<p>The agricultural regions of Canada:
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/XRR0c.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/XRR0c.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
are located on suitable soil types:
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/4OhJ9.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/4OhJ9.jpg" alt="http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/counprof/canada/pics/Figure%204b.jpg" /></a></p>
<p>Much of the unfarmed area is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield#Ecology" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Canadian Shield</a> (shades of red below):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The current surface expression of the Shield is one of very thin soil
lying on top of the bedrock, with many bare outcrops. This arrangement
was caused by severe glaciation during the ice age, which covered the
Shield and scraped the rock clean. The lowlands of the Canadian Shield
have a very dense soil that is not suitable for forestation; it also
contains many marshes and bogs (muskegs). The rest of the region has
coarse soil that does not retain moisture well and is frozen with
permafrost throughout the year.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think the &quot;coarse soil&quot; is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Till" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Glacial Till</a>.
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/s0kNs.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/s0kNs.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>This is melting permafrost. I don't think it will be suitable for agriculture.
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ZwzM4.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ZwzM4.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p><a href="https://act-adapt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/07-13-CFS-Background-WEB.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND CANADA’S CROPS AND FOOD SUPPLY (2013)</a> (122 pages) discusses warming, precipitation, soils and other factors.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is definitely potential for a northern expansion of agriculture
as a result of changes in heat and moisture in [the western prairies],
although most of these lands will remain only marginally suitable for
farming because of poor soil conditions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Edit:<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/EYX1i.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/EYX1i.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
An eroding coastline exposes permafrost along the Mackenzie Delta. Photo: Roger McLeod / Natural Resources Canada</p>
<p><strong>High resolution version</strong> from <a href="https://thenarwhal.ca/arctic-tundra-is-80-per-cent-permafrost-what-happens-when-it-thaws/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Arctic tundra is 80 per cent permafrost. What happens when it thaws?</a> - The Narwhal:<br />
<a href="https://thenarwhal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Coastal-Erosion-Permafrost-Roger-McLeod-NRCan--e1551913545654-1920x1080.jpeg" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://thenarwhal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Coastal-Erosion-Permafrost-Roger-McLeod-NRCan--e1551913545654-1920x1080.jpeg</a></p>
<p>Edit, Oct., 2020:</p>
<p><a href="http://Canada%20could%20be%20a%20huge%20climate%20change%20winner%20when%20it%20comes%20to%20farmland" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Canada could be a huge climate change winner when it comes to farmland</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/QF9sU.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/QF9sU.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
In this map from the study, areas that transition from no current suitability for major commodity crops to suitability for one or more crops are depicted in blue, while currently uncultivated areas that transition to suitability for multiple major commodity crops are shown in red. (<a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228305" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hannah et al, 2020</a>)</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>KC acknowledged the study looked only at climate as a factor when determining where crops could be grown in the future, and didn't take into account things like soil quality.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Soil scientist David Burton of Dalhousie University, who wasn't involved in the study, says that could have a big impact on how much of the potential new farmland is actually arable.
&quot;The soils of Southern Canada have taken 10,000 years to develop,&quot; he said. &quot;Rapid change wouldn't necessarily make soils in Northern Canada suitable for production.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Johanna Wandel, an associate professor of geography at the University of Waterloo who edited a book called Farming in a Changing Climate, agrees the soil in much of Canada would likely be unsuitable for growing crops, as it's too rocky or acidic.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-03T04:56:30.047Z
All things being equal, warming would improve agricultural production in the Arctic regions. But all things aren't equal; as you've noted, that's not exactly prime topsoil. Plus, it tends to be hundreds of miles away from existing infrastructure and thousands of miles away from the populations which will directly lose food productivity due to warming.
jeffronicus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-03T17:34:29.130Z
Would farmers be able to import soil from other places (like the regions that are now too hot to farm) and put it down there, or does soil not work that way?
sbl
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-04T02:53:25.643Z
@sbl I estimate to move it thousands of miles by rail would cost several thousand $ per acre. That does not include scraping it up, moving it to and from the railway and spreading it.
Keith McClary
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-04T07:05:17.103Z
Showing a picture of permafrost and saying permafrost areas aren't suitable for agriculture isn't quite convincing. Here is another picture that doesn't support your unscientific answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost#/media/File:Digging_in_permafrost.jpg
Communisty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-04T17:29:51.520Z
@Communisty They need a jackhammer because they are digging into frozen mud (or dirty ice) which can be many metres deep. But you have a good point. I guess some (flatter) regions might melt gradually without the catastrophic collapse in the picture. [This can take a long time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost#Base_depth) during which the surface will probably be unstable and cold. There should be places where the permafrost has fully melted since the last glaciation so we could see what the soil is like, but I don't know of any.
Keith McClary
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-06T07:02:31.417Z
I don't think the time for Arctic land becomes farmable is relevant here. The question is basically: could permafrost land in warmer times be farmable? I would say that the quality of soil is then the key.
Communisty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-06T16:31:21.433Z
@Communisty the soil, but also the rainfall and how cold it gets during growing season, terrain.   There's a few factors.  Some permafrost is just rocks and ice - as the ice melts the ground collapses - that's not going to work, but some tundra might be good soil in the right conditions.   But I have no idea how abundant good farm areas might be.   Maybe Greenland has some good farmland under all that ice.  (maybe not).
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-06T18:24:21.350Z
@Communisty : The OP says "at the same time ... Would areas ... then become suitable". Warming is expected to happen over the next century. It is relevant if it takes thousands of years to melt and stabilize.
Keith McClary
CC BY-SA 4.0
2017-09-02T22:29:04.630Z
2020-10-19T22:18:41.683Z
2020-10-19T22:18:41.683Z
Keith McClary
<p>From what I understand, global warming will make growing food a lot harder in areas like the American Midwest because temperatures will become too high for most crops. At the same time, Arctic (and Antarctic) regions will heat up and permafrost will melt. Would areas like Alaska, Siberia, and northern Canada then become suitable for large-scale agriculture? And if so, would this be enough to make up for the lost production in warmer areas? Or are there other factors in those areas that would make farming impractical?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-05T19:13:34.973Z
the biggest problem for foodproduction is not the heat itself it is the change in climate. when it rains it rains more in a shorter time this leads to flooding and destruction of crops.and when it is dry it will be dry for a longer time the heat makes water evaporate before the plants can use it and the crops fail.so this is the real problem moving north/south dont change this.
trond hansen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-06T16:28:32.203Z
It's a great question but there's a ton of detail.   Rain fall amount, frost, snow runoff and water supply (and flooding), Terrain and soil quality and depth.  The US midwest has unusually good and plentiful soil.   It may be the best farming region in the world.   Despite climate change, we still get some very cold days when the Polar Vortex pushes south so frost would be a problem further north.    I would think it's possible to a degree, but not close to the extent of the farm production in the Midwestern US.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-07T17:35:31.360Z
Re the lost production aspect, the answer seems quite obvious if you look at a globe rather than a Mercator projection.  There is a lot less land area in the polar regions than one might think.
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-14T19:26:57.390Z
Before it will happen in the Arctic, people will do it in the boreal region first, and in fact there is already people expanding agriculture and cutting down boreal forest.
y chung
<climate-change><agriculture><arctic>
Will global warming lead to agriculture in the Arctic?
sbl
# Will global warming lead to agriculture in the Arctic?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-09-02)

From what I understand, global warming will make growing food a lot harder in areas like the American Midwest because temperatures will become too high for most crops. At the same time, Arctic (and Antarctic) regions will heat up and permafrost will melt. Would areas like Alaska, Siberia, and northern Canada then become suitable for large-scale agriculture? And if so, would this be enough to make up for the lost production in warmer areas? Or are there other factors in those areas that would make farming impractical?

**Tags:** climate-change, agriculture, arctic

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: the biggest problem for foodproduction is not the heat itself it is the change in climate. when it rains it rains more in a shorter time this leads to flooding and destruction of crops.and when it is dry it will be dry for a longer time the heat makes water evaporate before the plants can use it and the crops fail.so this is the real problem moving north/south dont change this.  
> **username_2**: It's a great question but there's a ton of detail.   Rain fall amount, frost, snow runoff and water supply (and flooding), Terrain and soil quality and depth.  The US midwest has unusually good and plentiful soil.   It may be the best farming region in the world.   Despite climate change, we still get some very cold days when the Polar Vortex pushes south so frost would be a problem further north.    I would think it's possible to a degree, but not close to the extent of the farm production in the Midwestern US.  
> **username_3**: Re the lost production aspect, the answer seems quite obvious if you look at a globe rather than a Mercator projection.  There is a lot less land area in the polar regions than one might think.  
> **username_4**: Before it will happen in the Arctic, people will do it in the boreal region first, and in fact there is already people expanding agriculture and cutting down boreal forest.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2017-09-02. Score: 4

The agricultural regions of Canada:
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/XRR0c.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/XRR0c.jpg)
are located on suitable soil types:
[![http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/counprof/canada/pics/Figure%204b.jpg](https://i.sstatic.net/4OhJ9.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/4OhJ9.jpg)

Much of the unfarmed area is the [Canadian Shield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield#Ecology) (shades of red below):

> The current surface expression of the Shield is one of very thin soil
> lying on top of the bedrock, with many bare outcrops. This arrangement
> was caused by severe glaciation during the ice age, which covered the
> Shield and scraped the rock clean. The lowlands of the Canadian Shield
> have a very dense soil that is not suitable for forestation; it also
> contains many marshes and bogs (muskegs). The rest of the region has
> coarse soil that does not retain moisture well and is frozen with
> permafrost throughout the year.

I think the "coarse soil" is [Glacial Till](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Till).
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/s0kNs.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/s0kNs.jpg)

This is melting permafrost. I don't think it will be suitable for agriculture.
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/ZwzM4.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/ZwzM4.jpg)

[CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND CANADA’S CROPS AND FOOD SUPPLY (2013)](https://act-adapt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/07-13-CFS-Background-WEB.pdf) (122 pages) discusses warming, precipitation, soils and other factors.

> There is definitely potential for a northern expansion of agriculture
> as a result of changes in heat and moisture in [the western prairies],
> although most of these lands will remain only marginally suitable for
> farming because of poor soil conditions.

Edit:[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/EYX1i.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/EYX1i.jpg)
An eroding coastline exposes permafrost along the Mackenzie Delta. Photo: Roger McLeod / Natural Resources Canada

**High resolution version** from [Arctic tundra is 80 per cent permafrost. What happens when it thaws?](https://thenarwhal.ca/arctic-tundra-is-80-per-cent-permafrost-what-happens-when-it-thaws/) - The Narwhal:  
<https://thenarwhal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Coastal-Erosion-Permafrost-Roger-McLeod-NRCan--e1551913545654-1920x1080.jpeg>

Edit, Oct., 2020:

[Canada could be a huge climate change winner when it comes to farmland](http://Canada%20could%20be%20a%20huge%20climate%20change%20winner%20when%20it%20comes%20to%20farmland)

> [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/QF9sU.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/QF9sU.jpg)
> In this map from the study, areas that transition from no current suitability for major commodity crops to suitability for one or more crops are depicted in blue, while currently uncultivated areas that transition to suitability for multiple major commodity crops are shown in red. ([Hannah et al, 2020](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228305))

> KC acknowledged the study looked only at climate as a factor when determining where crops could be grown in the future, and didn't take into account things like soil quality.

> Soil scientist David Burton of Dalhousie University, who wasn't involved in the study, says that could have a big impact on how much of the potential new farmland is actually arable.
> "The soils of Southern Canada have taken 10,000 years to develop," he said. "Rapid change wouldn't necessarily make soils in Northern Canada suitable for production."

> Johanna Wandel, an associate professor of geography at the University of Waterloo who edited a book called Farming in a Changing Climate, agrees the soil in much of Canada would likely be unsuitable for growing crops, as it's too rocky or acidic.

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: All things being equal, warming would improve agricultural production in the Arctic regions. But all things aren't equal; as you've noted, that's not exactly prime topsoil. Plus, it tends to be hundreds of miles away from existing infrastructure and thousands of miles away from the populations which will directly lose food productivity due to warming.  
> **username_0**: Would farmers be able to import soil from other places (like the regions that are now too hot to farm) and put it down there, or does soil not work that way?  
> **username_5**: @username_0 I estimate to move it thousands of miles by rail would cost several thousand $ per acre. That does not include scraping it up, moving it to and from the railway and spreading it.  
> **username_7**: Showing a picture of permafrost and saying permafrost areas aren't suitable for agriculture isn't quite convincing. Here is another picture that doesn't support your unscientific answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost#/media/File:Digging_in_permafrost.jpg  
> **username_5**: @username_7 They need a jackhammer because they are digging into frozen mud (or dirty ice) which can be many metres deep. But you have a good point. I guess some (flatter) regions might melt gradually without the catastrophic collapse in the picture. [This can take a long time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost#Base_depth) during which the surface will probably be unstable and cold. There should be places where the permafrost has fully melted since the last glaciation so we could see what the soil is like, but I don't know of any.  
> **username_7**: I don't think the time for Arctic land becomes farmable is relevant here. The question is basically: could permafrost land in warmer times be farmable? I would say that the quality of soil is then the key.  
> **username_2**: @username_7 the soil, but also the rainfall and how cold it gets during growing season, terrain.   There's a few factors.  Some permafrost is just rocks and ice - as the ice melts the ground collapses - that's not going to work, but some tundra might be good soil in the right conditions.   But I have no idea how abundant good farm areas might be.   Maybe Greenland has some good farmland under all that ice.  (maybe not).  
> **username_5**: @username_7 : The OP says "at the same time ... Would areas ... then become suitable". Warming is expected to happen over the next century. It is relevant if it takes thousands of years to melt and stabilize.  

---

