EEF Subsidies
In a world where environmental sustainability is at the forefront of conversation, powers across the globe are beginning to develop policies to reach sustainability goals. In Canadian agriculture, policymakers are promoting the use of EEFs (enhanced efficiency fertilizers) through incentive programs like subsidies. The goal of these subsidies is to encourage producers to address climate change by mitigating nitrogen loss through the management of fertilizer use. The question here is, will these subsidies produce tangible outcomes? Are they truly better than traditional fertilizers? Is this the right program to be subsidizing?
Traditional vs EEF Fertilizers
Traditional fertilizers used in agriculture, like urea and anhydrous, provide an immediate supply of nitrogen to the soil whereas EEF is a slow-release fertilizer that provides nitrogen gradually due to its polymer coating that releases at a rate matching the demand of the crop, which, in theory, should reduce nitrogen loss.
Farmers are being incentivized to adopt EEFs through a subsidy covering 85% of the increased cost, supported by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through the On-Farm Climate Action Fund. These incentives are made to make EEFs more accessible to producers, however, questions about effectiveness, environmental impact, and cost are being considered.
How Do They Compare to Traditional Fertilizers?
Nitrogen Efficiency
EEFs claim to reduce nitrogen loss by slowing down reactions and allowing nutrients to stay in the soil longer, giving the crop more time to take them up. While there maybe be some examples of this being true, usually in other parts of the world, EEFs are not a one size fits all solution for farmers. A study published in the Canadian Journal of Soil Science simply found that “EEFs [do] not affect emission factors compared with conventional urea” (Owens, et al. 2020). A reason why EEFs are being subsidized is because of their supposed ability to reduce emissions from nitrogen, however, in the prairies, studies have shown that traditional fertilizers can achieve similar results. For example, using the 4R fertilizer strategy has proven to be a useful tactic in safe fertilizer use. Chris Holzapfel from the Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation in Saskatchewan says, “the benefits seen to EEF products have been modest and sporadic and I would argue that focusing on right time and place is more important” (Holzapfel, 2019). While there is evidence to suggest EEFs can be beneficial in reducing nitrogen loss in other parts of the world, their effectiveness in Saskatchewan is low.
Yield and Climate Suitability
Alongside environmental aspects of sustainability, the ability to feed our growing population is a forefront goal. To meet the world’s hunger goals, high crop yields must be met, a requirement that EEFs do not meet. In a study conducted by Montana State University, it was concluded that “using EEFs will not increase crop yields and nutrient recovery under all circumstances” (Montana State University, 2011). The same study found that “[EEF] N release may be too slow in [a] cool, dry climate to produce an economic yield advantage over conventional fertilizers” (Montana State University, 2011). Saskatchewan specifically has a cooler, dry climate with a short growing season. Similarly, Tom Bruulsema, Chief Scientist with the International Plant Nutrition Institute Canada, explains that these EEF fertilizers are more beneficial in warmer areas with higher precipitation. In the prairies, soil scientists have failed to find yield increases in EEFs. This brings forward skepticism among producers. Why should they adopt a practice that does not improve yield and may not work on their fields?
Cost vs Benefit
A main concern for producers is the cost of EEF fertilizers. They cost more than traditional fertilizers. The Canola Council of Canada estimates it’s an additional $10 to $15 acre. For farmers to adopt a practice that costs more, there must be a significant increase in their profits. However, as found above, EEFs do not increase yield, and therefore will not increase profit. This is why “Canadian growers have decided that EEFs aren’t worth the money…most choose conventional nitrogen fertilizer” (Arnason, 2024). Producers have found that the extra costs of EEFs outweigh the potential benefits, even with subsidies in place.
Are We Subsidizing the Right Solution?
While EEFs may reduce nitrogen loss in certain scenarios, that is not true for a high proportion of producers in Saskatchewan. The evidence shows that traditional fertilizers can deliver similar outcomes when it comes to environmental sustainability. It has also been found that these EEFs may not even be effective in Saskatchewan’s climate. Finally, the higher cost of EEFs hurts farmers and their profits, even with subsidies in place. Given this, a subsidy on EEFs does not benefit producers and their concerns on yield and profit or consumers with concerns regarding environmental safety.
What’s Next?
It may be time for policymakers to reconsider how they are going to reach sustainability goals. Instead of a focused subsidy on EEFs, a more widespread investment in nitrogen management on traditional fertilizers may be beneficial. For example, the promotion of the 4R strategy, investment in precision agriculture, and conversation among producers and stakeholders could be alternative solutions to an industry faced with feeding the global population while remaining sustainable for generations to come.
