The 4-R Nutrient Stewardship Program officially recognized.Ottawa-Farm and business groups are concerned that an Agriculture Canada consultation could become an exercise in justifying reduced fertilizer use to lower greenhouse gas emissions without considering the consequences.In 2020, the government said it wanted greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogen fertilizer reduced by 30 per cent by 2030 but did not discuss with farm groups how that could happen creating a wide-spread impression that the reduction would come by cutting nitrogen fertilizer use.Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau has tried to stem the controversy by saying the government wants lower emissions not less fertilizer use. The consultation by her department is intended to find ways to do that.Fertilizer Canada has been working with Agriculture Canada on the 2030 emission reduction target to ensure fertilizer is used in an environmentally responsible way without jeopardizing crop yields. It was pleased to see the discussion document included formal recognition of the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Program as an innovative Canadian solution to support emission reductions and enhanced food production.Serge Buy, CEO of the Agri-Food Innovation Council, said research and innovation has enabled Canadian farmers to reduce their GHG and more can be done. At the same time, Canada has to be mindful of the international food situation.An official of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization has said the priority has to be producing enough food “and efforts to lower GHG emissions can't come at the expense of food production,” he said. “Limited supplies are already creating havoc.”The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has called on the federal government not to mandate reduced use of nitrogen fertilizer. A recent CFIB survey found that nearly three-quarters of farmers say the yield of their crops and overall food production drop if the federal government requires them to reduce nitrogen fertilizer use.“Right now, the emissions reduction target is voluntary, and it should stay that way,” said Corinne Pohlmann, Senior Vice-President of National Affairs at CFIB. “Requiring Canadian agri-businesses to reduce their use of nitrogen fertilizer would add another hurdle and have negative impacts on the industry that is already hard hit by skyrocketing input costs and supply chain delays.” Almost two-thirds of businesses said a mandatory reduction would decrease the profitability of their agri-business, and 42 per cent it would be challenging as they have already reduced their nitrogen fertilizer use.CFIB's recent research also shows Canadian farmers have already adopted or plan to adopt best practices to manage or reduce nitrogen emissions. Some of these practices include conservation tillage, annual soil testing for nitrogen and rotating in nitrogen-fixing crops.“Nitrogen fertilizer is an essential crop nutrient and an important input for Canadian farmers. Forcing them to reduce their use of fertilizer would result in decreased yield of their crop, less profitability and competitiveness. Given the current global challenges to food supply, now is not the time to add policies that threaten to reduce yields even further,” said Taylor Brown, a policy analyst at CFIB. “The federal government should give farmers more autonomy and provide support if they want to voluntarily improve their nitrogen management and adopt better practices.”The Western Canadian Wheat Growers said measures to reduce GHG emissionsmust be practical, realistic, and not at odds with other government objectives, nor risk food sustainability. “The target of an absolute reduction in nutrients used to produce our food was done without consultation with the fertilizer industry or Canadian grain and oilseed farmers.“A focus on an absolute emissions reduction, rather than an intensity-based target, is misplaced and will likely cause severe economic harm. Using modeling software, we've estimated that a 30 per cent absolute emission reduction for a farmer with 1,000 acres of canola and 1,000 acres of wheat would have their profit reduced by $38,000 to $40,500 annually.”