Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Agriculture

It’s time to end supply management

Published

4 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Ending Canada’s dairy supply management system would lower costs, boost exports, and create greater economic opportunities.

The Trump administration’s trade warfare is not all bad. Aside from spurring overdue interprovincial trade barrier elimination and the removal of obstacles to energy corridors, it has also spotlighted Canada’s dairy supply management system.

The existing marketing board structure is a major hindrance to Canada’s efforts to increase non-U.S. trade and improve its dismal productivity growth rate—crucial to reviving stagnant living standards. Ending it would lower consumer costs, make dairy farming more dynamic, innovative and export-oriented, and create opportunities for overseas trade deals.

Politicians sold supply management to Canadians to ensure affordable milk and dairy products for consumers without costing taxpayers anything—while avoiding unsightly dumping surplus milk or sudden price spikes. While the government has not paid dairy farmers directly, consumers have paid more at the supermarket than their U.S. neighbours for decades.

An October 2023 C.D. Howe Institute analysis showed that, over five years, the Canadian price for four litres of partly skimmed milk generally exceeded the U.S. price (converted to Canadian dollars) by more than a dollar, sometimes significantly more, and rarely less.

A 2014 study conducted by the University of Manitoba, published in 2015, found that lower-income households bore an extra burden of 2.3 per cent of their income above the estimated cost for free-market-determined dairy and poultry products (i.e., vs. non-supply management), amounting to $339 in 2014 dollars ($435 in current dollars). Higher-income households paid an additional 0.5 per cent of their income, or $554 annually in 2014 dollars ($712 today).

One of the pillars of the current system is production control, enforced by production quotas for every dairy farm. These quotas only gradually rise annually, despite abundant production capacity. As a result, millions of litres of milk are dumped in some years, according to a 2022 article by the Montreal Economic Institute.

Beyond production control, minimum price enforcement further entrenches inefficiency. Prices are set based on estimated production costs rather than market forces, keeping consumer costs high and limiting competition.

Import restrictions are the final pillar. They ensure foreign producers do not undercut domestic ones. Jaime Castaneda, executive vice-president of the U.S. National Milk Producers Federation, complained that the official 2.86 per cent non-tariffed Canadian import limit was not reached due to non-tariff barriers. Canadian tariffs of over 250 per cent apply to imports exceeding quotas from the European Union, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA, or USMCA).

Dairy import protection obstructs efforts to reach more trade deals. Defending this system forces Canada to extend protection to foreign partners’ favoured industries. Affected sectors include several where Canada is competitive, such as machinery and devices, chemicals and plastics, and pharmaceuticals and medical products. This impedes efforts to increase non-U.S. exports of goods and services. Diverse and growing overseas exports are essential to reducing vulnerability to hostile U.S. trade policy.

It may require paying dairy farmers several billion dollars to transition from supply management—though this cartel-determined “market” value is dubious, as the current inflation-adjusted book value is much lower—but the cost to consumers and the economy is greater. New Zealand successfully evolved from a similar import-protected dairy industry into a vast global exporter. Canada must transform to excel. The current system limits Canada’s freedom to find greener pastures.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Agriculture

Bovaer Backlash Update: Danish Farmers Get Green Light to Opt Out as UK Arla Trial Abruptly Ends!

Published on

Sonia Elijah investigates Sonia Elijah

In a pivotal shift, Denmark’s Veterinary and Food Administration has issued new guidance: Farmers can immediately suspend Bovaer administration if they “suspect” it poses risks to herd health. On the heels of the Danish announcement—the major UK trial of Bovaer on 30 Arla Foods farms has abruptly ended amid health fears.

The Mandate Cracks: Farmers Given the Green Light to Opt Out

On November 5, 2025, Denmark’s Fødevarestyrelsen (Danish Veterinary and Food Administration) issued a press release and accompanying guidance clarified that farmers (specifically the herd manager, or besætningsansvarlige) could immediately exempt individual cows or entire herds from the mandatory Bovaer use if they suspected it was causing or exacerbating health issues, prioritizing animal welfare under existing regulations.

Sonia Elijah investigates is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This was in response to surging reports of cow illnesses since October 1, where farms with over 50 cows have been mandated to use the synthetic additive, Bovaer (containing 3-nitrooxypropanol), developed by DSM-Firmenich. If the farms do not comply, they face heavy fines.

Bovaer Backlash: Danish Cows Collapsing Under Mandatory Methane-Reducing Additive

·
Nov 3
Bovaer Backlash: Danish Cows Collapsing Under Mandatory Methane-Reducing Additive
Article updated: November 4
Read full story

The guidance emphasized that exemptions apply to cases of feed-related metabolic disorders (e.g., fatty liver, milk fever, or rumen issues) and require documentation via a “tro- og loveerklæring” (declaration of good faith) on LandbrugsInfo, with veterinary consultation recommended for severe cases. No fines would apply for such welfare-based pauses, though farmers must still meet methane reduction goals via alternatives like increased feed fat. This effectively gave the “green light” for opting out on welfare grounds.

Reports surged of Danish dairy farmers unilaterally halting Bovaer administration, accusing the government of “poisoning” livestock to meet climate targets.

A November 3, 2025, article in LandbrugsAvisen (Denmark’s leading agricultural newspaper), quoted veterinarian Torben Bennedsgaard from BoviCura (a specialized cattle health advisory service closely tied to Danish dairy producers). He stated: “Every other farmer has problems with Bovaer.”

“Bovaer is a proven, effective and safe solution”

A spokesperson for DSM-Firmenich, the company that developed Bovaer, told Agriland, that “animal welfare is our highest priority”. They went on to state: “We are actively engaging with the relevant organisations to ensure that all these concerns are fully investigated and properly addressed..In previously reported cases, Bovaer was not identified as a contributing factor to the health concerns raised…Bovaer is a proven, effective and safe solution that has been successfully used for over three years by thousands of farmers in over 25 countries.”

UK Ripple Effects: Arla Trial Abruptly Halted

 

On 7 November, the BBC reported that the major UK trial of Bovaer on 30 Arla Foods farms concluded earlier than planned amid “farmer health concerns” for cows, echoing Danish reports. It stated: ‘Bovaer is now the focus of an investigation in Denmark after farmers raised fresh concerns but manufacturer DSM-Firmenich said the additive was “proven, effective and safe.”’

Arla, which supplies major retailers like Tesco and Aldi, is now reviewing data before deciding on wider rollout. The trial aimed to cut methane by 30% but faced criticism for lacking transparency on animal impact.

Jannik Elmegaard, of the Danish Food and Veterinary Administration, told the BBC: “They very aware that some herd owners have reported animals showing signs of illness after being fed with Bovaer” but it was “unclear how many cows were affected”.

Last year, I reported on the UK’s Arla trial—whilst digging through various safety assessment reports on Bovaer, I came across several troubling findings and anomalies.

BREAKING: Methane-Reducing Feed Additive Trialled in Arla Dairy Farms

·
November 28, 2024
BREAKING: Methane-Reducing Feed Additive Trialled in Arla Dairy Farms
On November 26th, Arla Foods Ltd. announced via social media their collaboration with major UK supermarkets like Tesco, Aldi, and Morrisons to trial Bovaer, a feed additive, aiming to reduce methane …
Read full story

In a public rebuttal, Frank Mitloehner, Professor of Animal Science at UC Davis and Director of the Clarify Center for Enteric Fermentation Research, posted on X ”Hogwash!”—dismissing viral claims of Bovaer-related cow health issues in Denmark by highlighting his lab’s ongoing research and widespread U.S. usage data.

The green light in Denmark is not a mere victory—it’s a damning admission that the emperor’s new feed has holes big enough for a whole herd to escape through.

As Arla licks its wounds and DSM-Firmenich doubles down on “proven safe,” the real trial begins: can climate crusaders stomach the science when it bites back?

If you appreciate the hard work that I do as an independent investigative journalist,

please consider supporting me with a paid subscription.

Subscribe to Sonia Elijah Investigates

Buy me a coffee

Share

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Agriculture

Farmers Take The Hit While Biofuel Companies Cash In

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Joseph Fournier

Canada’s emissions policy rewards biofuels but punishes the people who grow our food

In the global rush to decarbonize, agriculture faces a contradictory narrative: livestock emissions are condemned as climate threats, while the same crops turned into biofuels are praised as green solutions argues senior fellow Dr. Joseph Fournier. This double standard ignores the natural carbon cycle and the fossil-fuel foundations of modern farming, penalizing food producers while rewarding biofuel makers through skewed carbon accounting and misguided policy incentives.

In the rush to decarbonize our world, agriculture finds itself caught in a bizarre contradiction.

Policymakers and environmental advocates decry methane and carbon dioxide emissions from livestock digestion, respiration and manure decay, labelling them urgent climate threats. Yet they celebrate the same corn and canola crops when diverted to ethanol and biodiesel as heroic offsets against fossil fuels.

Biofuels are good, but food is bad.

This double standard isn’t just inconsistent—it backfires. It ignores the full life cycle of the agricultural sector’s methane and carbon dioxide emissions and the historical reality that modern farming’s productivity owes its existence to hydrocarbons. It’s time to confront these hypocrisies head-on, or we risk chasing illusory credits while penalizing the very system that feeds us.

Let’s take Canada as an example.

It’s estimated that our agriculture sector emits 69 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) annually, or 10 per cent of national totals. Around 35 Mt comes from livestock digestion and respiration, including methane produced during digestion and carbon dioxide released through breathing. Manure composting adds another 12 Mt through methane and nitrous oxide.

Even crop residue decomposition is counted in emissions estimates.

Animal digestion and respiration, including burping and flatulence, and the composting of their waste are treated as industrial-scale pollutants.

These aren’t fossil emissions—they’re part of the natural carbon cycle, where last year’s stover or straw returns to the atmosphere after feeding soil life. Yet under United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines adopted by Canada, they’re lumped into “agricultural sources,” making farmers look like climate offenders for doing their job.

Ironically, only 21 per cent—about 14 Mt—of the sector’s emissions come from actual fossil fuel use on the farm.

This inconsistency becomes even more apparent in the case of biofuels.

Feed the corn to cows, and its digestive gases count as a planetary liability. Turn it into ethanol, and suddenly it’s an offset.

Canada’s Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR) mandate a 15 per cent CO2e intensity drop by 2030 using biofuels. In this program, biofuel producers earn offset credits per litre, which become a major part of their revenue, alongside fuel sales.

Critics argue the CFR is essentially a second carbon tax, expected to add up to 17 cents per litre at the pump by 2030, with no consumer rebate this time.

But here’s the rub: crop residue emits carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide whether the grain goes to fuel or food.

Diverting crops to biofuels doesn’t erase these emissions: it just shifts the accounting, rewarding biofuel producers with credits while farmers and ranchers take the emissions hit.

These aren’t theoretical concerns: they’re baked into policy.

If ethanol and biodiesel truly offset emissions, why penalize the same crops when used to feed livestock?

And why penalize farmers for crop residue decomposition while ignoring the emissions from rotting leaves, trees and grass in nature?

This contradiction stems from flawed assumptions and bad math.

Fossil fuels are often blamed, while the agricultural sector’s natural carbon loop is treated like a threat. Policy seems more interested in pinning blame than in understanding how food systems actually work.

This disconnect isn’t new—it’s embedded in the history of agriculture.

Since the Industrial Revolution, mechanization and hydrocarbons have driven abundance. The seed drill and reaper slashed labour needs. Tractors replaced horses, boosting output and reducing the workforce.

Yields exploded with synthetic fertilizers produced from methane and other hydrocarbons.

For every farm worker replaced, a barrel of oil stepped in.

A single modern tractor holds the energy equivalent of 50 to 100 barrels of oil, powering ploughing, planting and harvesting that once relied on sweat and oxen.

We’ve traded human labour for hydrocarbons, feeding billions in the process.

Biofuel offsets claim to reduce this dependence. But by subsidizing crop diversion, they deepen it; more corn for ethanol means more diesel for tractors.

It’s a policy trap: vilify farmers to fund green incentives, all while ignoring the fact that oil props up the table we eat from.

Policymakers must scrap the double standards, adopt full-cycle biogenic accounting, and invest in truly regenerative technologies or lift the emissions burden off farmers entirely.

Dr. Joseph Fournier is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. An accomplished scientist and former energy executive, he holds graduate training in chemical physics and has written more than 100 articles on energy, environment and climate science.

Continue Reading

Trending

X