Our obsession with tighter control of access to farmland is not new. Often motivated by the fear of eventually running out of space to grow food, this control hides another even more important problem that deserves our attention: we may have too much farmland, and not the other way around.
Bill 103 in Quebec, which proposes modifications to the protection of land and agricultural activities, has caused much ink to flow recently. While some claim greater access to agricultural land for city dwellers, others want to protect our lands from real estate speculators. An important debate, but beyond bickering, and with what is to come, our approach to protecting farmland will have to change forever.
Discussions around Bill 103 are largely based on two fundamental principles. First, many loudly proclaim the impossibility of creating agricultural land. However, there are vertical farms. The greenhouse sector allows increased efficiency of our spaces and this approach is growing more and more.
Secondly, our debates in connection with the protection of the territory always rely on the fact that the population will continue to consume in the same way for several years to come. There is nothing more false. With the collective craze for plant proteins and the eventual arrival of new emerging technologies like precision fermentation and laboratory meat that will shake up our plates, protein will mean something quite different within a few years.
A real transition to vegetable proteins is starting. The majority of Canadians will certainly continue to consume meat, but in less quantity for a variety of reasons.
According to a report by the Market Data Forecast group, the plant protein market on the planet could double by 2026. This market is estimated at around 23 billion dollars at the moment. This figure could therefore exceed $ 48 billion in a few years. A huge progression which marks only the beginning of a new trend. The younger generations are interested in a protein that is more sustainable, simpler, and above all, less expensive.
Portrait of Canadian Lands
In Canada and around the world, there is a vast agricultural land devoted to the production of food for livestock. Here are some figures that give us a better picture of the land devoted to supporting our animal industries.
Last year, according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canadian field crop production reached 114,041 kilotonnes. Major field crops include all varieties of wheat, barley, corn, oats, rye, canola, flax, soybeans, dry peas, lentils, dry beans, chickpeas , mustard seeds, canary seed and sunflower. There are a lot of cultures in Canada and Quebec.
To simplify our calculations, let’s look at three types of crops: barley, corn and wheat. According to the Animal Nutrition Association of Canada, 80% of barley, 60% of corn and 30% of wheat grown in Canada are used to produce grains for the animal industry. According to Statistics Canada, with the necessary ratios, about 15 million acres are used to produce grain for livestock in the country. And it’s just three cultures. 15 million acres of land is almost the size of New Brunswick.
Of course, some of this land will still have to be devoted to other vegetable crops, but there is also cultured meat, or other technologies that require much less resources. You kind of understand where this is all going.
A greater plurality of proteins will require more modest agricultural production. For milk, the darling of Quebec agriculture, precision fermentation could completely wipe out our dairy industry within 15 to 20 years. So what are we going to do with our producers and all this land?
Despite this, the threat of running out of farmland to feed the planet by 2050 still comes to the fore. Some groups are worried about the possibility of running out of food to feed our 10 or 11 billion people by 2050. And yet, according to the United Nations, 40 million square kilometers, or 77% of agricultural land in the world are destined for animal production.
All in all, it’s a safe bet that we will not run out of agricultural space. Rather, the opposite is likely to happen. We will have to think about finding new ways of occupying our rural territory and not just protecting it. The debate related to Bill 103 is important, but it is offered a visibly limited scope. Agriculture will be defined differently during the coming decades.
The management of agricultural heritage and the support we offer for our rural economies will experience a major upheaval. The role and functionality of our lands will change as a result of a much more fragmented demand for food compromising the occupation of our agricultural land. And if this is the case, the situation promises to be much more serious than simply asking who should manage and own our lands.