Farming Smarter Spring 2011

Growing New Ideas

Spring 2011 Edition

Farming Smarter $8.00

Official Publication of

Southern Applied Research Association

The T-L Difference.

The T-L Difference.

Proven Proven technology technology

ThaT ThaT workS! workS! Irrigation Systems Irrigation Systems

A.D. IRRIGATION LTD.

Nobleford, AB – 403-824-3399 T-L Dealer Signature Here www.adirrigation.ca

T-L Dealer Signature Here

UNITED UTILITY SERVICES (2010) Brooks, AB – 403-501-0123

TL-274B TL-274B

Are you tired of dealing with the hassles of irrigating with electrically powered Microswitches, expensive unexpected Are youpivot tired irrigation of dealingsystems? with the hassles of irrigating with electrically repairs, high maintenance costs, safety concerns…the list goes on. powered pivot irrigation systems?

Microswitches, expensive unexpected repairs, high maintenance costs, safety concerns…the list goes on.

Only T-L irrigation systems use strong, efficient, smooth running and reliable hydrostatic thatuse youstrong, know and worksmooth with every day. and Only T-L irrigationpower systems efficient, running Proven technology that works! reliable hydrostatic power that you know and work with every day.

Proven technology Let T-L Irrigation Co.that andworks!

T-L dealers give you lasting value and decades

ofLet dependability. systems arelasting “Easiervalue on You T-L IrrigationT-L Co.pivot andirrigation T-L dealers give you and– decades For a Lifetime.” Call local T-L dealer or T-L Co.You – of dependability.

T-Lyour pivot irrigation systems areIrrigation “Easier on atFor 1-800-330-4264 a Lifetime.” Call today! your local T-L dealer or T-L Irrigation Co. at 1-800-330-4264 today!

Farming Smarter

Spring 2011 Edition

Contents Chairman’s message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Introducing Farming Smarter’s new website . . . . 4 Controlled traffic farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Put on your critical thinking cap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Environmental farm planning process alive and well . 8 Southern Applied Research Association . . . . . . . . 10 Cumulative effects outcome-based management . . 11 Surface water quality management framework development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Restructuring of environmental funding . . . . . . . 14 How to find out what you need to find out . . . . . 15 Winter pulses worth a try in the south? . . . . . . . 16 Production cost for wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Oldman Watershed Council Annual Landowners Summit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Check-off dollars at work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Survey says . . . Scout your fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Water, agriculture and feeding the world . . . . . . 24 Survey updates fusarium head blight situation . . . . 26 Soil fertility after the floods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 A look at inter-row seeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Award winning directors – no producers . . . . . . . 31 New uses for flax could boost its value . . . . . . . . 32 Wireworm research aims to understand pest . . . . 34 SACA’s 2010 Orville Yanke Award . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Watershed Contest offers money to schools and students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Book review stuffed and starved . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Farming Smarter is published bi-annually by the Southern Applied Research Association, RR8-36-11, Lethbridge, T1J 4P4 with the assistance of the Southern Alberta Conservation Association and support from the Agriculture Opportunities Fund and Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture program .

Editorial Board: Corny Van Dasselaar, Editor: Claudette Lacombe

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

3

Chairman’s message » Ron Lamb, Farmer and Chairman SARA

W

elcome everyone to this edition of Farming Smarter. It is chalk full of information from the latest in research, but also contains vision. By that, I mean there is practical research and field trials that you can apply to your farming operation that will impact your bottom line: things like nutrient issues and rotational studies and novel crops, but it also contains the questions that remain to be answered. Will this work in my rotation? On my soil? With my climate? With my skill set? What part of this research can I use? What are the barriers to applying a more profitable practice? Farming Smarter is what these questions are all about. As the

questions get bigger and the answers get tougher and the applications become more profitable, we want to aid you in satisfying yourself the decisions you manage your farm with are valid.

The board extends huge thanks to Ken and his staff at Farming Smarter in helping us in this role. And also the primary researchers Ross, Bob, Brian, Hector, Rob, and so many others who, along with their staffs, set the course and direction of agriculture for decades to come. This magazine is about numbers and concepts but don’t forget it is also about the integrity of the people behind the articles!

Read and enjoy.

July 5, 6 & 7, 2011 Diagnostic field school » Visit www.farmingsmarter.com to register

K

4

en Coles says, “As the old adage goes, ‘if you want to be successful, you need to hang out with successful people.’” SARA provides a high level experience for crop producers that want to be successful through its Diagnostic Field School held each July.

“We tend to attract the leading edge farmers.

“There’s something to be said for getting a group of professionals) including farmers, researches & industry representatives) together in a field setting where they all feel comfortable. It’s a unique opportunity to

share experiences that provides a lot of value. New people that come to the field school are sometimes awestruck by what they can pick up.”

July 2011 will feature modules about winter wheat agronomy, seed canola production, on farm energy conservation and how to get the most out of smart phone technology as a resource.

Coles points out that SARA focuses on the needs of crop production. At the field school, they cover soils, pests, nutrients and sort good information from hype.

Fred Weisgerber pulls on the seeder while participating in a strong man competition for fun at the fieldschool. PHOTO SARA

Dr. Ross McKenzie teaching fertility at the field school.

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

PHOTO SARA

Š 2010 Meridian Manufacturing Group. Registered Trademarks Used Under License.

Controlled traffic farming » By Ron Montgomery

C

ontrolled Traffic Farming (CTF) a.k.a. “tramline farming systems” or “permanent wheel track farming” is a relatively new concept in Western Canada. One definition drawn directly from an Australian source sums it up nicely “tramline farming or controlled traffic farming is a crop and fodder production system that confines tire and track induced soil compaction to permanent tramlines by controlling traffic. This produces softer crop zones and allows easy access into the crop for row cropping, relay planting or raised bed techniques. An ideal system has all equipment matched for compatibility of width and tracks.”

Controlled Traffic Farming Alberta (CTFA) is a farmer-led initiative aimed at evaluating controlled traffic farming systems in Alberta.

Peter Gamache, Project Leader for CTFA comments candidly that the “the most pressing issue on most producers’ minds here in Western Canada is whether we can translate the huge benefits seen in Australia into our environment. There is a current level of risk involved because our current farming systems have been built around a different set of principles and for many producers this will require some major changes in terms of capital assets (machinery).”

Craig Shaw, a participating CTFA producer from Lacombe, AB, adds, “we’re not sure if controlled traffic farming is the next major advancement in cropping in western Canada. What we do know is that the promise it holds in reducing risk and reducing inputs while maintaining or increasing yield is a goal worth pursuing.”

Currently CTFA received one-year of funding from the Alberta Crop Industry Development Fund, Alberta Canola Producers Commission, Alberta Barley Commission, Alberta Pulse Growers and Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission. The Agricultural Research and Extension Council of Alberta is the managing partner.

The objectives of the partners are to build a network of key farmers, agronomists and others with CTF interest and expertise, assist growers that are implementing CTF, assess CTF in Alberta, develop resources for growers, conduct extension activities and develop a three-year CTF plan to further evaluate and assess CTF in Alberta.

The CTF website (www.controlledtrafficfarming.org) offers a wealth of information for interested parties, including a dedicated forum/message board. Plus a myriad of links to other CTF sites both nationally and internationally.

According to the site, CTF has the potential to improve soil structure by reducing overall compaction, increasing water infiltration, increasing soil water storage, increasing moisture use efficiencies, improving nutrient use efficiencies, reducing pesticide costs, reducing fuel consumption, improving traffic ability of equipment and lowering machinery investment.

6

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

Ford FWA 3 meter – axle extensions.

PHOTO CTFA

By combining no-till and CTF into one system, farmers can potentially increase net returns. Reducing and limiting compaction in the field leads to overall better soil health, which in turn can theoretically lead to many of the benefits listed above.

CTFA considers their organization fortunate to enjoy the expertise and experience of Australian farmers who have been practising (CTF) for many years. It’s estimated over 1 million hectares there use the principles of controlled traffic farming. It’s natural that a number of leading edge producers in Canada are now seriously looking at this technology as the next logical step after the advancements in direct seeding.

A group of eleven Alberta farmers and industry people were in Australia November 27 to December 12, 2010 to learn more about controlled traffic farming. There’s a link provided on the website where you can follow the details of this visit.

A few learning points derived from the 2010 tour is that (a) producers can progress into CTF over time as you begin to match up equipment widths and axle widths. (b) CTF equipment setup doesn’t have to be overly expensive. Many of the farms there invested less than $15,000 to get into CTF and some took a few years as cash flow allowed. (c) There will be exceptions to strict CTF adherence. EG if you have to get off a tramline to unload at harvest because you can’t make it to the end of the run, then do so. The extra wheel traffic created by jumping off the tramlines to unload will be relatively minimal. (d) CTF opens up a world of precision applica-

Put on your critical thinking cap » By Les Brost

R

ural Albertans are like the landscape they call home. Strong and resolute, they set their faces firmly against the gales of capricious change.

Under the pressures of carving out a living on Alberta’s rural landscape, time is always their enemy. Perhaps that’s why they choose to leave little time for rigorous analysis of important issues.

Instead, they align themselves with those they perceive to be loyal friends and allies. They trust these perceived allies to analyze issues and exercise critical thinking on their behalf, and follow their lead.

This pattern first emerged on the agricultural production side. Over the years, an enduring network of confidants, from District Agriculturalists to Agricultural Service Board Fieldmen to product representatives served rural Albertans in critical thinking and decision-making about production issues.

In most cases, these advisory resources did a good job of analyzing industry issues and advising rural Albertans.

That good production advice played a part in the long-standing reluctance of rural Albertans to critically analyze important provincial and national issues not related to production. Instead of investing the time and intellectual energy, they often hand the responsibility to others.

Over the past three decades, most rural Albertans have placed their trust in those they see as the truest of their true-blue friends — the big blue Progressive Conservative political machine. The Conservatives parlayed that bedrock rural support into a political regime not unlike the Duplessis era in Quebec.

Yet there was — and is — a profound difference between the advice and guidance of an agriculture extension specialist and a politician. While their political empire is rooted in rural Alberta, the Conservative Party has very close relationships with other powerful interests with very deep pockets; particularly the energy industry. Rural Alberta may bring the votes, but the energy industry provides very generous servings of money — the mothers’ milk of politics. Given the reality that most energy activity happens on agricultural land, it is remarkable that the Conservatives have maintained their role as trusted advisers to the majority of rural Albertans.

Today, tremors of political change shake the social landscape of rural Alberta. A powerful pushback against the provincial Conservative government’s proposed Bills 36 and 50 and the perceived loss of landowner rights ensuing from passage of the bills is generating heavy-duty political heat. From Fox Creek to Vauxhall, rural community halls overflow as rural residents turn out to meetings mobilizing public opinion against the legislation. They listen as Joe Anglin and Keith Wilson, leaders of the anti-Bill 36 movement, explain the implications for property rights in Alberta.

The Anglin/Wilson message is now resonating with many rural Albertans.

Yet for years, Joe Anglin was a lonely Jeremiah pounding Alberta’s back roads struggling to find a handful of folks willing to listen. Only today, at five minutes to midnight, have the Rip Van Winkles of rural Alberta emerged from their slumber to engage the issue of property rights. They leave the meetings angry and ready to engage in a landowners crusade against this assault on property rights.

So what is wrong with this picture? Isn’t it commendable that rural Albertans are mobilizing against the threats inherent in the Bills? Or is it as dangerous to do so based on what Mr. Anglin or Mr. Wilson tell them as it is to blindly follow the advice of the Premier or the local MLA? Shouldn’t rural Albertans invest the time and energy necessary to do their own critical thinking on emerging issues vital to their interests and way of life?

Back at the dawn of the twentieth century, Alberta was a place of big spaces and small government. Rural citizens and communities were responsible for their own destinies, with no one to do the heavy lifting for them. Those Albertans worked hard and smart, looked after their own interests and built the greatest province in Canada.

Today we still work hard and smart and we still live in Canada’s greatest province. We have succeeded — to a point. Yet we often hand off our responsibility for doing our own critical thinking and issue analysis to others. Ultimately, that hand-off could betray Alberta’s rural landscape and way of life. If that happens, rural Albertans have only themselves to blame. 

tion opportunities such as inter-row seeding to inter-row spraying of herbicides, on-row spraying of fungicides and insecticides, incrop fertilizer banding, and strip till banding fertilizer in the fall. (e) CTF creates spatial awareness. With the aid of application and yield mapping you can begin to eliminate the variables that reduce yield in your cropping system. Once you reduce the randomness of input applications, you can start to extract valuable yield data because the placement of inputs is so precise. (f ) CTF improves the timeliness of input applications, an important factor. With CTF, growers can get on the field sooner after a rain than conventional farming systems. Improving the timeliness of seeding, spraying and harvest can generate big returns. (g) CTF can reduce fuel use by 30 to 50%, with particularly big savings during harvest by combines traveling only on the already compacted tracks (tramlines).

For further information on CTFA visit www.controlledtrafficfarming.org contact Peter Gamache by telephone 780-7204346 or e-mail pmgamache@gmail.com 

Illustrates accuracy with seeder.

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

7

Environmental farm planning process alive and well » By Lee Hart

T

he delivery method has changed, but Alberta producers can still complete an Environmental Farm Plan, specific to their operation, through a streamlined process now co-ordinated through the provincial government, many rural municipalities and most of the province’s applied research organizations.

The Alberta Environmental Farm Plan Company (AEFP), which launched an aggressive introduction to the environmental farm planning process, was dissolved in 2009, but the program it offered for much of the past decade, is still available to producers and may be as close as their local county or municipal district office.

And coming early in 2011 is a plan for full access to the environmental farming planning process online, says Perry Phillips, of Vilna, Alberta, who has a long-time connection with AlbertaEFP. “We hope in the March/April 2011 timeframe that producers will be able to access the EFP program through the Internet,” says Phillips, who was one of the original AEFP coordinators. “Producers will be able to access the resource materials and develop their own environmental farm plan at home. And if they choose to have their plan reviewed, they can contact a local technical assistant through their municipal office or applied research organization.”

Since the EFP program launched in 2002, more than 12,000 Alberta farmers and ranchers have completed plans. Initially, a non-profit corporation — the AEFP Company — was created to develop resource materials including the Environmental Farm Plan handbook. The company hired regional co-ordinators to work with local facilitators to conduct two day workshops with groups of producers — walking them through the workbook — as each producer developed a plan specific to their operation. Producers also had access to the expertise of technical assistants (TAs) who could offer advice on specific practices related to crop, livestock, water and land management.

Under the original AEFP structure, supported by federal and provincial funding, completed plans could be sent to a producer peer review committee for comment and suggestions for changes in the plan to make it more effective. Once the plan was reviewed and approved, producers were issued a certificate of completion.

With the end of the Canada-Alberta Farm Stewardship Program and Greencover Canada funding, the AEFP company was dissolved in 2009, but the AEFP role was eventually assumed by Alberta Agriculture (ARD). The delivery structure changed, but the essence of the planning process continues.

For now, ARD is the keeper of the environmental farm planning process,” says Phillips. “Now rather dealing with a company, producers can access the plan through a local environmental or conservation specialist found in most rural municipal offices and ARAs.” “The EFP process is designed to be simple and straightforward,” says Phillips, who serves in an EFP training and support role for ARD. “The

8

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

EFP is a voluntary self-assessment process for producers to determine strengths and weaknesses of their farming operation from an environmental perspective.”

A number of Alberta producers are currently working with TAs to develop new plans, others are working to complete plans, and still others are working with AlbertaEFP specialists to update their existing plans.

To begin the EFP process, producers can contact their local rural municipality or agriculture service board, the ARD toll-free helpline or Phillips directly.

Producers will be referred to a Technical Assistant (TA) in their area and take part in a half day introduction to the environmental farm planning process. A paper version of the EFP workbook and a CD version are available free of charge. Producers can complete an EFP on an individual basis or by participating in workshops where available.

Producers learn the process and how to use the workbook to review all aspects of their operation and finalize their EFP. One of the first steps in completing the EFP is to assess the farm’s soil and site characteristics. Local qualified EFP TAs are available throughout the process.

Once completed, the producer has the choice to submit the plan to a qualified EFP TA for a review and feedback. It will be returned with a letter of completion along with any suggestions for improvement.

“The EFP is designed to be a living document,” says Phillips, “It is built to be implemented continuously from one year to the next based on environmental and personal priorities the producer identifies. Updating on a regular basis makes sense. Recent experience shows producers have documented real progress by revisiting and updating the EFP.” Producers understand the value of environmental progress, he says.

Some complete an EFP because they want to confirm what is being done properly on their operations and to more clearly understand what is required to meet current standards.

In some cases an EFP is done for business reasons, to apply for support under various programs, or to build producer food branding efforts that meet specific environmental standards of production. While the old Canada-Alberta Farm Stewardship program ended, producers can receive funding to help cover the cost of implementing management changes as outlined in their environmental farm plans through the new Growing Forward Stewardship Program.

The Growing Forward program provides assistance in areas of integrated crop management, manure management and grazing and winter feeding management.

For more information on the AlbertaEFP program, contact your local county or municipal district office agricultural service board, applied research association, the Alberta Agriculture help line at 310FARM (3276); contact Perry Phillips at (780) 636-3366 or visit the Alberta EFP website at www.albertaEFP.com. 

3005 - 18th Ave. North, Lethbridg 3005 - 18th Ave. North, Lethbridge, Alberta

3005 - 18th Ave. North, Lethbridge, Alberta

3005 - 18th Ave. North, Lethbridge, Alberta 3005 - 18th Ave. North, Lethbridge, Alberta

3005 - 18th Ave. North, Lethbridge, Alberta

3005 - 18th Ave. North, Leth

3005 - 18th Ave. North, Le 3005 - 18th Ave. North, Lethbridge, Alberta

PHONE: 329-868 PHONE: 329-8686 TOLL FREE 1-800-461-535 TOLL FREE 1-800-461-5356

3005 - 18th Ave. North, Lethbridge, Alberta hanloneq@telus.net www.hanlona email: hanloneq@telus.net email: www.hanlonag.com

PHONE: 329-8686 TOLL FREE 1-800-461-5356

email: hanloneq@telus.net www.hanlonag.com

PHONE: PHONE: 329-8686 329-8686 TOLL FREE 1-800-461-5356 TOLL FREE 1-800-461-5356

• • • • • • • • •

email: hanloneq@telus.net www.hanlonag.com email: hanloneq@telus.net www.hanlonag.com

Single shank design True 1-to-1 parallel Single shank designlinkage Easy to adjust depthlinkage setting True 1-to-1 parallel We hear you.

PHONE: 329-8686 Passive Hydraulic system Easy to adjust depth setting TOLL FREE 1-800-461-5356 We hear you. www.morris-industries.com Patented paired row opener Passive Hydraulic system

3005 - 18th Ave. North, Lethbridge, Alberta

• Single shank design PHONE: 329-8686 email: hanloneq@telus.net www.hanlonag.com TOLL FREE 1-800-461-5356 • True 1-to-1paired parallelrowlinkage www.morris-industries.com • Patented opener PHONE:329 329 PHONE: TOLL FREE 1-800• Easy to adjust depth setting TOLL FREE 1-800-46 email: hanloneq@telus.netwww ww We hear you. email: hanloneq@telus.net PHONE: 329-8686 • Passive Hydraulic system TOLL FREE 1-800-461-5356 www.morris-industries.com • Patented paired row opener email: hanloneq@telus.net www.hanlonag.com email: hanloneq@telus.net www.hanlonag.com

Contour Drill - Precision admat 4x5.indd 1

11/20/09 2:14:03 PM

Southern Applied Research Association Farming Smarter in 2010 » SARA Annual Report The People of SARA his year saw tremendous growth for SARA as three full time employees and five part time employees joined the organization. Although this initially created some challenges in determining roles, everyone quickly found a niche based on their previous experience and eagerness to learn. As our staff continues to change and grow, we expect to realize our vision of becoming southern Alberta’s lead organization in applied research and extension advancing agriculture through leadership.

The Evolution of the Tractor SARA made a number of equipment modifications this year to accommodate research trials. SARA fitted its John Deere with GPS and auto steer capability to allow straighter plot lines and better repeatability for inter-row seeding and mapping purposes. The tractor is also fitted with a load cell and laptop to measure horsepower requirements for different treatments.

An auxiliary fuel tank will allow fuel efficiency measurements for seeding under different conditions. A removable toolbar with Pillar Laser disc-hoe openers attached to the seeder will cause less disturbance. There will probably be more changes in 2011.

Venture into the Social Media Landscape Launching the SARA/SACA webpage www.farmingsmarter.com produced a new way to engage our audience acting as a hub for events, news, projects and general information about our organization. It also hosts an online version of our now bi-annual Farming Smarter magazine. Our adoption of social media such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and blogging has helped us create a dynamic leaning environment that forces us to constantly evaluate our message and how we deliver it.

Extension in Lethbridge Despite a challenging and delayed season the Diagnostic Field School had around 240 people attend over three days. We also held seven crop walks between June and August. The Medicine Hat crop walk doubled its participants from last year. The disease walk, held in early August, had a turnout of more than 80 and highlighted some of the concerns over Fusarium, Sclerotinia and white mold.

The 3 F’s Field Scale Research SARA’s commitment to work directly with producers continues to be both challenging and rewarding. Field Scale Research provides producers and opportunity to experiment right in their land and be directly involved in research of use to them. It provides SARA that invaluable opportunity to benefit from producer knowledge and experience.

Fusarium Head Blight One of our new projects focuses on managing the spread of the fungal disease Fusarium head blight. Fusarium graminearum is the primary fungal species that causes Fusarium head blight in cereals, corn grasses and some other crops (resulting in yield loss, grade loss, quality loss). SARA currently works with nine producer co-operators to evaluate how reduced irrigation during flowering (when infection occurs) in combination with commercially available fungicides may prevent the spread of the disease.

T

10

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

SARA Staff (R-L): Ken, Elizabeth, Shauna, Jamie, Kristina, Chris, Mike, Darcy.

Missing: Janis, Jeremy, Jeffrey, Kevin.

The SARA/SACA homepage.

Field Surveys of Southern Alberta SARA staff spent a large portion of the summer driving county roads in the province to scout fields for Fusarium Head Blight and general weed conditions. Staff completed 400 surveys.

Medicine Hat The SARA/Cypress County Research and Demonstration Site is located just east of Medicine Hat, AB. This year moisture conditions were excellent and there were fewer weed issues compared to Lethbridge.

Because of poor fall moisture the year prior, some of the fall-seeded crops struggled, but most of the spring seeded crops did well. In particular, the lentil regional variety trials looked good. Turnout for the crop walk was good. We look forward to continuing to expand our extension activities in Cypress County in conjunction with the Ag Service Board. 

Cumulative effects outcome-based management » Donna Trottier

T

he Alberta government intends too protect the environmental resources by considering cumulative effects when making future land use decisions at all levels of government.

Alberta plans a Cumulative Effects Management System (CEMS) that recognizes the combined results of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future human activities on the environment. Within this system, various tools, resources and relationships will work together to comprehensively manage activities that affect the environment, economy and society in a particular place. CEMS integrates water, land, air and biodiversity with environmental, economic and social values. It is an adaptive management system that follows a “plan-do-check” approach to setting, meeting and evaluating place-based outcomes.

In the past, land use decisions only looked at the project on the table and what kind of impact it might create on the landscape and surrounding environmental features. CEMS will ask decision-makers to look at how the project fits with the land uses around it. For instance, how will it impact the creek; what else impacts the creek already and may in the future; is there a maximum amount of land within the drainage area of the creek that we can use with this type of impact?

The goal is to minimize detrimental impacts on the environment, social fabric and economic growth of a particular region.

“We need to establish and describe very clearly the desired states or economic, environmental and social outcomes that we want to set. We will then implement appropriate plans and tools to ensure those outcomes are met,” states Kate Rich, Director, Land Use Framework, and Alberta Environment.

The Cumulative Effects Management System will encompass the following fundamentals: outcomes based, place based, performance management based, collaborative, and comprehensive implementation.

Rich describes how each of these fundamentals apply in Alberta, “CEMS will very clearly describe the desired outcomes for economic, environmental and social end states that we want to achieve. The CEMS is place based because we recognize that Alberta is a very diverse province with a variety of differences across the province. The CEMS needs to meet the varying needs, limitations and opportunities across the province so that the outcomes fit the place. The CEMS is performance management based meaning that the set outcomes will continually be measured for success. We want to use an adaptive approach to achieve the goals with a broader set of tools built in to allow flexibility and assure achievement of outcomes. If an outcome has been set and measured we can adapt our approach to better meet the outcome.

CEMS will be built on a culture of shared stewardship and collaboration involving many sectors and participants. CEMS is not just about setting rules with a few people making the decisions. All aspects of CEMS’ success are based on a shared vision, shared stewardship and shared determination of desired outcomes. The CEMS will require a comprehensive implementation using both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. We need to be holistic in implementation of the CEMS, using a suite of tools and approaches to achieve the objective.”

Shifting to outcome-based authorizations is designed to promote the

Cumulative Effects Management considers multiple activities on the landscape.

PHOTO Lise Trottier

achievement of place-based and issue-specific outcomes and improve the ability to consider multiple activities on the landscape. It is also expected to generate innovation and stewardship amongst the regulated community and better enable the management of cumulative impacts.

The success of cumulative effects management is highly dependent on effective science and monitoring systems and networks. The Government of Alberta produces and collects some of this information, but there are many other contributors including industry, academia, other levels of government and stewardship groups.

The Land Use Framework (LUF) regional plans are the vehicles the government will use to demonstrate the Cumulative Effects Management System and future management direction. Legislation backs the LUF and regional plans that crosses all government ministries and binds all Albertans to the outcomes collectively decided upon. Decisions will be made in accordance with the regulated regional plan. Project based decisions will still be necessary however the regional and sub-regional plans will set the context as a line to measure up to with the project decisions. “When evaluating a project we would ask ‘Does this project help us to realize what we are trying to achieve? Does it help us meet our regional objectives?’” explains Rich.

There are two regional plans currently in progress, the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP) and the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan. Rich notes that both these and future regional plans will incorporate the CEMS into their development.

The transition to a cumulative effects management approach is continuing to evolve in Alberta. The shift will require integration and discussion with and between government ministries, other governments, industry sectors, municipalities, non-government organizations and all Albertans.  Farming Smarter /Spring 2011

11

Surface water quality management framework development » By Donna Trottier

M

ost of southern Alberta relies on the South Saskatchewan River and its major tributaries; which makes managing water quality in these waterbodies important to all southern Albertans.

Alberta Environment is in the process of developing a comprehensive Surface Water Quality Management Framework (framework) as part of the Land Use Framework South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP).

The draft framework examines the current state of knowledge of water quality in the mainstem rivers in the South Saskatchewan region (Oldman, Bow, Milk and South Saskatchewan Rivers) and provides a brief description of water quality conditions in those rivers. The framework describes outcomes and objectives and includes a performance management system with thresholds and trigger levels for specific water quality parameters, monitoring, evaluation and reporting. The framework includes a description of management strategies and actions that will be needed to reach the objectives.

The framework outlines thresholds and trigger levels for water quality parameters such as: dissolved oxygen, nutrients: Total Phosphorus, Dissolved Phosphorus, nitrate-nitrite, Total Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, ammonia, ions (chloride, calcium, fluoride, sulphate), Total Dissolved Solids, conductivity, Total Suspended Solids, turbidity, pH, sodium adsorption ratio, total organic carbon, and bacteria (total, fecal coliforms, E-coli).

“One of the main outcomes of the framework is to achieve or maintain surface water quality in water bodies in the South Saskatchewan region that will support healthy aquatic ecosystems and meet the needs of human water users,” states Brian Hills, Environmental Performance Specialist with Alberta Environment. He goes on to say, “The framework objectives are to keep clean areas clean and to maintain or improve the reaches where the water quality is not currently supporting the outcomes.”

Strategies for carrying out the framework are more straightforward for point source water quality contributions than nonpoint source. “With chronic point source contributions such as municipal treated waste water effluent,

we can use regulations to set and enforce end of pipe concentration limits.

Limits are set by looking at the concentration of the effluent and the total load. As population grows, effluent grows, creating higher concentrations and bigger total loads. The total load in the Bow River could rapidly approach load limits as the population in and around Calgary grows,” comments Hills.

Management of effluent will need to be adapted to the growing population in order to support the framework objectives.

Nonpoint source contributions and impacts on water quality are more problematic to tackle. The amount of nonpoint source loading is variable and difficult to predict and control. With the vast amount of rainfall in 2010 there was huge runoff in Southern Alberta, resulting in large nonpoint source contributions and therefore poor quality water in the rivers. Managing these infrequent occurrences using a framework is much more challenging. “Research efforts are focusing on developing methods to deal with nonpoint source impacts on water quality and other non-regulated problem areas. Loading reduction plans will be developed for sections of the mainstem rivers that have been identified as high risk zones,” states Hills.

The Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils (WPACs) have been involved in the framework development and will use the framework to complement the Integrated Watershed Management Plans (IWMP) that they are developing. “Since the Bow River Basin Council is further along in its watershed planning process, they have already established water quality objectives for the Bow River. Other WPACs in the province, however, may not have water quality objectives set and could use the framework as a resource in their planning,” suggests Hills.

The draft framework is complete and has been tested with the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan Regional Advisory Council and the Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils. In 2011 stakeholders will be consulted on the draft and then the framework will be revised into a final product.  Bighorn Falls along Bighorn Creek in David Thompson Country.

PHOTO Donna Trottier

Ph: (403) 824-3020 - Toll Free 1-877-490-3020

Ph: (403) 824-3020 - Toll Free 1-877-490-3020 Email: sales@nobleequipment.ca - www.nobleequipment.ca Email: sales@nobleequipment.ca www.nobleequipment.ca located a 1/2 mile west of Nobleford, AB on Highway

We are 519.

We are located a 1/2 mile west of Nobleford, AB on Highway 519.

www.nobleequipment.ca www.nobleequipment.ca

Noble Equipment Ltd. - Your Source for Aftermarket Agriculture Parts Noble Equipment Ltd. - Your Source for Aftermarket Agriculture Parts

Those who say

“Bigger isn’T BeTTer” don’T have The BiggesT

Those who say

Bigger isn’T BeTTer” don’T have The BiggesT

BOX 149 122 KING STREET • NOBLEFORD AB TOL 1SO Those say Those who who say

“Bigger BeTTer” “Bigger isn’T isn’T BeTTer” don’T have have The The BiggesT don’T BiggesT

Bigger is better The new Versatile 575 The new Versatile 575 Spring 2010 Bigger is better

The new Versatile 575 15-liter Cummins engine 575 hp 575 hp Spring 2010 CAT Grizzly Powershift Transmission 15-liter Cummins engine Category VCummins drawbar Bigger is better The new Versatile 15-liter 575 engine CATDeluxe Grizzlycab Powershift Transmission Category V drawbar 575 hp CAT Grizzly Powershift Transmission Spring 2010 Deluxe cab 15-liter Cummins engine Category V drawbar CAT Grizzly Powershift Transmission Dealer Name / Contact Information Deluxe cab Category V drawbar 575 hp

Deluxe cab

Bigger is better

Spring 2010

Dealer Name / Contact Information

©2010 Buhler Versatile Inc. » 888.524.1003 » www.versatile-ag.com

©2010 Buhler Versatile Inc. » 888.524.1003 » www.versatile-ag.com

Dealer Name / Contact Information Dealer Name / Contact Information

Restructuring of environmental funding » By Donna Trottier

A

lberta Agriculture restructured grants given to Agricultural Service Boards (ASBs) and applied research and forage associations in an attempt to streamline the way these groups receive their funding.

Historically, ASBs and applied research associations received funding for their environmental programming through the Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture (AESA) program. ASBs applied for the Ag Service Board grant and were allocated funds based on their ASB program needs. In a separate application process, ASBs could apply to AESA for funding to support their sustainable environmental programming. In a similar regard, agricultural organizations such as applied research associations like SARA applied to both AESA and the Agriculture Opportunities Fund (AOF) to finance programs and operations. The structured program that was once AESA has gone the way of the Ghosts-of-Ag-Programs-Past, however the outcomes of the program remain alive and well and have been incorporated into the ASB grant program and the Agriculture Opportunities Fund.

“The 2.2 million dollars that was previously allocated to the AESA program for agricultural environmental programming, has been reassigned and included in the ASB grant funds for ASBs ($1.6 million) and in the Agriculture Opportunities Fund (AOF) for other agricultural organizations ($0.5 million),” explains Rick Atkins, Technology and Innovation Branch Head, Agriculture & Rural Development (ARD). ($100,000 was also allocated to Cows and Fish).

There are a couple of triggers that brought about the changes in the environmental program funding. First, Municipal Affairs wanted to streamline the process for municipal granting. There were over 70 grants that municipalities could apply for from the government. To accommodate the need for streamlining, ARD combined the AESA funding with the ASB grant into one application and allocation.

Second, ARD conducted reviews with agricultural organizations to identify their long-term needs and to get their view on how environmental funding should be allocated. Based on the feedback from the reviews, ARD determined that funding allocation should be based on merit and given to the organizations with the best, most relevant applications.

An extension committee consisting of ASB members, councillors, fieldmen and representatives from applied research associations reviewed potential application scenarios for the revised environmental funding. The process was fine-tuned and launched in the fall of 2010.

“An important component of the applications is a comprehensive needs assessment that justifies the group’s environmental priorities and explains the issues that are important to the producer community. The needs assessment should also incorporate the government’s high level goals such as Water for Life, Climate Change and Growing Forward and it is expected that their programs contribute to the achievement of those goals,” explains Atkins.

The AOF has an existing, established board, application process and review process that has been maintained along with the original rules of

14

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

Riparian fencing project as part of environmental programming.

PHOTO Donna Trottier

AOF requiring matched funds contributing to the program. “The change to AOF is the addition of a new outcome that is specific to the environment. The existing AOF outcomes are very profit focused, that is, focused on helping farmers save money and increase profitability. For the environmental outcome, the economic benefit is not the main driver, rather the main objective is environmental protection and enhancement,” states Fred Young, Agriculture Opportunities Fund Supervisor, with Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. “The AOF aims to maintain the focus on environmental outcomes with the old AESA mantra.”

The ASBs can add the environmental programming to an existing fund application and review process. Young explains that unlike AOF, the ASB granting program does not require matched funding. However the granting review committee looks for partnership establishment in the funding applications. “Generally, municipalities have extensive partnering programs and have established funding supplemental to their ASB grant,” states Young. Not all ASBs apply for environmental program funding and, therefore, Alberta Agriculture will, look to the applied research associations to fill some of these gaps.

“We recently put a call out to all applied research and forage associations in Alberta to submit applications for the AOF environmental funding. We received applications from 11 of the 12 research associations. The committee will soon meet to decide on funding allocations,” explains Young.

The AOF normally awards funding on a 3-year cycle of which we are in the third year. Therefore, the current funding for environmental programming will be for a single year and then will be combined with the other AOF outcomes for the next round of the 3-year cycle. “The restructured funding stream will simplify the application process and the 3-year funding will give ASBs and applied research associations some stability and forward planning capabilities,” states Atkins. 

How to find out what you need to find out » By C. Lacombe

Y

ears ago, I didn’t know that farming is a complex business working within a complex system of social, environmental and economic pressures. I’ve grown to appreciate that farmers need to know many things about many things.

Above all, agricultural producers need to know what they need to know in a timely fashion. Should you be on the bandwagon?

Should you be an early adopter, an advocate or an expert? The topics an agricultural producer might want more information about go on forever. Without a doubt, someone somewhere is trying to convince farmers that they need something — from information to massively expensive equipment — to improve the bottom line or protect the right to farm.

So what can an individual do when faced with a tidbit of information that sparks a desire to know more?

First, recognize that someone probably put a thought into your head. Sometimes, people have such a torrent of information coming at them that they lose track of where some of their own thoughts originate. More than once in my journalistic career, I’ve sat down and dug around in my own brain to find the seed of the thought that’s grinding away making me feel as though there’s something important I don’t know.

Just as often, some relaxed thinking, the kind that comes when your hands are busy but your mind is free, brings to my attention that IT is not as urgent as someone wants me to think. However, sometimes IT deserves some attention to find out more. At that point, give yourself permission to take the time to do research.

The first thing you want to do is look at everything you already know. Many people don’t give themselves credit for how much they know about a topic. Have some way of taking note when you see a gap in what you know. I’ve been known to phone home and leave myself a message, but now there are modern devices that fit in your pocket and take notes… or old ones like pen and paper.

Next, go do a little internet research. This used to be called going to the library, but now we get to do it from the comfort of our own home and get up to the minute information about anything. Look very carefully at the owners of the websites and pick completely different ones.

The internet is a great place to learn the specific catch phases and jargon related to your topic. For example, what’s the difference between sustainable development and low impact development?

Next, think about who you know that could have more information. For instance, sales people, Alberta Agriculture staff, Southern Applied Research Association staff, local municipal staff, neighbors and local experts all have information to share.

Drop shy if that’s something you have to deal with in life. Shy is not helpful in this process. Replace it with playing the fool

works for me. Many times I’ve asked questions I already know the answer to just to see what my interviewee will say about the topic. Also, you didn’t hear it from me, but if you make the person you’re speaking to think they’re way smarter than you, they will really show their bias and their honest opinion about things.

Stick to your questions during the first round of talks and make a new list of questions based on the answers you get. Pick the first person you want to contact. Remember, when you seek information and perspective from others, always, always be aware of their bias. Everyone has bias; it’s just another word for opinion. While we’re on the topic of bias, remember also that you have one too. Be aware of it while you’re listening because, if you really pay attention, you will hear yourself automatically dismissing or accepting information because of your bias.

“Go to conferences, field days, workshops and other industry events where you can listen and ask questions; discuss and compare and offer opinions and hear other peoples’ positions.”

I’ve caught myself automatically reacting to a piece of information and called a halt to the conversation while I adjust my attitude back to one of open listening instead of biased selection of information pieces.

Always get perspectives from completely different sources.

For instance, don’t talk to two sales people and call it good. Find an objective source. Of course having said that I have to say there is no such thing as 100 per cent objective. Even people who think they are 100 per cent objective are not. This is why you have to talk to different sources so that the biases cancel each other out. A sales person has a fairly transparent bias, but your neighbour or a staff member can have a bias that’s harder to spot… or not.

Also pay particular attention when anyone starts to obfuscate.

This is the land of political correctness, owing something to someone or trying to hide an unpleasant truth. If you find that what you are reading or hearing is difficult to understand, someone is obfuscating. Generally speaking, this signals an area that you should investigate in greater detail.

Now that I have you convinced that this is a ridiculously complicated and time consuming process, allow me to allay those fears. Most of what I’m talking about here is active listening and cataloging of information in your own mind. If you take time to do some relaxed thinking periodically through this process, you will find answers dropping into place like seeds in a row. Sooner than you might think you know what you need to know and can move on to the next topic.  Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

15

Winter pulses worth a try in the south? » By Helen McMenamin

W

inter pulses look like a viable option for farmers in southern Alberta — south of #1 Highway. That’s the message Alberta Agriculture Pulse specialist, Mark Olson and and an entire team of agronomists drew from trials of winter peas, lentils and faba beans although Olson still has a lot of questions about the crops.

The potential benefits of winter peas and other pulses are like those of any winter crop. They use early spring moisture and they’re growing when the land is too wet to seed spring crops. They also flower earlier, avoiding the heat of summer that can shorten flowering and lower yields of spring varieties. And, with climate change, these advantages may be greater. Harvest can be 10 to 14 days earlier than spring types.

Winter peas, such as Austrian winter or maple pea, have been grown for forage for many years, but the peas are small and dark or speckled due to tannins. Breeders in the Pacific Northwest crossed Austrian winter pea with spring types to develop winter green and yellow peas and a small red lentil.

“Pulses love cool weather, so winter crops, with most of their growth in the cool part of the growing season, may produce better yields,” says Olson.

In general, higher-yielding pulse crops leave a greater legacy of organic nitrogen for the following crop. If that holds for winter pulses, it would expand the crops’ benefits. Pulse crops would be harvested in good time for seeding winter wheat. And another winter crop would mean one more place where migratory birds could nest safely in spring, without being disturbed by seeding operations.

The peas are smaller than spring varieties and suffer from “ghosting,” where the seed coat comes away from the hull. But, breeders are working to improve their acceptability in the market. And, smaller seeds lower seed costs, which is important if you up the target seed population to allow for some losses over the winter.

Winter survival is an issue. The first material Alberta Agriculture staff obtained was from Eastern Washington State, where breeders developed and registered winter pea and lentil varieties. Since then, Olson has obtained faba beans from European breeders, some of whom are happy to see their material tried in Alberta. Olson was also excited to meet a breeder who works in an area very like Lethbridge, with intermittent snow cover through the winter.

Olson has had plots at Edmonton, Lacombe, Brooks and Lethbridge for two years and put a third set in last fall. At each site he’s seeded different varieties of winter lentils and peas at about 10-day intervals starting at the beginning of September. He’s also had plots in a farmer’s field at High River.

None of the plots at Edmonton and few at Lacombe have survived and even at Lethbridge not all the faba beans survived.

“It seems later seeding is better,” says Olson. “And, maybe snow cover isn’t a positive thing for pulses. Lacombe is colder than Edmonton, but snow doesn’t stay so long.

“Moisture at seeding is key,” says Olson. “Pulse seeds need to imbibe quite a bit of moisture to germinate. Field history is important too.

Check to be sure there’s no risk of herbicide residue and no manure

16

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

application in the last five years. Pulse crops on manured land turn into beautiful silage crops, with little podding and no root nodules.”

Also, because winter peas and lentils are growing before any other pulses, pea leaf weevil can be an issue. In some of Olson’s plots, it looked as if the leaves were serrated rather than smooth-edged. The weevils drop to the soil to feed on nodules after feeding on leaves.

Even though these crops look promising, Olson is cautious.

“We don’t know enough about these crops to recommend them wholeheartedly,” he says. “But nothing worth a lot comes easily. These crops could be a part of growing Alberta’s pulse industry from the one million acres we grew last year to three million acres.

“Small plots are a lot easier to grow than whole fields — that’s where you find the problems. Chickpea acreage grew quickly to 60,000 acres, and then disease became a real problem.” 

How to give winter pulses their best chance Mark Olson has developed a decision support to help farmers decide whether they want to try winter peas or lentils. It gives you a score for conditions likely to contribute to success or failure of these crops. Here’s what he recommends: • Farm south of Highway 1.

• Seed Specter or Windham yellow peas or Morton lentils into a clean cereal stubble with few perennial weeds and good soil moisture following a preseed burn-off.

• Check that soil test nitrogen is below 20 lbs./acre and the field has not been manured within 5 years.

• Check germination and thousand-seed weight to use in calculating seedng rate for target populations of 8 to 10 plants per square foot for peas and 10 to 11 10 plants per square foot for lentils. (Seed size varies considerably and errors in seeding rate can be as much as 50%).

• Use a seed treatment and granular inoculant and seed at 1.5 to 2.5 inch depth with 15 to 25 lbs. per acre of phosphate unless soil tests show over 50 lbs. of P available.

• Seed lentils the first week of September and peas September 1 to 16.

Not meeting every one of these ideals doesn’t mean your winter pulse project is doomed to failure, but look for the score card so you can give yourself a good shot at success with them.

SOUTHERN DRIP IRRIGATION LTD. • • • • •

PVC Pipe PVC Pipe Poly Pipe Poly Pipe Pumps Reels Subsurface Dripperline • Industrial Hose Industrial Hose

3305 2nd Avenue North, Lethbridge, AB tf: 877 663 2615 ph: 403 394 0042 fx: 403 394 9515 www.southerndrip.com

Production cost for wheat “Seasonable Hints” from the Dominion Experimental Farms, Number 45 Prairie Edition, Autumn, 1929

T

he cost of producing wheat is frequently discussed by growers and in more recent years there has been an increase in the number of farmers who are keeping records of production costs. For some years, the experimental farms have been working on this problem. While no single figure can be set as actual cost of production, this necessarily varies from year to year, yet some interesting data have been gathered. In compiling this information all labour charges have been calculated on a time basis, records having been kept of the time expended on each field for each operation.

The following table and explanation of the various items is presented with the hope it may be of assistance to farmers in analysing their own figures on cost of production.

The items, rent and taxes, cover interest on investment, insurance, etc., on the farm. The rental of $2 per acre is charged for the land on Field No. 4, for the reason that this was quite light soil and the valuation on this is not as high as on the heavier, lower land. No manure was applied to field No. 2. The charge for use of machinery was worked out by the Dominion Field Husbandman, based on answers from questionnaires received from a large number of farmers in Western Canada. Manual labour was charged at the rate of 30 cents per hour, this being the rate paid on the Experimental Farm. Eight cents per hour was charged for horse labour. This latter item was worked out by the Dominion Field Husbandman.

The threshing charges are based on the regular rates prevailing in the districts for stock threshing. The share of the fallow charged is two-thirds of the total cost of summer-fallow. The remaining onethird is charged against the second crop after summer-fallow. It will be noted that the share of summer-fallow is the largest single item, with threshing costs second. While practically all the work was done by four horse teams, it will be noted that the cost per acre of manual labour exceeded that of horse labour. This indicates that the farmers who are using larger outfits than four horse teams are likely to cut the cost of production.

The average cost per bushel on the four fields was found to be

76.8 cents. This includes payment for all manual labour at the rate of 30 cents per hour. Consequently any sum realized in marketing the wheat over 76.8 cents per bushel would be net profit to the grower providing he can find profitable employment at periods of the year when it is not possible to work on the fields.

The yield of 30.8 bushels per acre which is the average from the four fields is higher than the average yield obtained from summerfallow land in the province. This is undoubtedly a factor in determining the average cost per bushel. A comparison of the yields and costs on Fields No. 2 and No. 3 show field No. 2 to have yielded 5.5 bushels per acre more than field No. 3. The cost per acre is practically the same in each case. Consequently the increased cost from 68.6 cents for field No. 2 to 82 cents per bushel on field No. 3 was caused by the lower yield on the latter field. This illustrates the importance of good yields in lowering production costs.

M. J. Tinline, Superintendent, Dominion Experimental Farm, Brandon, Man. 

Taken from Dominion Experimental Station Morden, Man., Report of the Superintendent, W.R. Leslie, B.S.A., page 9, 1929

“Manual labour was charged at the rate of 30 cents per hour, this being the rate paid on the Experimental Farm. Eight cents per hour was charged for horse labour.”

18

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

Oldman Watershed Council annual landowners summit » By Ron Montgomery

A

well-attended and informative landownerssummit organized by the Oldman Watershed Council (OWC) Rural Team took place February 10 in the Fort Macleod Community Hall. The agenda theme was “practical solutions for sustainability in agriculture.”

This annual event now into its fifth year provides basin residents an opportunity to hear about rural issues and initiatives in the Oldman watershed.

Presentations covered a wide range of rural topics and landowner stewardship groups shared their expertise, experiences and stories of their efforts to protect their local watershed.

First on the agenda were updates on the OWC, Rural Team initiatives, plus landowner and Watershed Stewardship Group projects.

There’s a tremendous amount of work going on behind the scenes that the general public is likely not aware of regarding overall watershed protection. A few obvious samples are off-stream watering sites, establishing buffer zones, education and so on. But there’s also some truly unique initiatives that you should check out on the website.

Also included in this presentation was the rather complicated issue of addressing off-road vehicle & ATV watershed damage that although generally only attributed to a relatively small percentage of users nonetheless causes great concern to many.

OWC’s Watershed Legacy Program “aims to provide the tools necessary for watershed stewardship groups and landowner cooperatives to take the next steps towards sustainable management of their land, operation, or more importantly the watersheds that we all rely on for our quality of life. These tools include funds for stewardship projects in one of seven key areas, as well as administrative, technical and communication assistance.” The fund currently sits at $ 50,000 with seven grants approved to date.

Mike Kotelco of Highmark Renewables gave an informative presentation on its anaerobic digestion technology capable of processing large volumes of high-solid organic waste. The internationally patented Integrated bioMass Utilization System (IMUS™) “recovers energy and nutrients from organic wastes such as manure from livestock operations, food residues and municipal wastes.” Their current system set up in conjunction with their feedlot operation

is designed to ultimately produce 5 megawatts of energy (1 mw can serve approximately 800 to 1,000 homes). Visit www.highmark.ca for further information.

Another well-received presentation introduced by Michael Gerrand (Cows and Fish) was a new series of digital stories from local landowners under the banner of REAL (Ranchers Enhancing Alberta’s Landscapes) Beef Producers.

Respective landowners poignantly narrated brief ranch stories addressing long-term sustainability accompanied by photos to an appreciative audience.

Jeff Porter (Southwestern Alberta Conservation Partnership) and Tim Romanow (Cardston County) led the subject of livestock composting and initiatives underway. The challenges facing producers in safely disposing of dead stock are many and often cost prohibitive to the producer. In southwestern Alberta, large carnivore scavenging of carcasses is a fact that can often also result in dangerous conflicts with the respective landowners. In conclusion, they also encouraged interested individuals to contact Virginia Nelson with the Technology Research and Innovation Section of Agriculture and Rural Development in Lethbridge for some further information on her related work. Telephone 403-329-1212 (Ext: 233) or e-mail virginia.nelson@gov.ab.ca Kristi Anderson of the Pembina Institute gave a presentation on wind energy in rural Alberta. This was an informative look at the ins and outs of the various forms of power generation with the emphasis on wind power. Landowners in suitable areas are often approached by interested wind power developers. Many factors can affect both their decision and the ultimate long-term outcome. The Pembina Institute complied A Landowner’s Guide to Wind Energy in Alberta available for purchase in print form or downloadable for free in a PDF version from the site. Visit www.pembina.org/pubs Keynote speaker for the day was Don Ruzicka (Ruzicka Sunrise Farm) with the topic Stewardship + Diversity + Biodiversity: On a Path to Sustainability. He started out by describing their conventional farming operation, but that all changed upon completing a Holistic Management course in 1995. Today, they raise certified organic Angus/Galloway cross cattle, chickens, laying hens, turkeys and natural pork, all on pasture. Plus custom graze yearling grass cattle.

He expanded upon using a free range, pasture model to graze livestock and poultry, how they’ve planted thousands of trees and berry shrubs in shelterbelts and wildlife habitat covers, mounted hundreds of bird houses along the perimeter fences of their fields and fenced off the riparian areas around creeks and wetlands on their farm. Visit www.sunrisefarm.ca and browse the various headings for an informative overview of their current operation.

ForfurtherinformationonanyoftheabovetopicsorOWCprogramsingeneral,visitwww.oldmanbasin.orgorcontactShannonFrank,ProgramCoordinator telephone 403-381-5801, e-mail shannon@oldmanbasin.org  Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

19

Check-off dollars at work

By Donna Trottier

Research plots at SARA farm.

A

photo SARA

gricultural producer organizations strive to bring value to producers for their check-off dollars. In Alberta, check-off dollars are deducted from producers’ crop payments for barley, pulse crops, winter wheat, canola or soft wheat at the point of sale and submitted to Commissions to support their programming in research and market development. Commissions use the check-off dollars to fund projects such as developing crop varieties, improving and refining agronomic practices and developing new domestic and export markets.

The Alberta Canola Producers Commission (ACPC) was the province’s first refundable check-off producer organization. Ward Toma, General Manager of the ACPC, explains that the purpose and function of the ACPC is to increase the long term profitability of Alberta canola growers through research, market development, promotional activities, consumer and producer education programs and policy development.

“We want to increase demand for canola and make canola production as profitable as possible for Alberta’s canola producers,” states Toma.

All decisions regarding ACPC are made by the Board of Directors, comprised of 12 canola producers from across the province. Because they are canola producers themselves, the directors are in tune with the needs and expectations that the growers have of the Commission.

The $1.00 per tonne service charge paid by Alberta canola growers when they sell their canola funds ACPC work. Toma explains that producers have the option of requesting a refund of their check-off dollars.

However, on average, only 6 to 7% of canola producers request a refund.

20

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

ACPC continues to foster partnerships with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Saskatchewan Canola Development Commission, Manitoba Canola Growers Association, the Canola Council of Canada and applied research associations to conduct canola research, development and extension activities. The Commission is able to leverage its research funds by forming these partnerships. Toma explains, “The Canola Flax Research Cluster is a prime example of the benefits of partnering. By investing $100,000 into the cluster project, the ACPC and its members are able to participate in and benefit from a $16 million dollar project. By collaborating in this way, farmers get a bigger return on their check-off investment.”

The Alberta Barley Commission (ABC) works on behalf of 17,000 barley producers in Alberta. It focuses on bringing added value to Alberta barley production. “The ABC actively works with its membership, government and industry to maintain existing barley markets, identify and develop new marketing opportunities in the feed, malt, food and fuel sectors and coordinate and direct research projects that will enhance barley production,” states Mike Leslie, CEO of the Alberta Barley Commission. The ABC also represents the needs and concerns of Alberta barley producers to governments, regulatory agencies and industry associations. Similar to the ACPC, requests for check-off dollar refunds from the ABC are only at 8%.

Each year almost 40 cents of every dollar collected from barley producers through check-off dollars goes toward agronomic barley research. That amounts to $3 million to 4 million that leverages matched

funding from industry and government partners to create even more value for ABC members. Research trials lead to new barley varieties, fight disease and pests, increase yields and develop new uses of barley.

The Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission (AWWPC) is a provincial grower organization focused on a strong and sustainable winter wheat industry for the benefit of all Alberta producers. The AWWPC uses check-off dollars to support innovative research, develop valuedadded marketing programs, provide producers with relevant and timely information and ensure winter wheat producer’s concerns are heard at provincial policy consultations affecting the agriculture industry.

The AWWPC check-off dollars and accompanying leveraged funds are used to develop and improve crop varieties with strong disease and pest resistance packages, to increase protein levels in wheat, and to improve and refine agronomic practices such as proper seeding depth, timing, rates, fertility, insect & disease management. Rick Istead, AWWPC Executive Director, states that producers are supportive of the check-off program and see it as a small price to pay for eventually decreasing their input costs of production and increasing profitability through advances from research.

Producer’s return on investment from check-off dollars is brought to fruition through increased production potential, enhanced crop variety development, improved agronomic practices, expanded market opportunities and overall increased profitability. Check-off dollars provide an avenue for producers to participate in and contribute to the development of these advances in agriculture. 

Alberta geospatial information and services

Y

ou can now access more than 140 layers of free land-related data and services through the GeoDiscover Alberta portal.

This portal provides a single window to search and find the credible, up-to-date information needed to better manage activities on the landscape and is the most comprehensive program of its kind in Alberta. The data and map services come from various Alberta government ministries and agencies.

Please visit the GeoDiscover Alberta portal www.geodiscoveralberta.ca to explore the data and services, training materials and frequently asked questions. Once you’ve familiarized yourself with the portal, please take the time to complete the feedback survey so we can make the portal even better to suit your needs.

CATERPILLAR CUMMINS DAF DETROIT DIESEL ISUZU IVECO MACK MAN

MERCEDES BENZ RENAULT SCANIA VOLVO CASE CHALLENGER CLAAS DEUTZ

+ Up to 25% increase in power and torque* + Up to 10% reduction in diesel consumption* + Simple installation + Does not re-flash engine ECM + Does not leave footprints on ECM + No change in rail pressure

*Sample Wiring Loom

FENDT HOLMER JCB JOHN DEERE KRONE LAMBORGHINI LANDINI LINDNER

MASSEY FERGUSON MC CORMICK NEW HOLLAND SAME STEYR VALTRA

+ Up to 15% increase in powerand torque* + Up to 5% reduction in diesel consumption* - High increase in rail pressure - INcreased load on injectors - INcreased load on pistons - INcreased load on high pressure fuel pump All accessory electronics delivered by STEINBAUER are based on a single principle: 100% independence of the hardware module from the vehicle‘s own ECU by means of an original STEINBAUER plug connection.

Please find more information at

WESTERN CANADA DISTRIBUTOR

www.taberdiesel.com Phone 403 223 9636

www.steinbauer.cc Steinbauer Tuning Technologies Corp. (USA) • Halifax Station, 364 Crompton Street, Charlotte NC 28247 • E-mail usa@steinbauer.cc

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

21

Survey says… scout your fields » By Donna Trottier

P

est surveillance data is abundant in Alberta for a variety of insects, diseases and weeds, however finding relevant pest data for a specific area of the province is not always a simple task. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) is in the early stages of establishing a provincial pest surveillance system to facilitate pest data management for both data contributors and information seekers. The pest surveillance program is currently in the first year of a 4-year project.

“There are many groups, companies and municipalities in the province that are identifying pest problems, but no one is coordinating all of the data.

The Pest Surveillance Branch (PSB) system will be comprised of a database to collect and coordinate pest data from various contributors from across Alberta and put it in one place for everyone to better use,” explains Paul Laflamme, Pest Surveillance Branch Head, ARD. “One objective of the program is to simplify the process of submitting data for the people who are conducting the surveys for the PSB and for people who want to report potential problems,” Laflamme states.

Close to 200 co-operators including fieldmen, researchers, industry agronomists, independent crop supply companies and farmers provided pest survey information to the PSB in 2010. Surveyors submitted pest data by email, text, and phone and then PSB manually entered the data and created maps.

The new on-line system will be set up to handle input data with more automation and will automatically generate pest survey maps and forecast maps.

The new program will include a toll-free pest reporting line managed by the Ag Info Centre. The Ag Info Centre will collect the reports and advise the PSB of pests requiring further investigation. The PSB will then investigate, confirm and report on the infestation. “The call-in reporting option is a good way to identify new pests before they become established and will enable ARD to address potential problems at an early stage,” states Laflamme.

An example of the scope of work conducted by the PSB is demonstrated through the large fusarium head blight survey project carried out throughout Alberta in 2010. Fieldmen, research groups, and crop advisors surveyed over 700 fields for fusarium head blight infection. According to Laflamme the survey indicated that fusarium is still mainly found in the irrigated areas of southern Alberta and levels there are on the rise. Other areas of the province are mostly clean and fusarium free. “The map from the fusarium survey will soon be published on-line and will assist producers in preparing to be vigilant if they are in an infected area and if conditions are right for fusarium development. If we have another wet year, especially around the time of flowering when the plant is most susceptible to infection, fusarium could be a problem in southern Alberta in 2011,” cautions Laflamme.

The PSB develops density maps and forecasting maps for many pests each year. Forecasts are developed using proven forecasting techniques that take compiled scientific research data and demonstrate a correlation between the survey numbers and the research data. The forecasts are not 100% accurate but give a general indication of the potential for infestation in the coming growing season. “Climatic conditions such as temperature and moisture ultimately determine the extent and timing of many pests along with the pest’s over-wintering survival rates,” states Laflamme.

22

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

Alberta Grasshopper Forecast map for 2011: An example of the pest forecast maps developed by the Pest Surveillance Branch.

PHOTO ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Forecast maps do not replace individual farm field scouting but are more of a heads-up to let producers know they may be in an infested area. In the end, it is up to the farmers to survey their own fields on a regular basis and confirm the pest status in their individual crops. Individual field scouting should always support pest management decisions.

“To manage pests in 2011, growers are advised to follow recommended crop rotations, avoid re-cropping with the same crop that was planted in 2010, use resistant varieties where available and be sure to scout fields on a regular basis to stay on top-of crop disease and pest conditions,” suggests Laflamme.

Pest forecasting maps along with information about pest surveys and pest management are available on the ARD website www.agric.gov.ab.ca under the Maps and Multimedia tab. Producers should start seeing information out of the new pest surveillance database in 2012. 

Sandberg Labs

Specializing in Agricultural Testing

Sandberg Labs Specializes in

Testing

• Soils • Feeds • Water • Germination

Services

• Crop Monitoring • Sampling Services • GPS and Bench Marking • Consulations • Septic Field Evaluations

3510 6th Ave North – Lethbridge, AB

(403) 328-1133

www.sandberglabs.com

customerservice@sandberglabs.com

Universal Auto Inc

6005 50th Ave – Taber, AB

(403) 223-0502

Email: unisales@telus.net | Website: www.uniauto.ca

Water, agriculture and feeding the world » By Donna Trottier

A

lberta has the potential to effectively and efficiently produce food to help feed the world’s growing population. Water is going to play a crucial role in assisting agricultural producers in meeting that growing demand for food. Critical water management decisions are facing the province and agriculture needs to be an important consideration in those decisions.

“Alberta is at a water management crossroads. We are not yet in a water crisis situation and have started to plan before a water shortage hits. This is a good position to be in as our decisions will not be totally reactionary. Many other countries reached a water shortage crisis point and then reacted, when it was too late to resolve. The Alberta government has started to look closely at the water issue,” states Brent Paterson, Director, Irrigation and Farm Water Division, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development.

Before organized agriculture, the earth could feed only about 600 million people. Now the earth’s population is about 6.5 billion, a 10fold increase. This population is expected to increase to 9.2 billion by 2050. World food requirements have increased dramatically and could double in the next 40 years. “The demand for food is threefold. First, there continues to be a demand for staple foods — wheat, barley and rice and this demand continues to rise as the population grows. Second, per capita food consumption will increase with increasing economic development moving more people from lower class to middle class.

There is a significant increase in demand for feedstock as developing countries change diets and consume more meat products. Third, the

demand for processed food will increase as incomes increase with more people in the middle class,” states Paterson.

Many countries currently rely on groundwater for irrigation and some have depleted their groundwater resources to disastrous levels.

“These groundwater resources are being depleted at an increasingly rapid rate. Saudi Arabia, for example, uses groundwater for food production at 643% in excess of recharge. Since the groundwater is a finite resource, once it is gone, it is gone forever. The world’s ability to produce food will be limited in the future without these groundwater resources causing further increase in the world demand for food,” states Paterson.

Alberta is positioned to play a major role in helping meet future world food needs with a large agricultural land base, a strong dryland agriculture and a world-class irrigation system. There will still be competition for supplying the food and therefore industry and government in Alberta will have to work harder to capture the opportunity that world food demand presents. “Alberta has not achieved the full ability it has in terms of entrepreneurship of our agricultural potential. We have significant room to increase crop and livestock production in response to world markets. We need to develop and adopt new technology at a faster pace,” Paterson suggests.

To meet the potential of a growing world marketplace, however, it is critical for the agriculture industry to have access to adequate, good quality water. “Our decision in terms of where agriculture is going to fit into the water management planning and future allocations is going

Irrigation will play a critical role in future food production. PHOTO Sarah Schumacher

24

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

D.A. Building Systems Ltd.

DA Builds AGRICULTURE We design, engineer & manufacture your building in our Lethbridge plant to exceed your needs.

D.A. Building manufactures buildings locally for many reasons. By having the advantage of manufacturing in Lethbridge we can offer you: The Flexibility to build to your exact dimensions without having to fit the “standard sized” buildings offered by an out of-town manufacturer’s head office.

There is a need for the ability of future plants to achieve significant yields with less water. PHOTO Alberta Agriculture

to be crucial and is something that needs significant consideration. In countries where water is a challenge, agriculture tends to be low on the priority list. It would be a mistake not to place agriculture as a high priority in the water management decision-making in Alberta. We don’t want to lose the opportunity to participate in the global marketplace as we move forward,” comments Paterson.

Rain-fed land produces about 60% of the world’s food. About 40% of the world’s food and 60% of cereal production is from irrigated lands. As the crop demand for moisture increases over time due to climate change and precipitation potentially decreasing, the potential to grow crops may be limited by water. Even though less water is required to grow even larger crops than we did 20 years ago, genetic engineering has not yet developed high yielding, drought-resistant varieties to significantly increase production enough to meet world demands. There is a need for the ability of future plants to achieve significant yields with less water. Paterson anticipates further enhancements in the near future but even with fertilizers, pesticides and new technologies, irrigation will play a critical role in future food production. It is estimated that up to 80% of future food requirements will be met by irrigation.

Water shortages will force many countries to look to Canada for their food. With good water management leadership, Alberta has sufficient water to meet existing and future needs. Increasing demand for water from multiple sectors will, however, put pressure on irrigation water supplies in the future. There will always be a need for agriculture and that need will dramatically increase in requirements and opportunities as we move forward. Decisions on water management need to be carefully thought out. 

The ability to deal directly with the manufacturer in creating your custom-designed structure.

2808 - 2nd Avenue North Lethbridge, Alberta T1H 0C2 PHONE (403) 328-4427 TOLL FREE 1-888-679-4427 FAX (403) 328-4215

We are a certified

A660

Builder Authorized

FLEX-N-SEAL Distributor

www.dabuilding.com Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

25

Survey updates fusarium head blight situation » By Helen McMenamin

A

review of the fusarium head blight (FHB) situation across Alberta in 2010 shows the disease still spreading, but not quite as fast as seemed likely because of the rainy weather last year, or even as it might seem from the extent of downgraded grain at elevators according to testing carried out by the Canadian Grain Commission. Nevertheless, FHB is becoming more prevalent in the irrigated areas of southern Alberta on both cereals and corn.

Ron Howard, Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) plant pathologist, coordinated a province-wide survey for FHB with staff from ARD, agriculture service boards, applied research associations, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and Innovotech Inc. They collected wheat and barley heads with FHB symptoms in commercial fields in the summer and cereal stubble and corn stalks after harvest to determine if they were infected with Fusarium graminearum, the most important cause of FHB. The made the effort to survey about 1% of the wheat acreage in the main cereal-growing counties and municipalities and fields of barley, oats and corn where available.

Subsamples of all of the grain, stubble and stalk samples were sent to BioVision Seed Labs in Edmonton to determine if F. graminearum was present. The lab put the samples on agar plates and under the right conditions, the Fusarium fungus developed into colonies that microbiologists were able to identify. To confirm that samples visually identified as Fusarium graminearum were actually the vomitoxin-producing fungus, the lab sent subcultures to the Canadian Grain Commission’s (CGC) testing laboratory in Winnipeg for confirmation by molecular (DNA) analysis, as well as to determine whether the strain of Fusarium was the old 15ADON type or the new, more aggressive 3ADON type that is displacing the old strain in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Over 900 cereal and corn fields were included in the survey. FHB and F. graminearum were found mostly in irrigated cereal fields in CGC Crop Districts (CD) 1 and 2, the same regions where the disease has been routinely found for the past decade. The survey found higher levels in amber durum, the most susceptible type of grain. The disease was also found in several other types of wheat in these areas and is slowly spreading westward into CD 3. Outside the southern area of the province, the survey found low levels of F. graminearum in a small number of fields in five municipalities in central and northeastern Alberta. No FHB was detected in the Peace Region, where dry conditions prevailed for most of the growing season.

“We actually found that levels of fusarium in 2010 were slightly lower in some areas of southern Alberta than in 2009,” says Howard. “It’s possible that the warmer summer temperatures in 2009 suited the fungus better.

In 2010, cereal crops were quite staggered in their growth staging. Seeding started in some areas in April, as normal, then we had rain events from midApril onwards that shut seeding down for two or three weeks. Germination was uneven in some fields because of soil crusting and flooding and there was heavy tillering. Tillers flower later than the main stem heads thus extending the susceptible flowering stage for Fusarium infection to as much

26

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

as four weeks. This situation certainly made it very difficult for growers to time fungicide sprays for the ideal growth stage; which is early anthesis when the anthers show on the side of the wheat head.”

Many samples of wheat heads appeared to be infected with Fusarium, with chalky, shriveled kernels called Fusarium-damaged kernels or FDKs. FDKs can be caused by fungi other than F. graminearum. For example, F. culmorum, F. avenaceum and Stagonospora nodorum may be commonly isolated from FDKs during lab testing, says Howard. Stagonospora was quite common in central Alberta in 2010 according to CGC tests on elevator grain samples. This fungus causes glume blotch, a disease that is more prevalent under humid conditions. Howard’s team also found Fusarium pseudograminearum in some stubble samples. This fungus is indistinguishable from F. graminearum in conventional plate testing and has to be identified with a DNA test. It’s usually a root rot organism that doesn’t infect grain heads as commonly as F. graminearum does. Many growers had their grain downgraded because of FDKs, but that was based on a visual examination, which didn’t distinguish between FDKs caused by F. graminearum and other fungi. Any of these pathogens could render the grain less marketable.

The survey included testing to determine the chemotypes of F. graminearum collected during the survey, that is the older 15ADON or the newer 3ADON type, a strain of the pathogen that produces more of the vomitoxin or DON (deoxynivalenol) that makes fusarium-infected grain an issue in cereal processing (e.g. milling, beer-making and ethanol production) and for use as livestock feed, especially for monogastric

Ron Howard points out fusarium symptoms at SARA field day. PHOTO H. McMenamin

animals such as hogs. The more aggressive 3ADON chemotype has been spreading across Canada from east to west and now dominates in provinces east of Ontario and in Manitoba. In 2009, 6 to 7% of F. graminearum isolates were the 3ADON chemotype, whereas in 2010 the new strain comprised 10 to 12% of the isolates. All of the F. pseudograminearum isolates were the 3ADON chemotype.

Howard was not surprised to find fusarium in corn samples from Newell, Taber and Lethbridge Counties because it was there in earlier surveys. F. graminearum causes stalk and ear rot in corn, but isn’t usually a serious problem in Alberta. It’s very common in corn residues and growing wheat or barley in a field with Fusarium-infected corn stubble is the worst case scenario for promoting FHB, according to Howard. Because corn is an excellent host for F. graminearum, the fungus can reproduce sexually, possibly creating new strains of pathogen to infect following or adjacent cereal crops.

Updating the Alberta Fusarium graminearum Management Plan As F. graminearum spread westward from Manitoba and Saskatchewan and threatened Alberta some years ago, ARD, AAFC, municipalities and various agriculture groups got together and formed the Fusarium Action Committee (FAC). Fusarium graminearum became a pest under the Agricultural Pests Act in 1999, giving the Fusarium graminearum management plan the force of law. The key objective of the plan was to prevent the establishment of F. graminearum and prevent its increase and spread.

Infected seed, straw or other types of infested crop residues can introduced F. graminearum to new areas. Under moist conditions during the summer, the fungus releases spores that float on air currents to cereal heads, where they most often enter via the flowers. The pathogen infects and destroys the developing grain kernels, replacing them with shriveled, chalky kernels containing a mycotoxin, DON, that downgrades the grain.

In addition, crop residues and soil can become contaminated with Fusarium. Once introduced, the fungus can persist in fields for many years.

To prevent FHB infection, the management plan requires that all grain used for seed must be tested and have no detectable F. graminearum and should be treated with a fungicide to help control the pathogen. Seed grain must also have a certificate showing it was tested. There are also regulations for the proper disposal of infected cereal or corn waste.

Some seed growers would like to see the management plan strictly enforced in their areas. Careless disposal of corn by truckers delivering to feedlots and acceptance of untested seed at cleaning plants may contribute to the spread of F. graminearum. If this pathogen spreads to seed growing fields it can destroy their business. But, the reality is that as municipal and provincial staff have many responsibilities and enforcement of the Pest Act is often reactive at best.

The main objective of the seed regulation, according to Alberta Agriculture’s Jim Broatch, was to prevent movement of infected seed grain from irrigated areas of southern Alberta, where F. graminearum to other areas of the province. In areas where F. graminearum and other Fusarium species causing FHB are well established and many cereal and corn fields are contaminated, seed may not be a significant source of infection, compared to crop residues and soil. Prohibiting the sale of seed with low levels of F. graminearum no longer makes sense in this situation say some seed and commercial cereal growers. They want to see the regulations changed to require testing and a statement of the level of infection for cereal seed.

For the south, as in moister production areas to the east of Alberta, it’s time to manage FHB through the use of best management practices rather than by exclusion and eradication. A preventative approach may no longer be feasible in irrigated areas where the disease is well established.

However, grain growers on dryland may still have the luxury of working to keep the F. graminearum out of their fields by following the preventative measures recommended in the Fusarium Management Plan.  Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

27

Soil fertility after the floods » By Helen McMenamin

I

t’s hard to remember that a year ago, Albertans were concerned about the potential for drought and the government was preparing for a busy fire season in the drier than normal forests.

Lethbridge received about 100 mm of welcome moisture in April, then another somewhat less welcome 100 mm in the last week of May, and yet more rain in mid-May. And, then more rain fell through the summer and fall for a total of 430 mm by the end of October. Other weather stations in the region recorded similar, maybe slightly lower, rainfall. Brooks was one of few sites in southern Alberta to receive only 310 mm over the spring and summer.

The rain led to erosion as water ran from hilltops to low spots and ponded. Fields were waterlogged for weeks.

“Last year’s weather made it incredibly challenging to figure what’s left in the soil for this year’s crop, or where those nutrients are in the soil profile,” says Ross McKenzie, agronomy research scientist with Alberta Agriculture.

“These things depend on how much precipitation was received, when it came, and the soil texture — the relative amounts of clay and sand.”

On sandier soil types, excess moisture may have leached the mobile soil nutrients, nitrates and sulphates, deeper into the soil profile. The soil environment in saturated soil favours anaerobic bacteria that thrive where there’s no oxygen. Some of these, the denitrifying bacteria, strip the oxygen from nitrate-nitrogen and use it for respiration, transforming the nitrates into nitrous oxide (N2O), a potent greenhouse gas which escape from the soil and are lost into the atmosphere.

Soil nitrogen in the ammonium form has a positive charge that binds it to negatively charged soil particles — clay and organic matter, so it is protected from leaching. In a good spring with warm soil with good moisture conditions, aerobic bacteria oxidize ammonium to negatively charged nitrate. This is the form of nitrogen used by plants, but it’s also subject to both leaching and denitrification if soil conditions are wet enough. Leaching is more of a problem in sandy loam soils and denitrification is more likely to affect loam to clay loam soil types.

Topography had a big effect on soil conditions last year. Low spots, espe-

PHOTO H. McMenamin

28

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

cially those that were under water at times, likely had much more denitrification than other field areas, says McKenzie. On the other hand, if there was any water erosion, the low parts of the field could have received organic material and phosphorus from higher areas via overland run-off and flooding.

The long, warm fall also had an effect on nutrient levels. Warm, moist soils favour microbes that break down organic material built up over years of direct seeding. This mineralization of the light fraction, or labile, portion of soil organic matter releases nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur into the soil in a plant-available form.

“Soil conditions were so dynamic last year, it’s impossible to predict their nutrient status,” says McKenzie. “So this year, even more than any other I’ve seen, you need to soil test early in the spring.”

Treat soil sampling differently this year This is also a year to take special care with your soil sampling, says McKenzie. He recommends using a soil auger or soil probe, rather than a shovel, to obtain truly representative soil samples. McKenzie also says you should separate the samples from the zero to six-inch, six-to12-inch, and 12-and 24-inch depths. For this year, to account for the extremes and changing moisture conditions across the landscape, he advises collecting separate samples from higher and lower parts of a field.

“Looking at the three depths for upper and lower slopes is really important this year,” says McKenzie. The landscape position is likely as important as the field this year.

You need information on the nutrients available for a seedling, a growing, and a more mature plant, whether it’s on high ground or a lower area. That’s the only way to have any idea what nutrient levels are left after last year.”

McKenzie recommends taking 20 to 25 cores for a quarter section.

Soil samples that aren’t representative or don’t represent an identifiable zone are not a lot of use.

“The top six inches of soil on one acre weighs about two million pounds,” he says. “That’s 320 million pounds for a quarter section. If you’re going to send a one-pound sample to a lab for testing that much

soil, it should have good representation of soil from across the field.

Four or five cores for a quarter are never enough and could be very misleading if they are not representative of the field.”

Once you’ve taken the samples and allowed them to dry in a clean, cool place where animals can’t get at them, send them to a lab that uses the modified Kelowna method to estimate phosphorus, advises McKenzie.

Send samples to the right lab Before you send your soil samples to the most convenient lab, check how they measure plant available soil phosphorus. Putting on the right amount of phosphorus is critical to your bottom line and the environment, says Ross McKenzie, soil fertility researcher with Alberta Agriculture.

Phosphorus is bound to soil in complex ways that are different in every soil type. Prairie soil in western Canada is different from other soils across North America. Soils are very young, around 10,000 years old, even soils in the northern tier states are quite a bit older — they missed the last glaciation.

There are a number of different soils tests for phosphorus. Each test is geared to different soil type because phosphorus has to be extracted from soil using chemicals geared to the soil’s chemical and physical properties to simulate availability to plants. Each method has to be calibrated by comparing the soil P levels to crop response to P fertilizer. It takes years of crop nutrient trials showing the yield benefit from crop nutrients to calibrate a soil test method for a soil type.

The best most reliable soil P test that has been calibrated for Alberta soils is the modified Kelowna method (Saskatchewan and Manitoba have similar soil).

The P levels you get from any lab that uses a phosphorus extraction method other than the modified Kelowna method is about as good as the numbers you pick for the lottery. That’s the opinion of Ross McKenzie, who has been working on soil P since he was a grad student.

“No matter how high the lab standards are, its results are not useful unless they’re calibrated to local soils,” says McKenzie.

McKenzie suggests using a soil testing lab that uses the Modified Kelowna to ensure the most reliable and economic phosphate fertilizer recommendations.

Over use of phosphate fertilizer is not only uneconomical it can have serious environmental consequences. The environmental problems with excess phosphorus include run off from soil into surface water.

It’s the limiting nutrient in water environments for algae and various aquatic weeds. When P is added to water, algae and plants grow vigorously, then die and rot. The decay process takes up all the oxygen in the water and fish and other animals die — leaving stinky water nothing can live in and nobody wants to drink. For each one pound of P that enters surface water, McKenzie says enough to produce 500 lbs. of blue green algae. Therefore, farmers must apply P fertilizer with great care, preferably by banding or seeding placing the P fertilizer to minimize potential surface runoff. 

“Serving Alberta’s Livestock Industry Since 1940” BROOKS, ALBERTA 403-362-5521 Fax: 403-362-5541 71 YEARS www.bowslope.com • Regular Cattle Sales Every Friday @9:00 am • DLMS Internet Sales Every Thursday @ 10:00 am • Located in the Heart of Cattle Country • Located 1 mile from Canada’s Largest Packers • Top Facilities,Good Feed & Water, Buyers & Sellers • Special Yearling Sales • Purebred Bull Sales • Horse Sales (Last Wednesday in April & May) • Sheep Sales • Stock Cow & Bred Heifers • Cow/Calf Pairs

Rod MacLean

Lachie McKinnon

General Manager & Order Buyer

403-793-3060

Field Rep.

403-362-1825

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

29

A look at inter-row seeding » By Lee Hart

T

he results of a first-year research trial in southern Alberta looking at the benefits of inter-row seeding didn’t produce any dazzling results, but it did generate enough information to suggest the topic needs more study, says the research manager.

Plot trials at Acme, north of Calgary and also near Lethbridge suggested there might be some benefit to attempting to seed a new crop between standing stubble rows (inter-row), says Ken Coles, with the Southern Applied Research Association (SARA). And even though results from the 2010 project were mixed, the fact is one year of a field trial isn’t enough to draw any firm conclusions.

“We produced enough results to learn this is something we need to look at further,” says Coles. “In plots where we attempted to seed between stubble rows, there was no dramatic or significant difference in plant counts, compared to other seeding operations, but there was some difference. In many respects this is a very difficult thing to measure. But I think we learned enough to say this is a project we need to continue.”

There has been considerable interest in the last two or three years about the potential benefits of inter-row seeding. Admittedly much of the “talk” has been fueled by suppliers of a highly accurate precision farming technology known as RTK. That stands for real-time kinematic networks. Most farmers are familiar with conventional global position systems (GPS) guidance, which can help ensure accuracy of field operations to within a few inches. The RTK is the Cadillac of guidance technology, which for an added subscription fee, can provide guidance of farm machinery to within an inch or less.

That accuracy certainly helps reduce the risk of overlapping field operations, but proponents also suggest farmers can realize measurable benefits — increased yields and perhaps lower costs — by seeding a new crop between the standing stubble rows of the previous crop.

Some of the potential benefits of inter-row seeding include improved emergence due to better seed to soil contact; improved depth control for seed placement; by seeding into black soil between the stubble rows it may be an improved micro-climatic zone to benefit plant growth; and with standing stubble left intact there may be greater snow retention and improved moisture conservation.

Seeding between rows may reduce the draft required by seeding equipment and improve tractor fuel efficiency. And owners of disc-type seeding equipment may see a reduction of hair pinning by seeding between rows.

And as Coles points out, some farmers may find the aesthetics appealing, just because fields look cleaner and neater after seeding.

Coles, who co-ordinates and executes dozens of research trials on behalf of the farmer-run applied research association, says while the perceived benefits of inter-row seeding might sound good in theory, it is important to conduct proper field scale trials to determine if those benefits are actually there.

“Probably the two main questions that have to be answered is whether there is an appreciable benefit to inter-row seeding, and if there is, do you need RTK technology to accomplish it,” he says. “RTK has a proven track record, but the technology and service is expensive. So we hope to learn if there are benefits, and do they out weigh the cost?”

30

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

Plants germinating between rows of stubble.

PHOTO SARA

In the 2010 research trial, SARA established inter-row seeding plots at Acme and Lethbridge. They seeded wheat at the Acme site and canola at one Lethbridge site.

For the study, SARA used the New Holland OmniSTAR guidance system, which isn’t as expensive or quite as accurate as RTK, but is more accurate than the WASS network commonly used by conventional GPS technology.

Coles says the challenge was to establish a realistic benchmark. “We want to determine if inter-row seeding produces any benefits, but the question is what do you compare inter-row seeding to?” For this first year of the study, plots were set up to compare inter-row seeding to cross-row seeding, although in 2011 Coles says he may eliminate the cross-row treatment and simply compare intentional inter-row seeding to standard same-direction seeding” As part of the 2010 trials, Coles compared inter-row and cross-row seeding at both full and half seeding rates. And as a measure of the two seeding methods — inter-row versus cross-row — plant counts were made a few weeks after emergence.

At the Acme site there appeared to be no significant difference in wheat plant counts between the two seeding methods, however at the Lethbridge site they found a 22 per cent increase in canola plant numbers on the inter-row seeding treatment compared to the cross-row seeding treatment, at the full seeding rate.

There was no difference in plant counts at the half-seeding rate.

“The figures from the canola trial, in reality, aren’t as significant as they sound, but it does suggest that inter-row seeding may make a difference and is worth looking at further,” says Coles.

In one other project, on a Lethbridge research plot, which may be more informative than the other trials, Coles seeded winter wheat into standing stubble. He compared efforts to inter-row seed, to cross-row seeding, and to purposely trying to achieve on-row seeding — seeding a new crop right into a standing stubble row.

Award winning directors — no producers » By Ken Coles

I

think it took watching about a thousand movies for me to find out the difference between a producer and a director of a movie. To be honest I never really cared, I just wanted to enjoy the movie! But as time passed and my search for good movies started to become difficult, I thought it time to dig into this a little more.

Wikipedia says: “A film producer or movie producer is someone who creates the scenes and conditions for making movies. The producer initiates, co-ordinates, supervises and controls matters such as fund-raising, hiring key personnel and arranging for distributors.” and a “A film director, or filmmaker, is a person who directs the making and/or the production of a film.”

So, this may not entirely clear up the confusion especially when in some films the producer and director are the same person! Nevertheless, I graduated in movie buff status by considering the producer and director when choosing whether or not to devote my time to watching a given movie.

I would contend that in the agriculture production world of southern Alberta that we are graced with hundreds of award winning directors and to really throw you a curveball, I mean the producers or farmers! All are great at doing their job, directing their operations and growing crops.

But who’s responsible for creating the scenes and conditions for making a really good industry? Who initiates, co-ordinates and supervises matters?

Government? Private Companies? Farmers? ...I think this is a critical gap that must be filled but it’s going to take some creativity and ingenuity.

The way I see it, if producers want to see their needs met as part of a good industry, then we have to find a way for them to be involved in a significant

way. We have to accomplish this without compromising their ability to direct their own operations.

Success in farming often depends on setting priorities and all too often these priorities lie in dealing with weather and time sensitive areas of the operation. There’s nothing wrong with this but we have to create a space for people to get involved in issues that are bigger than any one farm. This doesn’t mean that everyone must be involved in everything but each should at least participate in some priority areas.

Here’s a simple idea. What if all farm managers created a list of issues and opportunities that they see in their operations and then prioritized this list according to importance, interest and expertise. The next step would be the dreaded action item, to get involved with a few of these issues, develop a good understanding and contribute to a solution.

Modern communication tools, that not too long ago only existed in scifi movies, might make this easier than most people think. Mobile smart phones, social and business networks, internet and global positions systems have made it so easy that if you’re not aware, you’re not listening.

What benefits could possibly come from this obscene amount of cooperation and collective brain power? A strong voice for producers… I mean directors? Timely and meaningful resolutions to issues? Innovation? Maybe even an Oscar? Well at least a nomination.

My point is simple. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience within the industry but we lack the leadership and a simple mechanism to coordinate and capture this knowledge to advance the interests of all farmers! Anyone know what an executive producer does? I’m still confused on that one. 

Again in this trial there was a slight improvement in plant counts with inter-row seeding compared to other seeding methods, but it wasn’t significant.

What was interesting in this trial involved the attempt to seed on-row. Coles says while the plan was to seed the new crop directly into the stubble row, between 70 and 85 per cent of plants actually ended up growing between stubble rows or inter-row.

This information suggests to Coles, even when farmers aren’t paying attention to inter-row seeding and are just seeding in the same direction as standing stubble, a high percentage of the crop may in fact end up being seeded inter-row.

“I think we have to look at whether you are trying or not that perhaps 70, 80 or 90 per cent of the crop plants end up being seeded inter-row anyway,” says Coles. “And if they do, there may not be any need for more expensive guidance technology.”

He says it may be possible by using the “nudge” feature on conventional GPS guidance equipment, farmers are able to adjust the placement of seed row openers so the majority of seed is being placed in the inter-row space.

For the 2011 trials, Coles says he may drop the cross-row seeding treatment, since most farmers don’t usually seed cross-row, and focus more on comparing efforts to purposely achieve inter-row seeding, with the more common same-direction seeding practice. 

GPS setup on SARA tractor.

PHOTO SARA

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

31

New uses for flax could boost its value » By Helen McMenamin

Trevor Kloek discusses flax benefits at a Lethbridge field day last summer.

These plots withstood spring flooding. PHOTO H. McMenamin

F

lax is getting new respect these days. Demand for whole seed, oil and meal is increasing. And now, the straw is valuable, not a nuisance. A project to develop uses for flax straw has potential buyers looking for the fibre from a variety of crops, but flax and hemp are attracting most attention.

“For years, we’ve thought of flax fibre as a problem,” says Trevor Kloeck of Alberta Agriculture’s Bio-industrial Development Branch. “Now, industrial users are looking at it as a lighter, cheaper and green alternative material. We’re aiming to find markets for grain and straw to maximize the value from the whole crop. And, these markets are willing to pay for the fibre, so we won’t be just giving it away.”

Flax fibre, used for over 5,000 years as linen cloth, is a green alternative to many materials based on fossil fuels. This is the area where there seems to be untapped value in flax.

The demand for flax straw is real and definitely growing, according to Kloeck. “In Europe, BMW uses flax fibre composite plastics in car interiors, especially as headliners.” Demand for flax straw composites has been growing at 50% a year in Europe and experts expect this trend will spread to North America.

North America’s biggest bus manufacturers, both in Winnipeg, are looking seriously at using flax- and hemp-based materials for interior panels, floors, even the skin of the vehicle. Floors are currently made of plywood and interior panels of fibreglass; which are heavier than flax-based material and expensive. Rising fuel costs make vehicle weight increasingly important.

Flax fibre can also replace fibreglass as insulation batts. Concrete blocks that include flax are lighter and deaden sound more effectively than conventional concrete.

Flax fibres are strong, so flax has long been used in making fine, strong paper, such as bank-notes and cigarette papers. It also has potential in recycling,

32

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

as a “sweetener” to strengthen paper pulp and ensure the finished paper is strong enough for its intended purpose. A smaller quantity of flax fibre than wood fibre is needed and it would allow production of tree-free paper.

Flax textiles are no longer limited to traditional linen that requires taller flax varieties such as those grown in Europe and straw that has been retted — soaked in water to separate the straw fibres from other stem material — called shives. New technologies break down flax fibres to match the dimensions of cotton fibres, allowing it to be spun and knitted with machinery designed for cotton, which dominates world textile markets. Flax fibres absorb 50% more moisture than cotton, giving flax fabrics a cooler feel in hot weather — an advantage over cotton.

Southern Alberta may have a special advantage in producing flax fibre free of shives. After harvesting seed with a stripper-header, the straw partially decomposes so shives blow away in the freeze-thaw cycles and winds of the Chinook zone winter and the fibre is bleached in the sun. Some processors will pay a premium for the spring-cut bleached straw. Farmers can harvest the straw after it held snow and soil moisture and protected the soil from erosion over the winter.

“The biomaterials market is very different from most agricultural markets. There are many markets to understand and once a customer is purchasing a satisfactory product for their purposes, farmers will have a more resilient market than traditional agricultural markets.”

Kloek is working with businesses looking at flax fibre in amounts from 40 to 400,000 tonnes.

“A few really big markets are so keen on flax, we could make a legitimate business case to buy all the flax straw in the country,” he says. “These buyers are not focused on cheap raw materials or getting stuff for nothing and they’re not focused on a single crop. I believe we’ll have a fibre deficit within 3 years.”

Kloeck sees fibre-processing plants developing across the province, perhaps 100 to 150 miles apart. Transportation is always an issue for a bulky commodity like straw, even though he can see straw prices of $50 to $150 a tonne.

“This is a business being pulled by industry rather than pushed by agricultural scientists,” Kloeck says. One of the biggest challenges is characterizing the needs of hundreds of medium-sized markets as opposed to the few very narrow markets agriculture traditionally serves. We have to prioritize and figure which are the best opportunities.

Alberta Agriculture, along with some private industry partners, has built a large-scale pilot plant to process flax and hemp at Vegreville. It is focused on low-cost processing, using some chemical digestion steps as well as biological and mechanical processing.

“The opportunities for flax are amazing,” says Kloek. “There are thousands of medium-sized companies looking for biomaterials. The mill is booked for over 100 days for various businesses who want to see how flax performs in their market. And, we’re still discovering new potential clients.

“And they’re very different from the sort of customers agriculture usually has. Industrial buyers expect to pay for raw materials and because they want processed fibre they’re buying a value-added product.”

Alberta Agriculture and the Flax Council of Canada and NAFGEN (Natural Fibres for a Green Economy), its network of industry and researchers from across the country, are working on improving flax agro-

nomics to supply flax oil and fibre for the growing industrial market. The hope is that as processing plants open, they will become centres of bioindustrial cropping and processing.

Great agronomics Flax fits well in many rotations. It’s more forgiving of seeding delays than any other crop, it tolerates dry conditions, but yields better with more moisture and in fall, it can stand unharmed through a lot of ugly weather.

Flax supports extensive networks of arbuscular mycorhizae, fungus networks that penetrate plant roots and deliver moisture and nutrients to the plants. Mycorrhizae obtain sugars from the plants they colonize, but they act like extension on the plants’ root systems. Some specialists claim colonized plants are less likely to be affected by disease organisms.

In direct seeded systems, crops other than canola can benefit from mycorrhizae networks following flax.

Flax seed is used as a nutritional supplement, providing anti-inflammatory omega-3 fatty acids for people and animals. Meal remaining after oil extraction is in demand for livestock feed.

Oil is currently used mainly in linoleum, which is making a comeback as an environmentally sustainable flooring, and includes about 33% linseed oil. Other industrial oils could be created just as canola oils have been modified to match specific purposes. 

COMMERCIAL • INDUSTRIAL • FARM • RESIDENTIAL • • • •

Maintenance Instrumentation Power Factor Correction Constant Pressure Control Systems

COALDALE (403) 345-5820

• ULC Certified Shop • Vegetable Storage Buildings • Ground Fault Detection in Underground Power Systems

LETHBRIDGE (403) 320-5093

TOLL FREE: 1-888-345-5820 Fax: 403-345-5821

1431 13th St., Coaldale • Mailing Address: PO Box 819, Coaldale, AB T1M 1M7 • www.vanrijnelectric.com Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

33

Wireworm research aims to understand pest » By Helen McMenamin

W

ireworm damage to crops has exploded in the last few years, with cereal and potato crops hit particularly hard. Even though wireworms have attacked crops since settlers seeded them, entomologists don’t know nearly as much about their habits as they do about most pest insects. Dr. Bob Vernon, an entomologist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Agassiz, BC, one of few scientists who studies wireworms, expects the problem to get worse over the next few years.

Wireworms are slim beetle larvae, often golden-yellow but sometimes reddish-brown. They feel quite hard-shelled if you squash them.

“We call them all wireworms, but they aren’t a single species,” says Vernon. Canada has about 30 pest wireworm species. They come in various sizes and can damage crops differently.

“Most of the research that has been done has looked at species other than those we study,” says Vernon. “And, the insecticides we have to control them may work better on some species than on others.”

Wireworms are the larvae of click beetles. The family name comes from a mechanism on their exoskeleton that clicks as they to flip from their backs on to their feet, or to spring into the air to evade predators.

Around mid-summer, the beetles lay their eggs in the soil, near to the surface and the eggs hatch within a few weeks. The newly emerged larvae, called neonates, are around 3 mm (an eighth of an inch) long and grow in the soil over the next 3 to 5 years to about 25 mm (1 inch) long. The larvae, called Residents as they grow, then pupate in the soil and the adult beetles crawl out of the soil the following spring to mate above ground and lay eggs in the soil. All the larval stages live entirely underground, making them very difficult to monitor and study.

Wireworms are attracted to germinating seeds by the CO2 the seeds give off from respiration. The wireworms follow the trail of CO2 to the germinating seed, eat it and move on to the next seed in the row. They attack almost any crop, but Vernon uses wheat for his studies and focuses on potatoes because of the economic impact their feeding causes unsightly blemishes and entry points for other insects and pathogens.

It’s hard to control a pest you don’t know much about. Vernon and his team have developed tests to assess the effectiveness of various wireworm controls in the lab. They put wireworms in the center of a petri dish and expose them to insecticides and later on examine their health and movement. If the wireworm moves normally, it is alive and unaffected. It may writhe uncontrollably or eventually stop moving with only its legs and mandibles (jaws) twitching. Ultimately, only the mandibles move, and the last stage is death.

“The neonicotinoid insecticides take the wireworms very rapidly to the leg and mandible movement only stage,” says Vernon. “Then, often after several months, they revive, and they’re hungry as heck.”

Vernon also uses another test to assess the impact of insecticides on wireworms. He places a germinating insecticide-treated wheat seed in the center of a wide circle of soil and puts a wireworm along the edge.

The wireworm, attracted by CO2 from the seed, moves to it and en-

34

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

The large larva is a Selatosomus desctructor (formerly Ctenicera destructor) and the small one is a Hypnoides bicolor (formerly Hypolithus nocturnus). Both are at their largest size.

PACIFIC AGRI-FOOD RESEARCH CENTRE

counters the insecticide. A neonicotinoid on the wheat seed will knock out the wireworm, but it will eventually revive. A synthetic pyrethroid on the seed repels the wireworm away from the seed, but it soon recovers and moves back to the seed again and again.

Applying his lab work to the field, Vernon explains why lindane (now banned in Canada) worked so well in the past, protecting the wheat crop and preventing wireworm damage for three or four years. In field trials, wireworms moved to lindane-treated wheat seed and two-thirds of Residents and 85% of the neonates died. The treated crop was protected and, with very few neonates growing into Residents and reaching damaging size, there was no visible damage until a new crop of neonates grew to almost full size 3 to 4 years later.

Neonicotinoid seed treatments knock out, or intoxicate the Resident wireworms, but by midsummer they revive, so the crop is protected.

Since neonates are not killed by the treatment, so there’s no reduction of the wireworm population.

Vernon cautions that the effectiveness of a neonicotinoid fades over time after seeding. So, if soils are cold or conditions don’t favor rapid germination, the crop may not be protected. If you suspect high populations of wireworms, he advises seeding under ideal germination and emergence conditions to get good protection from a neonicotinoid seed treatment.

Fipronil, under evaluation in Canada, will kill wireworms, but at low rates is a slow-acting toxin. At acceptable concentrations for a seed treatment, it takes about four weeks to kill wireworms. Vernon is hoping to get a combination of a neonicotinoid and fipronil approved for registration. That would be ideal for crop protection and high activity against wireworm populations.

LEADERS IN THE AUCTION INDUSTRY

403-329-3101 Farm Sales + Consignment Auctions CATTLE – HORSES – SHEEP – HOGS Liquidation Sales, Inventory Reduction Events Real Estate Auction Sales

www.perlich.com Since 1967

Now entering a third generation and proudly serving the agricultural community across Western Canada

WHERE COUNTRY & CITY MEET!

403-329-0770 Farm & Ranch Specialists Residential Sales Acreage, Recreational & Commercial Real Estate Auction Sales

www.perlich.com Since 1985

A locally owned & operated full service Real Estate Brokerage working hard to promote and improve the Communities we serve

Wireworm bait helps identify species and their habits To better understand wireworm species, their environments and their lives, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada scientists, Bob Vernon and Wim van Herk are looking for wireworms from across the country. They will accept any wireworms collected, but especially want large numbers that you might collect in bait balls. Bait balls can consist of tennis-ball sized spheres of various materials such as wheat flour, oatmeal, rolled oats, or anything that will begin to rot and produce CO2.

The material can be contained in any porous gauze material, buried about 6 to 8 inches deep and marked with flags.

To get a real picture of wireworm populations, say if you have had emergence issues in a field, van Herk advises putting out at least 20 baits in a quarter section, “the more the merrier,” he says. “And, don’t worry about particular areas, other than avoiding very wet places. They can be anywhere, hilltops, sidehills, low areas.”

Leave the bait balls in the soil a week or10 days, longer if it’s cool.

Van Herk takes an old dinner plate to check bait balls, poking them apart to find wireworms.

If you find significant numbers of wireworms, put them pill bottles or similar containers with no bait but some soil. Only put two or three in a container, as some prairie species are cannibals. Send them with details of field history and legal description to Vernon and van Herk.

If you find hundreds, call them by phone and they might visit you in person to collect.

Dr. Bob Vernon Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

6947 #7 Hwy, P.O. Box 1000, Agassiz, B.C. V0M 1A0 1-604-796-1708 (bob.vernon@agr.gc.ca) 

• Construction Equipment Sales and Rentals • Wheel Loaders • Skid Steers • Telehandlers/lift equipment • Graders • Excavators • Skid Steer Attachments New and Used • Flatbed and Dump Trailer Sales/Rent • Truck Decks DURABED

403-345-6300 Cell: 403-330-9402 Fax: 403-345-4011 Office:

1902 Highway Ave • Box 1223 • Coaldale, AB T1M 1N1 Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

35

SACA’s 2010 Orville Yanke Award » By Ron Montgomery

A

nother great southern Albertan took home the 2010 Orville Yanke Lifetime Achievement award from the Southern Alberta Conservation Association — Richard Fritzler of Etzicom (Conquerville).

Don McLennan, a Range Forage Specialist with AESB (Agri-Environmental Services Branch, formerly PFRA) couldn’t be prouder, as he initially nominated Richard and was then chosen (a personal honour) to emcee the presentation event.

By way of a bit of background, Don was previously the District Soil Conservationist for PFRA in Medicine Hat when SACA formed. As such he’s had a long association with both Richard and Orville and has been involved in helping SACA with their activities over many years.

In his address McLennan explained, “Orville Yanke, who passed away in 2007, was instrumental in initiating the transition from conventional tillage to reduced tillage practise and the formation of the SACA organization. SACA was originally an umbrella organization that applied for and distributed funds for local conservation clubs across southern Alberta for their project activities.”

Orville was also a founding member of the Dunmore Conservation Club and one of the original directors of SACA. A busy and dedicated person, who promoted the importance of keeping SACA focused on being a farmer directed organization even after many of the small conservation clubs disbanded.

His vision that SACA should continue as an organization functioning as a farmer directed extension entity based on “farmers helping farmers” led to Orville remaining not only as a Director, but also as SACA President. He was an innovator and had a thirst for knowledge that he would not only apply and use to improve his farming practises, but to also be seen as a leader in helping the transition to reduced tillage.

When the reduced tillage movement got underway in the early 1990s, Orville had already been managing his farm with a reduced tillage system for 10 years. Therefore his advice and experience was highly sought after. Fortunately he was just as keen to share his knowledge with other aspiring producers.

When one contemplates his achievements, it’s obvious that his foresight regarding a “farmer to farmer” extension entity shows him as a man of remarkable vision to say the least. Particularly, well before the disbanding of both the provincial extension division and the more recent dismantling of the PFRA federal government’s counterpart on the prairies.

Two years ago the SACA board of directors decided to establish an achievement award post-humously in Orville Yanke’s honour. The purpose of this award is to recognize southern Albertans who have made significant contributions toward the advancement of agriculture in southern Alberta.

The first recipient of this award made last year at the 2009 SACA

36

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

From L-R Ron Noga (SACA chairman), Gerald Kueffler (ARECA chairman), Betty Fritzler, Richard Fritzler, Tara Yanke (Orville’s daughter), Judy Yanke (Orville’s widow). PHOTO SACA

conference was to another well-known and deserving southern Alberta individual, Don Wentz.

This year’s recipient, Richard Fritzler, is someone who has certainly carried the torch that Orville lit in regard to promoting the concept of farmers helping farmers.

Richard and wife Betty farm in the Conquerville area. Richard not only followed some of Orville’s footsteps in his quest for knowledge to help him improve the management of his farm, but also took the concept of farmers helping farmers a bit further.

He started as a member of the South Forty Conservation Club; then became a Director and eventually President of SACA; and today remains a SACA Director. During this time frame Richard also became of Director of the Southern Alberta Applied Research Association, otherwise known as SARA . Several years ago, the SARA Board appointed Richard to be their Director Representative on a newly formed the provincial umbrella group of all the Applied Research and Extension organizations in Alberta called, the Agricultural Research & Extension Council (ARECA). Today he is currently the Vice-Chairman of the ARECA Board.

Through his involvement in these farmer directed organizations, he also became a member of the Agriculture Opportunity Fund Committee as a producer representative. This group is responsible for providing agriculture project funding to various organizations and municipal governments throughout Alberta.

According to Don, Richard has a knack for quickly getting to the meat of the matter through his persistent questions. But this ability along with his commitment to agriculture, the numerous organizations he represents and his desire to do what is right has gained him a lot of respect. He’s truly a worthy recipient of this award.” 

Watershed contest offers money to schools and students » Visit www.caringforourwatersheds.com

Caring for our watersheds website. PHOTO AGRIUM

T

here is a new program in Alberta that offers junior and senior high schools and students an opportunity to access funding for watershed projects while covering core curriculum studies.

Agrium’s Caring For Our Watersheds contest is an environmental, educational competition that encourages creativity and rewards students for developing local solutions to water quality or quantity questions. Operating through school curriculum components, Agrium offers prizes to the student(s) and the classroom where the solution came to life.

The Caring For Our Watersheds program began in 2007 in Alberta with students who live within the Battle River Watershed. After a successful three-year pilot, the program expanded in 2009. The goal is to offer the program in North America, South America, China and potentially Europe.

In 2010, Agrium launched five contests in central Alberta, southern Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Colorado.

The contest invites students to submit proposals that answer the question: “what can you do to improve your watershed?” The program rewards

the students and the schools who submit the most creative, thought-provoking and innovative ideas.

Students must research the local watershed, identify an environmental concern and come up with a realistic solution. Community judges select the top entries to compete at a final competition.

Schools and students who participate can receive cash awards. There is also implementation funding available.

Young minds often hold the key to amazing innovations that can protect and improve our watersheds. Visit www.caringforourwatersheds.com to see videos, past winners and find contact information. 

2010 Winners

Grades 7-9 Category: The $1,000 first place prize was awarded to Sierra Harty for her proposal called, Green is Great — Trails and Signs.

Grades 10-12 Category: The $1,000 first place prize was awarded to Cameron Reed for his proposal called, Reducing the Impact of Golf Courses on the Bow River Watershed.

Irrigation Services (1985) Ltd.

Come visit our friendly, knowledgeable staff 4–4416 1 Ave. South • Lethbridge, AB. T1J 4B3

Ph: 403-328-9382

Cell: 403-382-7272 Fax: 403-328-5321 Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

37

Book review Stuffed and Starved Markets, Power and the Hidden Battle for the World’s Food System » By Raj Patel

I

think people in the farming industry should read this book, because if what’s written in it is true, you need to know it. If it’s not true, then you need to know this perspective is out there.

I’ve been peripherally aware of a malaise taking hold in the Canadian farming community. A recurring and ephemeral sense that all is not well in Farmville; that the family farm is meeting its demise.

Along comes Raj Patel, with his background from the World Bank, World Trade Organization and United Nations, connects some rather unexpected dots for me and says this is a global phenomenon.

My first surprise was Patel’s explanation of the cheap food policy, the slave trade and why poor folk are addicted to sugar and fat. He starts in the 1700s in the United Kingdom. There is history there I didn’t learn in school.

His book starts with the unlikely topic of farmer suicides in India and Mexico. He explains that international trade agreements change the local markets for farm produce and introduce mono-cropping.

Small family farmers go into debt trying to grow enough to compete in the global market place at global prices, but cannot produce certain crops that cheaply. They go into debt in countries where loan sharks are the local banks and end up committing suicide when they see they are about to lose the family farm.

He points out that this happens in America and Canada too, but to a much lesser degree.

Patel covers in great detail how international trade agreements pull the sustainability out from under a country’s agricultural production destroying family farms in favor of large corporate farms.

He explains too how having food production ultimately in the hands of four global corporations leads to lack of choice for farmers and consumers alike while providing the illusion of abundant choice at the supermarket.

Patel talks about how soybean, corn, wheat, beef and chicken are quickly taking over the food industry. These are the base ingredients of most of the packaged products on the shelves. Patel explores how this impacts the poor in every country and damages health through obesity, diabetes and malnutrition. He talks about how nutritious food is kept physically distant from poor folk and, in some countries, horded while people starve.

Patel also talks about the industrial farm movement and how it encourages the disconnect between food production and food consumers. Urban consumers still think of bucolic scenes of free range livestock, the big farm garden and Mr. & Mrs. Farmer happily producing vegetables for the market. He points out just how far removed from this modern farming is and the sheer power of the Big Four.

Also while reading the section where Patel discusses how Roundup Ready corn, wheat and soybeans have dominated American fields and spread to Brazil and South America, the news broke about the growing problems with Roundup resistant weeds in Eastern Canada. It now seems a well-documented fact that Roundup resistant weeds are cropping up everywhere.

38

Farming Smarter / Spring 2011

In the context of what Patel explains as the changes created by cropping systems dependant on Roundup Ready seed, it should be interesting to see what happens next.

In every case where Patel outlines a challenge with the global food system, he offers a story of the people who are responding through cooperative movements. In Brazil, The Landless Rural Workers Movement spawned a strong and successful enough role model that other countries followed suit. Patel also talks about slow food, organic farms and community supported agriculture as movements gaining ground as consumers recognize the truth of the food offered in most packages.

Patel pretty thoroughly dissects the common arguments about why agricultural production must continue down the road it’s on today and, in many cases, shows how in fact it’s responsible for much hardship in many countries.

This is definitely a book farmers will have to read and decide for themselves what they think. 

Alberta & British Columbia Sustainable Soil Solutions www.ssscinc.com 403-485-6400

Saskatchewan & Manitoba Back to Your Roots Solutions www.back-to-your-roots.com 306-747-4744

Stay connected wherever you go m.canola.ab.ca

www.canola.ab.ca/connect