SARDA
Back FortY Mission: To Facilitate the
transfer of unbiased ideas and information between research institutions, industry and agriuclutural producers.
A Tough Easter
SPRING ISSUE
April, 2018
POGA Oat Trial Report Oat production in Alberta has been on a relatively steady decline since 2011, even though it has earned the status of major Canadian export crop over a domestic crop status. According to Prairie Oat Grower’s Association (POGA), an estimate of 3.1 million acres of oat were seeded in year 2015-16 but there is a decline in Alberta due to lack of markets and noncompetitive pricing with other crops. Many major millers will not accept oats from Alberta, or look to Alberta only after Manitoba and Saskatchewan’s supply is gone, because the main two oat varieties grown in Alberta, Morgan and Derby contain low amounts of Beta-Glucan (β-glucan). A minimum of 4% β-glucan is required for companies to be able to label their products with the Heart Healthy Claim and
both Morgan and Derby are consistently below that amount. Therefore, oat producers in Alberta need an oat variety that can consistently beat the yields of Morgan and Derby but has the higher β-glucan amounts that the oat miller desire. This study is a continuous effort to collect data on 11 milling variety oats and 4 feed oat varieties in Central and Northern Alberta. The goal was to determine how variety and growing location will influence the yield and functional property attributes linked to β-glucan levels in oats. There was noticeable difference between locations on the varietal yields as well as beta-glucan content. The two sites were located in the Westlock Region (GRO) and the Peace Region(SARDA).
IN THIS ISSUE POGA Oat Trial Reports
1
2017 P.R. Canola Survey
4
PGR’s on grass & clover
5
Agristability
9
Beneficial Insects
10
Riparian Management Course
11
Coming Events
12
Water Quality Trends
14
Hazard Management
16
Phragmites
18
County of GP Corner
20
Tree Seedling Programs
21
EFP and CAP
23
Page 2 April, 2018 2  Continued from page 1
Table 1 POGA Oat Trial 2016 (Peace Region Site) No. 1 2 3
Variety Morgan Camden Seabiscuit
4 Triactor 5 Ruffian 6 Orrin 7 Summit 8 Souris 9 Akina 10 Kara 11 Minstril 12 CDC SO-1 13 CDC Nasser 14 Mustang 15 Baler Standard Deviation CV Treatment Prob (F)
Yield (bu/ac) 202.5 190.3 202.8 188.5 217.5 168.0 173.1 168.6 190.4 190.2 192.3 192.3 173.7 194.1 183.2
Bushel wt.
1000 Kernel Weight
ab bc ab
Test wt. (kg/HL) 50.7 50.8 48.8
(Lb/Bushel)
43.8. 45.0 45.0
abc ab ab
41.1 41.2 39.6
42.2 43.6 46.6 41.4 34.4 42.2 39.6 42.4 38.5 38.7 45.1 46.1
a-d abc a bcd e a-d cd a-d d d ab ab
39.9 42. 41.6 42.3 41.5 40.1 41.3 47.7 38.3 43.0 40.9 38.3 3.35 8.12 0.2487
bc A C C C bc bc bc bc C Bc Bc 9.83 5.22 0.0001
1.75 4.13 0.0001
49.2 51.8 51.3 52.2 51.2 49.4 51.0 58.8 47.2 53.0 50.5 47.3 4.14 8.14 0.253
Table 2: POGA Oat Trial 2017 (Peace Region Site) No.
Variety
Plant Height (cm) 94.9 a 92.6 ab 97.0 a
1 2 3
Morgan Camden Seabiscuit
4 5
Ruffian Orrin
98.2 98.7
6 Summit 7 Souris 8 Akina 9 Kara 10 Minstrel 11 Triactor Standard Deviation CV Treatment Prob (F)
88.3 93.4 92.2 88.2 93.1 97.7
Yield (bu/ac) 220.1 bc 226.1 bc 224.0 bc
a a
248.5 227.3
b ab ab b ab a 2.90 3.08 0.0001
209.7 190.8 214.2 225.9 196.4 240.3
a bc
cd e cd bc de ab 9.83 5.22 0.0001
1000 Kernel Weight 44.5 a 37.6 a 42.7 a 41.6 40.9 37.5 36.4 42.4 43.0 40.3 39.0
a a a a a a a a 1.75 4.13 0.0001
Bushel wt. 41.4 38.8 37.5
a ab b
Test wt. (kg/HL) 44.5 a 37.6 a 42.6 a
40.8 40.8
a a
41.5 40.8
40.5 40.8 38.8 40.9 39.2 38.9
a a ab a ab ab 3.35 8.12 0.2487
37.4 36.4 42.3 43.0 40.3 39.0
(Lb/Bushel)
*Varieties that share a letter did not differ significantly from one another (p>0.05)
a a a a a a a a 4.14 8.14 0.253
April, 2018 Page 3 At the Westlock site, there was no statistical difference between the yields obtained for 11 milling varieties. However, Seabiscuit was numerically highest yielding variety for 2016. In 2017, Seabiscuit didn’t do well for yields. Seabiscuit was tallest oat variety and we noticed issues of lodging that might have resulted in lower yields in 2017 at this site. At the Peace Region site, in 2016, Ruffian was a significantly higher milling oat type than most of the other varieties except Morgan and Seabiscuit. The almost similar trend was noticed for 2017, with Ruffian the top yielding milling oat variety followed by Triactor. Test weight is the most important indicator of grain milling quality. At the Westlock site, the test weight result for Kara and Morgan was higher in both years compared to other milling oats. However, no statistical difference in years, 2016 or 2017, was observed among the varieties at Peace region.
The β-glucan content of the 11 different milling varieties ranged between 3.8% and 5.0%, with the lowest reported for Ruffian (3.8%) at both sites. Akina at the Westlock site and Kara at the Peace region site (5.0%) had the highest β-glucan levels for both the sites in 2016 (Table 4). In 2017, the β-glucan content of the 11 different milling varieties ranged lower as compared to the levels in 2016. However, the lowest β-glucan levels were still reported for Ruffian at both sites again in 2017. Akina and Moran at Westlock and Souris and Morgan at Peace region were among with higher β-glucan levels compared to other milling oats varieties tested in 2016 (Table 4 and 5). Yields suggest that there is potential for several varieties to out compete Morgan. We observed a visible difference in yields between locations, and we observed yield differences between varieties. Ruffian was the high-
est yielding variety in the Peace region in both years and at the Westlock site in 2017. However, Ruffian had the lowest levels of β-glucan at both locations in both years. Seabiscuit performed very well at both locations in 2016, staying in top 3 varieties for yield and averaged ˃ 4.5% of β-glucan content. Ruffian was the top yielding variety at both locations and Seabiscuit had issues with lodging at the Westlock site in 2017. So it is hard to choose one variety out these two while both show potential to give strong competition to the most popular, with the highest number of acres grown in Alberta, Morgan. As environment and disease conditions fluctuate greatly from year to year, it is important to consider yields averaged over multiple years. We hope with more data obtained, we will be able to recommend varieties that are best suited for specific regions of Alberta and have the high β– glucan content desired by millers.
Page 4 April, 2018 4
2017 Peace River Region Annual Canola Survey by Jennifer Otani1, Meghan Vankosky2 and Owen Olfert2
1 Beaverlodge Research Farm, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, P.O. Box 29, Beaverlodge AB, jennifer. otani@agr.gc.ca. 2 Saskatoon Research Centre, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon SK.
The 2017 Annual Peace Canola Survey was completed by Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada staff based at Beaverlodge1 and Saskatoon2 . Since 2003, the annual survey has been performed with the main objectives of (i) collecting insect pest data throughout the region and (ii) to detect the introduction of the cabbage seedpod weevil into the Peace River region. In 2017, a total of 102 commercial fields of Brassica napus (e.g., each field ≥80 acres in size) were surveyed and no B. rapa was encountered. Fields were spaced approximately 10 km apart and surveying was performed through the main canola production areas of the
Peace River region in both British Columbia and Alberta during earlyto mid-flower stages. Canola crop stages were measured using Harper and Berkenkamp (1975) and ranged from 3.24.3 although the mode stage was 4.2 for the 102 commercial fields of B. napus surveyed. Fields were surveyed by sweep-net using 50–180° sweeps on the following dates in these areas: • July 4 near Manning, Hawk Hills, Tompkins Landing, Blue Hills, Buffalo Head, LaCrete, Rocky Lane. • July 10 near Crooked Creek, DeBolt, Bezanson, Grande Prairie. • July 11 near Guy, High Prairie, McLennan, Falher, Nampa, Peace River, Tangent, Watino, Smoky River, LaGlace, Woking, Spirit River, Rycroft, Fairview, Hines Creek, Sexsmith. • July 12 near Whitelaw, Berwyn, Grimshaw, Marie Reine, Jean Cote, Girouxville, Eaglesham, Wanham, Peoria, Teepee Creek, Hythe, Baldonnel, Montney, Rose Prairie, Fort St. John, Cecil Lake,
Doe River, Rolla, Valhalla, Demmitt, LaGlace, Grande Prairie, Goodfare, Elmworth, Blueberry Mountain, Silver Valley, Bonanza. Sweep-net samples were frozen then processed to generate data for a total of 9730 arthropods (excluding thrips and aphids) which were identified and categorized into 39 taxa. Lygus specimens were identified to all five instar stages. The 2017 summary includes eight economically important insect pests reported from 98 surveyed canola fields plus data related to rotational practices in the Peace River region: The report looks at rotational practices in the Peace River region and the economically important insect pests listed below: 1. Lygus 2. Grasshoppers 3. Leaf Hoppers 4. Flea Beetles 5. Cabbage Seedpod weevil 6. Arthropods 7. Diamond Back Moth Root Maggot adults Bertha Armyworm Wheat Midge Macroglenes penetrans Spiders Bees Please visit www.sarda.ca to read the full article.
April, 2018 Page 5
Page 6 April, 2018 6 
April, 2018 Page 7
Page 8 April, 2018 8 
April, 2018 Page 9
AgriStability: What is in it for the producer? Agriculture is one of the vital sectors of the economy as it constitutes the backbone of food security for a nation. But it is also one of the riskiest due to its dependence on weather phenomena that producers are unable to control. Because of the importance it carries and the risks it faces, governments have always supported the agricultural sector in a number of ways, including offering insurance programs for agricultural producers. AgriStability is one of the most comprehensive programs, maintained under Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP), the new federal/provincial/territorial cooperation framework to support farmers nationwide. The concept on which AgriStability is based was first instituted as a provincial program in Alberta in 1995 under the name of Farm Income Stabilization Program (FISP), and continued until 2002 after its name was changed to Farm Income Disaster Program (FIDP) in 1996. In the meantime, the federal government also started a similar farm income stabilization program in 1998, which lasted until 2002. In 2003 Canadian Agriculture Income Stabilization (CAIS) was introduced, merging federal and provincial farm income stability programs to ensure
consistency throughout the country. It was in 2007 that the program assumed its current name and was enacted as part of the Growing Forward I framework and was maintained in Growing Forward II and most recently in CAP with minor changes along the way.
Benefits of AgriStability One of the most important aspects of the AgriStability program is the holistic approach it takes to farming operations: It provides whole farm protection against significant margin declines that may result from a range of factors, including production loss, price declines and increased input costs. With such a comprehensive scope, AgriStability allows farmers to benefit from coverage that may not be provided under other business risk management programs. And such coverage comes at quite a low cost: The premium is $315 per $100,000 of coverage based on the historical margin of the farming operation. The minimum fee to participate is $45 and the annual administration fee is $55. In return, the program provides assistance to producers who suffer from margin declines greater than 30 per cent due to the factors mentioned above. The fact that the coverage
under AgriStability is specifically based on the history of a farm’s unique operational data makes the program even more fitting to any farmer’s risk management options. The 2016 program year was a difficult one for farmers throughout Alberta, mainly because of the early onset of winter which left almost a million acres unharvested and a decline in cattle market. AgriStability’s response to the challenging conditions of 2016 is expected to exceed $200 million in payments to assist affected farmers. This figure compares with over $158 million in payments for the 2013-2015 period. And there is further benefit to be derived from being a participant in the AgriStability program: A farmer’s participation can be used as security to access credit options under the Advance Payments Program (APP), a federal loan guarantee program that allows producers to access low interest cash advances, up to $400,000 per program year, with federal government reimbursing the interest on the first $100,000 to the producer. Deadline to enrol in the AgriStability program is April 30. More information on the program is available on the AFSC website (www.afsc.ca) and at AFSC branch offices throughout the province.
Page 10 April, 2018 10
Beneficial Insects: The Unsung and Unheralded Heroes in your Field From the March 5, 2018 Issue of Agri-News
They are the insects that work for you: pollinating your crops, controlling insect pests, eating weeds and weed seed, decomposing stubble and plant residues, freeing up nutrients for the next crop, or improving the soil. “If it wasn’t for these beneficial insects,” says Harry Brook, crop specialist at the Ag-Info Centre. “We would have poorer crops to harvest in the fall. There are legions of them out there and they are the unsung heroes that keep destructive insects and other pests under control.” These beneficial insects work for field crops in several ways. “The insects may merely hunt and eat the adult pests. They may also lay eggs in problem insects. When those eggs hatch, the larvae eat their way out of their host, preventing ongoing propagation of more problem insects,” mentions Brook. There are 10 large groups of insects that help control pest species. ”The most important of these are the true bugs, lacewings, ground beetles, flies, and wasps,” adds Brook. “In the true bugs, the names tell the story. Pirate bugs, ambush bugs, assassin bugs, and stink bugs attack and suck the juices out of aphids and other problem insects. Another true bug, damsel bugs are important predators of diamondback moth larvae. In one greenhouse study, a single damsel bug ate 131 eggs or 95 larvae in a 24 hour period.” “Ground beetles are a large
group of insects that help out in the field, are usually more active at night, and will attack almost anything they can overpower. Different ground beetles eat cutworms, potato beetles, root maggots, diamondback moth larvae, wheat midge larvae, and eggs of pest species. Some species of ground beetle feed on weed seeds. One well known star of biocontrol is the lady beetle. Both the adult and larvae of the beetles like to eat aphids,” says Brook. Brook says that not all flies are a problem. After bees, hover flies are the second most important group of pollinators. They are often mistaken as wasps or bees. Larvae of many fly species prey on aphids, thrips, and other crop feeding insects. In the soil, stiletto fly larvae feed off the larvae of other pests such as wireworms. Same goes for wasps, Brook adds. “Wasps are important for parasitizing larvae of bertha armyworm, aphid, cereal leaf beetle, and diamondback moth. There are many wasp species that are very good at reducing pest species populations. ” “In agriculture, we tend to
concentrate and worry about those factors that have the potential to damage yield potential in our field crops,” mentions Brook. “We also need to get informed about those insects that are working on our behalf. Just counting pests only gives an incomplete picture. With an idea of beneficial insect populations and activity, you can make better decisions on using insecticides when and where they are needed. Avoid the situation where you kill more of your beneficial than the pest species.” Alberta Agriculture and Forestry held a webinar on beneficial insects on Tuesday, March 20, featuring John Gavloski, provincial entomologist with Manitoba Agriculture. This webinar was recorded and can be accessed by clicking on the following link: https://register. gotowebinar.com/ register/290458375461786627
For more information, Contact the Ag-Info Centre at 310-FARM (3276)
April, 2018
Page 11
April, 2018
Page 12-13
Event Name
Location
Time
Date
Cost
Weed Control and You
Comments
Big Meadows Community Hall, Enilda
1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
April 12
FREE
Contact Sheila Kaus for more information
Ag Drone School
Crystal Creek Hall, Grande Prairie
8:30 am to 5:00 pm
April 16-17
$590
Register at www.landview.com or call 780-448-7445
Industrial Hemp Production
Triangle Hall, High Prairie
1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
April 17
FREE
Contact Sheila Kaus or Normand Boulet for more information
Lesser Slave Lake 101
Slave Lake Inn
9:00 am to 4:00 pm
April 19
FREE
You must pre - register! Click Here , visit www.lswc.ca or call Meghan at 780-523-9800
Developing Western Canada’s Hemp Industry
Edmonton International Airport, Leduc
9:00 am to 4:30 pm
April 20
$125
Click Here to register.
Mighty Peace Watershed Alliance Annual General Meeting
Sawridge Inn, Peace River
9:30 am to 3:30 pm
May 25
FREE
Call 780-324-3355 to register
Summer Field School
2018 International CLUBROOT Workshop
Lacomb Research & Development Center, Lacomb
9:30 am to 3:30 pm
June 27
FREE
Donnelly Sportes
9:00 am to 3:30 pm
July 19
TBA
For more information go to https://albertacanola.com/event/canolapalooza/
Visit www.sarda.ca or call 780-837-2900 for more information
For more information go to
Edmonton
TBA
August 7-9
TBA
https://albertacanola.com/ event/2018-international-clubroot-workshop/
Page 14 April, 2018 14 
Water Quality Trends for Nutrients and Related Water Parameters
Figure 1. Water Quality Index average over time. Left tile represents index value, right tile represents index value trends. Average of all sites, only includes Sites A & E only for consistency over time. Metals only sampled since 2013; trendline only calculated over 2013-2017. The Heart River Water Quality Monitoring Program was initiated by Northern Sunrise County in 2003/2004. Water chemistry has been collected annually for the past fourteen years. In 2017, nutrients, pesticides, parasites, and bacteria were again monitored in five sites throughout the Heart River Watershed, with samples being collected in
spring, early summer, later summer and fall. Five sites were sampled for surface water quality, and two of these were additionally sampled for groundwater quality. Water quality results are analyzed using a Water Quality Index, with higher scores representing better water quality. The results for the
past fourteen years have been summarized in Figure 1. Have we seen improvements in our watershed? Overall, the sampling results have shown nutrients to be the poorest parameter (Figure 1, left tile). Typically, nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate come from non-point sources such as agricultural runoff. Phosphorus is considered the limiting nutrient for growth within aquatic ecosystems in Alberta, and there is a concern the high levels of phosphorus within these watercourses will lead to eutrophication and other associated problems (such as unstable fish populations). High phosphorus concentrations in groundwater can also be a result of surface water influence. The connectivity of surface and groundwater can also be a factor in the high concentrations of phosphorus found in both waters.
April, 2018 Page 15 However, since the onset of the water quality monitoring program, progress has been observed in all four categories. Water quality trends show an improvement in Water Quality Index parameter categories (Figure 1, right tile). Since the implementation of the water quality study, many projects have been undertaken by the County and local producers. As well, best management practices continue to evolve in the County. For example, Northern Sunrise County has eliminated the use of certain chemicals and reduced by 50% usage of the chemicals. Prior to the program, standard agricultural practices employed less than 40% no-till land conservation practices. To date, more than 90% practices employ no-till. No-till practices serve to reduce sediment and
nutrient transport into aquatic systems. These successes are grounded from the water quality program, and the awareness it has brought to the community. Understanding the actions that led to the deterioration of source water quality through a comprehensive and long-term monitoring program has already and will continue to provide the context for restoration of the Heart River watershed in the years to come.
April, 2018
Page 16 16
Hazard Management on the Farm A hazard is something that has the potential to cause injury or damage. Farms and ranches have a number of high risk activities that create hazardous situations for farmers, farm workers and farm families such as operating equipment and working with unpredictable animals. Managing the hazards is a great way to protect people on the farm from accident, injury or illness. Producers may have extensive experience working with these hazards every day and often develop a respect for the damage that can be caused. Sometimes we call this experience, “common sense” and our common sense grows and adapts to give us an added layer of protection against the different types of hazards. The question is, how do you take your common sense and transfer that wisdom to another worker on the farm? One way is to set up a hazard management program for your farm and capture that knowledge to be shared. Planning ahead by establishing a hazard management program may sound like a complicated process but it comes down to identifying hazards or situations that could cause harm to people on the farm and then putting control measures in
place to reduce the risk. Four simple steps to hazard management programs: 1. Identify jobs 2. Identify hazards 3. Identify controls 4. Provide training The first step in a hazard management program is to identify the jobs that represent most of the work being done on the farm. For example; seeding, harvesting, handling livestock, feeding, or barn chores. Once the main job tasks are defined, identify the hazards that might exist within those jobs. Remember, a hazard is something that could cause injury, illness or damage. Examples of hazards during seeding may include muscle strain, fall from heights, entanglement, collision, and fatigue. Examples of hazards when handling livestock could include crush injuries, muscle strain, or animal strikes. Producers who work on the farm, day in and day out are the best people to identify the hazards of highest concern. Ask yourself “what are the issues that I worry may cause harm to someone while working on our farm?” After the hazards have been
identified, determine what can be done to control those hazards. Examples of hazard controls are machine guards, electronic lock-outs, safe job procedures, and personal protective equipment such as safety glasses or hearing protection. In the livestock handling, crush hazard example, control measures could include identifying and placing signage in the crush areas, training staff to identify livestock crush zones, setting up corrals to remove crush areas and using a lock system for gates. Another essential component of a hazard management program is providing training to everyone who may be impacted by the hazard. Training should describe the hazard and potential consequences of the hazard and then explain the measures that are in place to control the hazard and how to use those hazard controls.
April, 2018 Page 17 It is also good practice to perform “on-the-go� hazard assessments. For last minute hazard assessments use the STOP-n-THINK concept. Pause before starting a task and consider the hazards that are present and identify what can be done to prevent the hazards from causing harm. Questions you could ask for an on-thego assessment: Where will I go if I need to escape? What would happen if this equipment was energized? How will I be rescued if something went wrong? Last minute hazard
assessments remind the farm worker to pause and think about how to do a job task safely. The hazard management program is probably the most important aspect of a farm safety management system. The key to a successful hazard management program is to start with manageable components and then let it grow and evolve over time. A effective farm safety management program will contribute to the overall success of the farm business.
AgSafe Alberta is an industry led initiative helping producers build their Farm Safety Management System by offering tools, resources and consultation services. AgSafe Alberta has field Advisors who can help you build your hazard management program to meet the specific needs of your operation.
For more information and to book your FREE Consultation www.agsafeab.ca
Page 18 April, 2018 18
Efforts Continue to Keep an Invasive Perennial Grass in Check From the March 5, 2018 Issue of Agri-News
Phragmites (Phragmites australis subsp. australis) is an invasive perennial grass that can reach heights up to 4 metres tall and likes to grow in low lying areas with water. When invasive Phragmites is introduced to natural areas, it spreads rapidly, via rhizomes, and can be difficult to control once established. “It has harmful effects on native species and aquatic ecosystems,” says Nicole Kimmel, weed specialist with Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. “Phragmites can drastically alter water movement and can be particularly threatening to Alberta’s irrigation infrastructure.”
While the presence of Phragmites is abundant in North America, Alberta had remained untouched until the first report of invasive Phragmites, near Brooks in spring of 2016. “Since then with awareness and diagnostic support,” Kimmel mentions. “Albertans have found about a dozen more locations. Identification has been complicated by a similar looking native type of Phragmites.” In 2016, staff from the County of Newell, EID, and AF manually removed seed heads and stalks following initial reports of the invasive plants
near Brooks and Medicine Hat. Kimmel adds, “Physical removal is not a successful stand-alone method but is recommended in conjunction with a herbicide application.” Two herbicide active ingredients–glyphosate and imazapyr–have shown to effectively control Phragmites in North America, and neither is currently registered under label for water use in Canada. In 2017, AF applied for and received emergency use registration for aquatic imazapyr application. During the summer, staff from the County of Newell, Medicine Hat, AF, and AEP cut down the plants and applied the herbicide.
April, 2018 Page 19 “Full success of control treatments will not be fully realized until 2018. As an added security measure, a repeat emergency use will be applied for in 2018 for aquatic locations, in the event any plants were missed,” says Kimmel. Other locations identified in the province are undergoing land-based herbicide applications. Alberta Transportation is working with local rural municipalities to uproot this invasive weed. Only invasive Phragmites is a prohibited species under the Fisheries (Alberta) Act, and while not currently regulated by Agriculture & Forestry (AF), it is being reviewed for possible inclusion in the Weed Control Act. As the plant was first reported close to the Eastern Irrigation District (EID) canals,
AF is particularly interested in how it arrived in our province. “A potential pathway of introduction could be ornamental garden plants which are very harmful if introduced into the wild,” adds Kimmel. “We ask everyone to double check before planting any plants to ensure they are not a prohibited species in our province.” Albertans are encouraged to report any suspected Aquatic Invasive Species to 1-855336-BOAT(2628). Although we are not certain how this invasive species arrived in our province, Alberta Environment and Parks reminds everyone to Don’t Let it Loose.
April, 2018
Page 20 20
Welcome to what appears to be 4th winter! Not quite sure where spring is, but hopefully it will show up soon! We have recently completed interviews for our summer positions, and have selected excellent staff. It’s always helpful to have returning staff, which is what we have happening again this year. We are running our Weed Warrior program again this year, so if you are a non-profit group looking to make some money and learn about weeds, give Jill a call at 780-532-9727 . We plan to host a Kids’ AgVenture Tour, in conjunction with our farming partners, and are looking forward to this exciting day teaching where food comes from, and who raises it. As our population begins to shift away from farming communities, we find peoples’ understanding of agriculture is diminishing. Teaching kids will hopefully lead to informed agricultural consumers in the future. To support farmers in their quest to improve access to technology and useful tools,
we will host a workshop on new technology. AB Agriculture staff will be at the Community Services Building at 11 am on April 20th to show the imporved Soil Information Viewer. This tool describes soils, allows accurate area and distance measurements, as well as identify areas with similar soils, and help the farmers understand the limitations of their farm from a soils perspective. Farmers are encouraged to bring laptops although there will be some available for use. We will have a presentation on a tool for assessing susceptibility of a crop for fusarium infestation, which while not so common in our region, is still something to be on the lookout for. Our speaker will also be showing us how to access local climate and soil moisture information on the convenience of our phones! Please call Debbie at 780-5329727 to pre-register, as lunch will be provided. There is no cost for this session. With the significant amount of snowfall we’ve has this year, water retention could be a
problem. Our Problem Wildlife staff are available to help you with beaver dam removal if flooding by these industrious critters is a concern for you. Simply call our office at 780532-9727 and ask for Darrell. Lastly, please be advised the deadline to submit your No Spray agreement is April 15th. After this date, a $25 admin fee is required from participants. Please visit the County of Grande Prairie website and search “No Spray Program”. The link to the form is: http:// www.countygp.ab.ca/assets/ Departments/Agriculture/Docs/ No%20Spray%20AgreementFINAL2018.pdf If you have questions, please don’t hesitate to give me a call. I’m always willing to listen and help as best I can. (780-5329727)
April, 2018
Page 21
Tree Seedling Programs in the Peace Region Normand Boulet, CCA Agricultural Fieldman, M.D. of Smoky River No. 130
Many landowners fondly remember the old PFRA Shelterbelt program which offered tree and shrub seedlings free of charge throughout the Prairie Provinces. The Federal Government cancelled that program in 2013 after operating it for 111 years. A number of Peace Region rural municipalities decided that tree and shrub planting was too important to lose, so several implemented their own programs. The M.D. of Smoky River and Clear Hills County started their programs in 2014 working with Woodmere nurseries in Fairview. That first year we were able to offer White spruce and Lodgepole pine, and because Woodmere grows those seedlings by the hundreds of thousands for reforestation, we could offer them at very low prices and the nursery was not going to run out. Woodmere is given another outlet for their seedlings, and they don’t have
to deal with hundreds of clients who may only want 10 or 15 seedlings, they deal with a half dozen municipalities instead. Another advantage is that Woodmere sources most of their seeds locally, so we know the seedlings are acclimatized to the Peace Region. The PFRA program, as good as it was, offered seedlings which were chosen for their suitability throughout the Prairies, and the seed was not Peace Region sourced.
Since 2014, several other municipalities have started programs including County of Northern Lights, M.D. of Peace, Northern Sunrise County and Big Lakes County (Northern Sunrise and Big Lakes started offering seedlings for planting this year), and many others share information on companies who make seedlings available to their residents. Working with Woodmere as well as Boreal Horticulture Services and TreeTime has enabled the municipalities to gear programs to the needs of their residents. Most municipal programs have been developed as cost-recovery (or close to cost-recovery) and ordering
April, 2018
Page 22 22 Continued from page 21
in bulk usually offers cost savings. Since the initial offering of pine and spruce, species have been added for increased biodiversity, speed of establishment and to offer blooming shrubs for our wild and domesticated pollinators, and food for birds. Woodmere started custom growing seedlings we requested for our programs and allowed municipalities to expand their offerings. Not all municipalities
are offering the same species, so it’s best to check with your local municipality, some species of note include: White spruce and Lodgepole pine, Siberian larch, Hybrid poplars, Red-osier dogwood, Lilac, Green ash, Buffaloberry and Golden willow. Trees not only beautify the landscape, increase resale values and offer privacy to residences, they also reduce heating costs by providing shelter from the wind, they give shade in the summer and offer nesting and food sources for birds, bees and all manner of other living creatures. As farm equipment gets larger and land is opened up it becomes critical to offer places for insects and wildlife to browse and to
overwinter. A great number of our beneficial insects, the ones that feed on pest insect species and weeds need the trees and duff layers to overwinter in. Shelterbelts not only clean the air, but also clean runoff water, trapping sediment, nutrients and pesticide residue before they move off the fields. In addition research has shown the yield benefits due to wind protection from field shelterbelts more than makes up for the land taken up by a shelterbelt. The initial planning and planting of trees and shrubs is work, no question about that, but the benefits far, far outweigh the costs.
April, 2018
Effective April 1, 2018, producers will need to have an EFP completion letter dated within the last 10 years to be considered current and eligible for cost-share funding with the Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change programs of the Canadian Agriculture Partnership (CAP). That means, for example, if you apply in September 1, 2018, your EFP will need to have been approved on or after September 1, 2008 to be considered for current funding. If you want to apply for Growing Forward/CAP grants, you will need a current EFP.
Page 23
If a sustainable sourcing program requires it (e.g. the potato sustainability initiative), you will need a current EFP If your completion letter is older than 10 years, you will need to do a new workbook and action plan. If you cannot find your completion letter, you will need to start and complete a new EFP to be considered current, regardless of the completion date; unless your EFP is online. Technicians cannot give out completion letters without doing a full review of a new EFP (both workbook and action plan).
The Canadian Agriculture Partnership Program (CAP) was launched on April 1.
Four programs are accepting applications now and several more will be launched in the next 3 months. As with the Growing Forward Programs, applications are evaluated on a first come, first serve basis. Visit the website and subscribe to receive program announcements and the newsletter www.cap.alberta.ca
April, 2018
Page 24 24
SARDA Box 90 Falher, Alberta T0H 1M0 Phone: 780-837-2900 Fax: 780-837-8223 Email: manager@sarda.ca www.sarda.ca