielding, disease-resistant crop varieties and a variety of bioproducts.

One U of A researcher, David Bressler, is extracting protein material from waste animal carcasses that is eventually converted into a variety of plastics - a potential use for the 5,000 tonnes of animal carcasses buried every week by the North American food processing industry.

"(Bioindustrial) gives our producer more outlet opportunities," said Jim Jones, branch head for Alberta Agriculture's food and bio-industrial crops department.

"Flax or hemp could be used in fibreboard, but it could also be used for temporary roads. They biodegrade over a period of time" Temporary bio-roads could allow energy companies to move oil rigs into remote areas with less environmental damage.

"The bio-industrial side just creates more opportunity for producers for outlet and cash flow. It's another income stream for farmers. For example, you can grow lots of alfalfa in our climate; you can feed it to animals or it can go into a bio-reactor to produce energy. With more options, it's more income stream and more viability for the sector of agriculture."

According to Alberta Agriculture, crop producers will be the biggest beneficiaries of biorefining by creating a new premium market for crops specially developed and grown for fuel and potentially creating stable, long-term, local markets.

"It's the future of agriculture," said Bob Rimes, executive director of Agri-Food Discovery Place, a university-owned pilot plant facility partnered with Alberta Agriculture.

With the costs of recovering fossil fuels rising, Rimes says biofuels offer alternatives.

"Here's a good opportunity to look at all these alternatives - what else can we make fuel from?

There are a lot of things and there are a lot of different processes."

Bio-materials hold promise for the industry, said Gordon Cove, president and CEO of the Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency.

"That's really adding value on something that's of poor value and that just adds to the viability and overall profitability of the industry."

Berger says it's this potential new direction of the industry that gets him most excited.

"The innovation and changes that have happened in my lifetime have been incredible, but I think the biggest change that's really been noticeable for me in the last three weeks in this position is finding out all the new uses for byproducts that we didn't have before. It's absolutely phenomenal. They're looking at eggshells for use in batteries. They're looking at offal and SRMs (cattle tissues not used for food or feed) for use in plastic panels.

"That's probably the side of agriculture we're not noticing the change on. There's all these opportunities coming from new uses and developments."

He says those advances could see agriculture expand to employ more Albertans. "One in four people in Alberta are currently employed indirectly or directly in agriculture. That's a target I think we can move."

With Alberta's output falling, producers are looking at non-traditional ways of generating revenue

Bill Mah, Edmonton Journal, November 13, 2011

Back to top    

In a review study, researchers from Tufts University School of Medicine zero in on the controversial, non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in food animals and fish farming as a cause of antibiotic resistance. They report that the preponderance of evidence argues for stricter regulation of the practice. Stuart Levy, a world-renowned expert in antibiotic resistance, notes that a guiding tenet of public health, the precautionary principle, requires that steps be taken to avoid harm.

"The United States lags behind its European counterparts in establishing a ban on the use of antibiotics for growth promotion. For years it was believed that giving low-dose antibiotics via feed to promote growth in cows, swine, chickens and the use of antibiotics in fish farming had no negative consequences. Today, there is overwhelming evidence that non-therapeutic use of antibiotics contributes to antibiotic resistance, even if we do not understand all the mechanisms in the genetic transmission chain," says Levy, MD, professor of molecular biology and microbiology and director of the Center for Adaptation Genetics and Drug Resistance at Tufts University School of Medicine.

For the past 70 years, humans have relied on antibiotics to combat bacterial infections such as streptococcus, meningitis, tuberculosis and urinary tract infections. The misuse and overuse of antibiotics, however, has contributed to antibiotic resistance, making antibiotics less effective at saving lives. Levy and co-author Bonnie Marshall summarize and synthesize the findings of a large number of studies assessing the link between antibiotic resistance and the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in livestock and fish farming. Highlights include the following.

The use of non-therapeutic antibiotics is widespread

According to estimates, antibiotics are eight times more likely to be used for non-therapeutic purposes than for treating a sick animal.

Current practices set the stage for the rapid spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria

The long-term administration of antibiotics in animal feed creates an optimal environment for antibiotic resistance genes to multiply. Essentially, treated animals become "factories" for the production and distribution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria such as Salmonella and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a troubling infection that is resistant to common antibiotics.

Bacteria can transfer antibiotic resistance to other bacteria, and multiple different resistance genes can be linked together in this process. Thus, even if farmers turn to antibiotics that are not commonly used to treat people, these drugs - given over long periods of time - can also promote resistance. Several studies demonstrated that antibiotic-resistant bacteria can easily spread from animals to people in close contact with animals, such as veterinarians, slaughterhouse workers, farmers, and the families of farmers.

As much as 90 percent of antibiotics given to livestock are excreted into the environment.

Resistance spreads directly by contact and indirectly through the food chain, water, air, and manured and sludge-fertilized soils.

The broad use of antibiotics in fish food in farm fishing, particularly overseas, leads to leaching where it can be washed to other sites, exposing wild fish to trace amounts of antibiotics.

The consequences of antibiotic resistance are great

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, antibiotic-resistant infections cause longer and more expensive hospital stays, and greater risk of death. Each year in the US antibiotic-resistant infections result in $20 billion in additional health care costs and $8 million in costs in additional hospital days. If antibiotics are ineffective, patients may end up paying more in search of alternative drugs, and enduring a wider range of side effects.

Bans on the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics are effective in diminishing antibiotic resistance

Bans in several European countries have led to decreases in antibiotic resistance. Bans in Denmark and Germany have not only decreased the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in farm animals, they have decreased the presence of these bacteria in humans.

Alternative farming practices such as reducing animal crowding, improving hygiene, and improving use of vaccines have been shown to compensate for some of the growth benefits conferred by non-therapeutic antibiotics.

Levy and Marshall also highlight areas of study that may improve our understanding of the link between antibiotic use in animals and the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Modern genetic techniques are helping, they report, but there are still gaps in our understanding at each stage of the transmission chain.

"Aquaculture, or fish farming, has been relatively understudied, yet water is a prime medium for the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria," says first author Bonnie Marshall, MA, MT (medical technology), senior research associate in the Levy laboratory at Tufts University School of Medicine.

"While the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics remains contentious, the evidence is strong enough to merit precaution. Antibiotics save lives. When infections become resistant to primary antibiotics, and alternative antibiotics must be used, health care costs increase. As more infections become more resistant to more antibiotics, we run the risk of losing more of our arsenal of antibiotics, resulting in needless deaths. It's important to consider what we stand to gain versus what we stand to lose," concludes Levy.

The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has already taken some steps toward stricter regulation of non-therapeutic antibiotic use, acknowledging that the practice is in conflict with protecting the public health and proposing measures to limit the use of these drugs in animals. Levy and his colleagues in the field of infectious disease have called for antibiotics to be classified by the FDA as "societal drugs," establishing specific regulations to protect the efficacy of the drugs.

Marshall BM, Levy SB. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. "Food Animals and Antimicrobials: Impacts on Human Health." October 2011, 24(4), 718-733, doi: 10.1128/CMR.00002-11

Siobhan E. Gallagher, Tufts University, November 15, 2011

Back to top