Click Here to Register

 Speaker: Dr. Jennifer Clapp, University of Waterloo
 ( CLICK HERE for Jennifer's Biography)
 Recent mergers among some of the world’s largest agrifood companies underline the extent to which just a   handful of giant firms have come to dominate the global food system. As the power of transnational agrifood   corporations has grown, debates have intensified over what it means for efforts to promote more just and sustainable food systems around the world. This lecture explores how corporate power in the global food system is being expressed in new ways, its implications for world food security and sustainability, and the politics of efforts to resist it.

 Speaker: Dean Stanford Blade, University of Alberta
 ( CLICK HERE for Stan's Biography)
 Speaker: Dr. Catherine Chan, University of Alberta 
 ( CLICK HERE for Catherine's Biography)

 Food choices made by an individual or family, by the manager of a school cafeteria, or buyers for grocery store chains are influenced by multiple factors that are much more complicated than the foods’ nutritional value and whether it tastes good. Factors such as ethnicity and culture, family preferences and lifestyle, ease of preparation, cost, local and global production patterns all impact food purchases and consumption. Government and global policies have overarching influence. Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide has changed over time to reflect new nutrition knowledge but also the dynamic food environment in which we live. What principles have guided the newest version of Canada’s Food Guide and how does that translate into recommendations? In this presentation, the food environment will be defined in terms of a 4-A Framework (adequacy, acceptability, availability and accessibility) and Canada’s Food Guide. Implications for health and risks of chronic diseases such as diabetes will be examined.

Speaker: Dr. David Locky, MacEwan University
(David's biography to come.)
Photo to come.
Description to come.

Speaker: Dr. William Shotyk, University of Alberta
( CLICK HERE for William's biography)
Description to come.

Speaker: Dr. Anne Naeth, University of Alberta
(Anne's Biography to come.)
Photo to come.
Description to come. 

Speaker: Dr. Bill Deen, University of Guelph
(CLICK HERE for Bill's Biography)
Photo to come.
In temperate production regions, crop rotation diversity is declining. Before 1950, complex crop rotations provided such benefits as weed, pest and insect management, nutrient supply and labour distribution. More recently however, technological advancements in nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides, plant genetics and equipment have reduced the apparent need for crop rotation complexity in favour of more “simple” rotations. These simple rotations have the perception as the “most profitable” when intensively managed and may consist of only two crops or continuous planting of one crop. Long-term rotation trials have, however, demonstrated that simple rotations are associated with reduced yields and resiliency of a system, along with negative environmental impacts such as reduced soil organic matter, reduced nutrient use efficiency and increased nutrient loss to air and water. The costs of these negative impacts are often not borne by the producer but by other segments of society. Future effects of a changing climate, emerging biomass industries, and intensification of production systems could increase the overall costs associated with simple rotations, thereby compromising long-term profitability and leading to the need for development of more rotation diversity with associated environmental benefits. 

Speaker: Dr. Karin Wittenberg, University of Manitoba
( CLICK HERE for Karin's Biography)
Description to come. 

Speaker: Dr. Brian Amiro, University of Manitoba
( CLICK HERE for Brian's Biography)
Description to come.

Speaker: Dr. Lianne Lefsrud, University of Alberta
( CLICK HERE for Lianne's Biography)

This presentation presents the findings of a survey of climate change beliefs and adoption of climate mitigative practices among beef and grain producers in Alberta, Canada. Despite low levels of agreement that climate change is caused primarily by humans, respondents indicate a high level of adoption of several agricultural practices with climate mitigative benefits. Respondents’ motivations for adoption of climate mitigative practices include expected private economic benefits, improvements in soil quality, and biodiversity, among other things. The strongest predictor of mitigative practice adoption is a learning orientation, defined as valuing improvement, research, learning, and innovation. followed by a conservation orientation that values land stewardship. Other significant predictors include farm size and presence of livestock.

Speaker: Dr. Ian Urquhart, University of Alberta
(Ian's Biography to come.)
Photo to come.
Description to come. 

Speaker: Dr. Robert Lackey, Oregon State University 
 ( CLICK HERE for Robert's Biography)
 Most people expect that scientific information provided by interest and advocacy groups is infused with policy preferences, and for many people, the same skepticism exists for media-provided science. Increasingly, however, public skepticism has extended to scientists themselves (i.e., the prevalence of “advocacy masquerading as science”). Even some experienced managers and policy makers (i.e., knowledgeable “consumers of science”) fail to recognize policy bias when it is presented under the guise of scientific information. For example, a policy bias toward “natural” or “pristine” ecosystems (i.e., those ecosystems unaffected by humans) is a common misuse of science in policy and management. Using such “science” (i.e., normative science) in policy deliberations is not only a misuse of science, it is insidious because the consumer of the information is often unaware of the hidden policy slant. Public confidence that scientific information is technically accurate, policy relevant, and politically unbiased is central to informed resolution of natural resource policy and management issues that are often contentious, divisive, and litigious. Science must remain a cornerstone of such public policy and management decisions, but I offer cautionary guidance to scientists: become involved with policy issues, but play the proper role.