February 2018 web by SARDA Ag Research

SARDA

Back FortY Mission: To Facilitate the

transfer of unbiased ideas and information between research institutions, industry and agriuclutural producers.

SARDA’s New Cold Storage Building

WINTER ISSUE

February, 2018

SARDA Ag Research Moving Forward by Audrey Gall, Chair

As we approach the AGM on February 20, 2018 the need for excited, enthusiastic, young Board members will be forefront Foresight and leadership skills are a bonus but what we really need are people to care about supporting our agricultural community through a decision making processes. We have space for 4 individuals -1would be a one year term (a great way to get to know our business) and 3 spots are 3 year terms (long enough to become an effective contributor for even the most reserved individual). Two years ago the Board of Directors for SARDA formalized their Vision and Mission statements and struck a Strategic Planning Committee to

move the organization forward. Utilizing the knowledge gained during 30 years of operation the committee was tasked with creating an Agricultural Resource Centre of Excellence. An excited, enthusiastic group developed a “needs list’’ and a “wants list” and then had to figure out how to make it all happen. The needs list was short:; a Board who was willing to look forward and take a few risks, a building to protect our equipment, a facility to replace a shop that had reached its functional limits and integrity and sufficient office space to accommodate the staff needed to carry out the programs/ research to support our local

IN THIS ISSUE SARDA Ag Research Moving Forward Summary of Water Quality SAmpling Program, 2017 Advanced Agronomic Practices in Pea

Testing of Perennial Foraages Development of BMP for Industrial Hemp in Alberta

2 3 6 7 9

The Grea Wolf

Coming Events

Wheat class changes to have minimal affect in insurance coverage Emergency Response Planning on the Farm County of Grande Prairie Corner

14 16 18

SARDA Updates

Alberta Succession Planning

Farm Safety - Your Way

Page 2 February, 2018 2 with sufficient space to process plot samples, house office space for the staff and provide a reception area appropriate for guests from 2-92 years of age. There is no age limit for people who can benefit from information about the production of food.

Continued from page 1

Members of the Strategic Planning Committee and our Manager have been very active in trying to recruit additional funding for the Association since mid-summer. We would be foolish to “count our chickens before they hatch” but one lead is looking promising and we will continue to pursue any opportunity that arises.

Strategic Planning Committee producers and assist other agricultural entities whenever possible through collaboration. The wants list was too long to be included as part of this article. Funding was the limiting factor for immediate execution of the complete list so priorities were set. First priority - the storage shed to protect our equipment. By utilizing a lot already owned by $ARDA, withdrawing some funding from reserves and the income from the Tradeshow, our shed became a reality in 2017. Environmental degradation of our equipment has been averted. Additionally, vandalism and theft issues have hopefully been put behind us. An unforeseen benefit was

the increased efficiency of the staff during harvest. Second Priority Affectionately known as Phase II or the shop, the committee’s attention turned to the second building while the first was being built. Again there was a “needs list” and a “wants list” and eventually an architectural tech was hired to design a facility that had everything on the “wants list” and provide a ball park cost estimate. As typically happens some of the wants were dropped and we went back to the drawing board. Realistically this building is 2-5 years away from construction unless we win lotto 649. When complete, the shop will be practical, effective, and technologically modern

SARDA will host an AGM and Extension Event on February 20th at the Chevalier Centre in Falher. IN addition to the business portion of the event, we will hear about the new Soil Information Viewer, the Northern Alberta Industrial Hemp Initiative, SARDA’s regional variety trials and the Alberta Agriculture and Forestry support for local research associations. The event is free and lunch will be included. Pre-registration is requested for catering purposes. Reward yourself with knowledge and share that knowledge with your neighbours. Plan on becoming a Director. Register by calling 780-8372900 or by visiting www. sarda.ca/events and following the links See you February 20, 8:30am, at the Chevalier Centre.

February, 2018

Page 3

Summary of Water Quality Sampling Program, 2017 Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd

The SARDA Ag Research began a water quality monitoring program in 2011, with the assistance of Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd. Surface water samples were taken from three sites in SARDA’s research area: Peavine Creek (Municipal District [M.D.] of Smoky River), New Fish Creek (M.D. of Greenview) and the Little Smoky River (M.D. Greenview) (Table 1). Sample locations, chosen by SARDA, were based on their proximity to agricultural lands, uses as drinking water intakes, and their likelihood of exposure to terrestrial inputs. Sampling continued in 2017, with sampling occuring semiannually as in previous years. Sampling occurred once in the late spring to early summer after the spraying of pre-emergent herbicides on croplands, and again in late summer to early fall following harvest. Water samples were analyzed for nutrients, bacteria, pesticides, and metals. In 2017, samples were collected on June 5th for the spring/early summer period and October 30th for the fall period.

Site

Description

A B C

Peavine Creek New Fish Creek Little Smoky River

River Water Quality Index Site Ranking Aquality developed a modified version of Alberta Environment and Parks’ (AEP) River Water Quality Index in 2013. The index was modified to include all parameters sampled by SARDA; however, the methodology and statistical formula used to analyze the data remained the same. The index considers the number of times a parameter exceeded guidelines and the magnitude of those exceedances, broken down across four categories of parameters:

• • • •

Nutrients and Related Variables, Bacteria, Metals, Pesticides

The results from the subindices are averaged to provide an overall water quality index score for each site, with 100 being the best water quality and 0 being the poorest (Table 4). From these percentages, we can obtain a water quality rating for each site from excellent to poor.

% Score

Rating

96-100

Excellent (A) – Guidelines are always met, best quality

81-95

Good (B) – Guidelines are occasionally exceeded, but usually by small amounts

66-80

Fair (C) – Guidelines are sometimes exceeded by moderate amounts; occasionally water quality is undesirable

46-65

Marginal (D) – Guidelines are often exceeded, sometimes by large amounts

0-45

Poor (F) – Guidelines are always exceeded by large amounts, water quality is below desirable levels, worst quality

Page 4 February, 2018 4 Continued from page 3

In 2017 the AEP’s water quality tolerance parameters were updated to reflect changes in provincial water quality guidelines. The index was therefore subsequently updated to reflect these changes. The results from the past sampling periods (2011 – 2016) were

updated with the new changes. This allows for parameters to be comparable with the old data. The water quality index was calculated by season for all sample sites (Table 5). In 2017, the poorest water quality rating was observed at Peavine Creek in the spring (72%),

while the best water quality rating was observed at both the Little Smoky River (85%) in the spring and fall, together with Fish Creek in the Fall. All sample locations were considered to be Fair or Good in 2017.

Table 5. Average yearly water quality ratings for all sites, 2011 to 2017 with AEP 2017 updated parameters Year 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Sampling Event Spring

Peavine Creek

Fish Creek

Little Smoky River 85

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

100

Fall

100

Spring

100

Fall

100

Spring

Fall

100

Spring

100

Fall

100

Spring

100

Fall

100

The results from 2011 to 2017 show that overall water quality is typically poorer in the spring sampling period.

significant changes within the metal values.

Individual sub-indices for each of the four parameter groups were calculated for all sample sites (Table 6). Pesticides and bacteria show ‘excellent’ and ‘good’ results from all sites, maintaining a continually high standard.

The Smoky Applied Research and Demonstration Association (SARDA) has been monitoring water quality at three locations since 2011. The parameters assessed followed Alberta Environment & Parks Guidelines for river water quality and included nutrients, bacteria, metals and pesticides. This program has assisted in determining the most serious impediments to water quality in Peavine Creek, Fish Creek and the Little Smoky River. In 2017 guidelines for both total

the Good category, indicating that metals are the primarily responsible for impeded water quality at these sites. The updated guideline values have shown the most

Summary and Conclusions

phosphorus and total nitrogen were exceeded at Peavine Creek, averaged across the year, but concentrations were below guidelines for both Fish Creek and the Little Smoky River. This has remained consistent with previous sampling years. Bacteria remained below guidelines for both total coliforms and E.coli for all three sites. This remained consistent with the previous years sampling. No pesticides were detected within the 2017 sampling period. This remains consistent from 2016 and continues to be a high standard. Metals exceedances were most frequent at Fish Creek, followed

February, 2018

Page 5

by Peavine Creek and then the Little Smoky River, which was in agreement with the historical distribution of metals exceedances acros sites. The higher number and magnitude of exceedances in 2017 may in part be a result of different detection limits for metals parameters. Values for the River Water Quality Index in 2017 were in line with results from previous years, with metals and nutrients having consistently been the most impaired parameter groups. The Index values were also in line with the pattern of water quality between sites over previous years, with

Peavine Creek being the most impaired and the Little Smoky River having the highest water quality scores. While metals exceedances were a greater problem in 2017, this appears to largely have been a result of lowering of detection limits for several metals. Concentrations that previously would have been below detection limits (particularly for mercury) were being detected and at concentrations above the guideline. The results of this ongoing study indicate Peavine Creek has the greatest impediments to water quality, while Fish Creek and the Little Smoky River are less

impaired. In all systems, metals and to a lesser extent nutrients are the greatest impediments to water quality, though in Peavine Creek nutrients are a relatively greater problem than at the other sites. Due to the continued elevated nutrient concentrations at Peavine Creek, an investigation of differences in land use practices between the basins may be warranted to determine the source of these contaminants, though based on a preliminary examination it appears likely related to the small size of the catchment and the relatively higher density of agricultural lands compared to the other basins.

Table 6. Water quality sub-indices by year for all sites, 2011 to 2017. Year

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Sampling Event

Peavine Creek

Fish Creek

Nutr.

Bact.

Metals

Pest.

Spring

100

Fall

100

Spring

Fall

Spring

Little Smoky River

Nutr.

Bact.

Metals

Pest.

Nutr.

Bact.

Metals

Pest.

100

Fall

100

Spring

100

Fall

100

Spring

100

Fall

100

Spring

100

Fall

100

Spring

100

Fall

100

Page 6 February, 2018 6

Advanced Agronomic Practices in Pea to Maximize Yield and Harvestability Sheri Strydhorst, Ph.D

In 2011, APG commissioned a study, “Understanding Producer Concerns/Barriers to Growing Pulse Crops in Alberta. One of the study’s objectives was to identify reasons why producers do not grow pulses. The top production/agronomy recommendation was to target research and extension efforts to address: i) harvesting difficulties in wet and damp conditions; ii) managing the crop when harvesting is delayed, and iii) Developing and selecting varieties for “standability”. To address these harvest issues, a study was conducted using innovative agronomic practices including inter-row seeding and plant growth regulators (PGRs) to improve field pea standability. The objectives of this study are to: i) determine if PGRs or inter-row seeding improve field pea harvestability (2014-2016); ii) determine if cultivar specific PGR responses are occurring in field pea (2017). Field experiments were conducted over three growing seasons, at three rain-fed sites in the central and Peace regions of Alberta. Extreme lodging, which would have made field pea harvest extremely challenging for producers occurred 25% of the time. Moderate lodging occurred 38% of the time. No lodging occurred 38% of the time which coincided with extremely dry conditions. With moderate to severe lodging occurring 63% of

the time, it is clear that finding solutions to pea standability is an important area of research. Inter-row seeding peas into 20 or 30 cm standing stubble significantly improved standability between 6 to 23% when lodging occurred. Interrow seeding had the positive effects of reducing days to maturity and increasing thousand kernel weight. It slightly reduced seed protein content but had no significant impacts on yield. As such, inter-row seeding is recommended as a low cost, easy to implement practice for improving field pea standability. Three PGRs, at two rates, were tested on CDC Meadow and AAC Lacombe field pea. PGR A alone had little, if any, impact on field pea agronomic traits, yield or quality. In most instances, PGR B and PGR C had negligible impacts on standability. PGRs had minimal impacts on yield. However, PGR applications under dry conditions (when growing

season precipitation was 5354% of the long term average) tended to reduce yield. PGRs did not consistently: impact pea plant height, extend field pea maturity, nor did they have significant negative or positive effects on seed protein content Based on these small and inconsistent responses, PGRs show no value as an agronomic tool for improving standability and harvestability of field pea. The cultivar specific PGR response study in 2017 showed that CDC Meadow seemed to be slightly more responsive to the PGR treatments than AAC Lacombe indicating PGR responses may be cultivar specific. PGR treatments DID NOT CONSISTENTLY reduce height, improve standability, increase yield, or increase seed size and are NOT RECOMMENDED for use onfarm. Differences in cultivar specific responses indicate the need for further investigation to identify pea cultivars that may respond to PGRs.

February, 2018 Page 7

Testing of Perennial Forages: Forage Yields of 11 Grasses, 15 Legumes and 9 Mixtures Funder: Alberta Beef Producers, Collaborators: Chinook Applied Research Association (CARA)Peace Country Beef & Forage Association (PCBFA)

Perennial forages consisting of different grasses, legumes and grass/legume mixtures were seeded in 2016 in a province-wide project. Forages consisted of varieties which have been developed in recent years along with some older varieties. The project is intended to address the following ABP priority areas: (1) improved grazing, management and forage mixture strategies that optimize hay yields and beef production from native range and tame pastures, (2) quantification of varietal and species differences in the ability of grasses, legumes and annual forages to maintain nutritional quality throughout the grazing season and in extended stockpiled or swath grazing systems and (3) evaluation of yield, nutrient profile and animal performance of new forage varieties in geographical regions beyond the development region. This project will provide farmers and ranchers in Alberta with performance information on a number of perennial forages. In 2016, the following forages were seeded in High Prairie (W1/2-25-74-17-W5) at the recommended seeding rates: 11 grasses (Fleet Meadow Brome, AC Admiral Hybrid Brome, Knowles Hybrid Brome, Success Hybrid

Brome, Greenleaf Pubescent Wheatgrass, Kirk Crested Wheatgrass, Saltlander Green Wheatgrass, Fojtan Festulolium, Courtney Tall Fescue, Kilarney Orchardgrass, Grinstad Timothy), 15 legumes (44-44 Alfalfa, Dalton Alfalfa, PV Ultima Alfalfa, Rangelander Alfalfa, 20-10 Alfalfa, Rugged Alfalfa, Halo Alfalfa, Assalt ST Alfalfa Yellowhead Alfalfa, Spreador 5 Alfalfa, Nova Sainfoin, AC Mountainview Sainfoin, Oxley 2 Cicer Milk VetchVeldt Cicer Milk Vetch) and 9 grass/legume mixtures (Fleet Meadow Brome/ yellowhead alfalfa, Success Hybrid Brome/yellowhead alfalfa, Knowles Hybrid Brome/ yellowhead alfalfa, Fleet Meadow Brome/spredor 5 alfalfa, Success Hybrid Brome/ spredor 5 alfalfa, Knowles Hybrid Brome/spreador 5 alfalfa, Fleet Meadow Brome/

mountainview sainfoin, Success Hybrid Brome/ mountainview sainfoin, Knowles Hybrid Brome/ mountainview sainfoin). Legumes and mixtures were inoculated before seeding.

Summary Results of Forage Yield and Quality in 2017 Grasses

Forage DM yield: Greenleaf pubescent wheatgrass had the highest forage DM value (7597 lbs/acre), followed closely by Killarney orchardgrass (7103 lbs/acre). Fojtan festulolium and Courtney tall fescue seemed to have lower forage DM yields than other grasses. Forage Quality: The forage CP was highest for Success hybrid brome (13.1%) and lowest for Greenleaf pubescent

February, 2018

Page 8 8 Continued from page 7

wheatgrass (8.71%). Only 4 of the 11 grasses had 11% CP or more. Others had <11% CP. Except for Greenleaf pubescent wheatgrass, which had 58% forage TDN, the forage TDN was mostly >60%. AC Admiral hybrid brome, Success hybrid brome and Knowles hybrid brome had higher forage TDN than other grasses. The forage NEM varied from 1.33-1.44 Mcal/kg for the grasses tested.

Legumes

Forage DM yield: PV Ultima alfalfa produced higher forage DM yield values than other legumes. Forage Quality: The forage CP was highest for Assalt ST Alfalfa (19.6% CP), followed by Halo (17.2%) and then PV Ultima and Rangelander (with 16.6% CP each). Nine of the 15 legumes had 15% CP or more, while others had <15% CP. The 2 sainfoins and the 2 cicer milkvetches had lower forage CP than other legumes. The forage TDN was higher for Assalt ST alfalfa, Halo alfalfa, PV Ultima alfalfa, Oxley 2 cicer milkvetch, Veldt cicer milkvetch and Rangelander with about

60% or more TDN. Other forage legumes had <60% TDN. The forage NEM varied from 1.26-1.49 Mcal/kg for the legumes tested. We observed that Fojtan festulolium was not as good as other grasses in terms of establishment/stands and soil coverage in 2017. Forage DM was not determined from some Fojtan Festulolium plots due to lack of uniform stands.

Forage Mixtures

Botanical Composition: The grass component of the mixtures was mostly higher than the legume component. The percent composition of grasses was highest for Success hybrid brome (82.0%) in the Success HB/AC Mountainview mixture. Seven of the 9 mixtures had >50% grasses in the mixtures. Only 2 mixtures had more legumes than grasses in the mixtures. Spredor 5 was higher than AC Knowles MB in the AC Knowles MB/Spreador 5 as well as in Success HB/Spreador 5. Forage Dry Matter: Fleet MB/ Yellowhead had the highest forage DM (7490 lb/acre) and this was followed by AC

Knowles MB/Spreador 5 with 6759 lb/acre. The mixtures that included AC Mountainview sainfoin mostly seemed to have lower total forage DM yield than other mixtures. Forage Quality: The forage CP was highest for Fleet meadow brome/Spredor 5 mixture with about 20% CP. Six of the 9 mixtures had 17% CP or more. AC Knowles MB/Spreador 5, Fleet MB/AC Mountainview and Success HB/AC Mountainview had <14.0% CP. The forage TDN was 60% or more for 6 of the 9 mixtures. AC Knowles MB/Spreador 5, Fleet MB/AC Mountainview and Success HB/ AC Mountainview had <56% TDN. The forage NEM varied from 1.45-1.53 Mcal/kg for the mixtures tested.

Future Plan

Further evaluation (including forage yield, botanical composition of the mixtures, and field notes on winter kill) will continue in 2018. The project will conclude in 2018, so comprehensive information on the performance of the forages and forage mixtures will be available to producers in early 2019.

September, 2017 Page 9

DEVELOPMENT OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR INDUSTRIAL HEMP CULTIVATED IN ALBERTA by Jan Slaski

Jan Slaski talks about Hemp at SARDAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Research Plots The project was focused on field trials aimed at the development of information for the best management practices manual for hemp, grown for grain, which is currently a primary driver of the industry. Three hemp agronomy trials were run across Alberta over three growing seasons (20152017). We also generated knowledge for present and future growers wishing to manage the crop for grain and fibre. Trial 1 was aimed at evaluation of cultivar performance in different regions of Alberta to provide ranking of cultivars with respect to grain

and fibre yield, maturity and other yield contributing traits in three respective agro-climatic zones. The highest adaptability to a wide variety of edaphic conditions with respect to grain yield was found in X59, CFX1, CFX2 and CRS1, while early maturing, short stem varieties including Picolo, Grandi, Katani and Finola were generally found to yield 15-20% less than taller top yielders. Among the four fiber type varieties; Canda, Delores, Joey and Silesia, the latter was identified as the highest straw producer at all Alberta locations, averaging 7.2 t/ha, while exceeding 11 t/ha under optimal weather conditions. This monoecious,

late maturing variety was also the tallest but had the lowest harvest index, although its average grain yields were comparable to several grain type varieties. Trial 2 was focused on impacts of seeding dates on hemp performance. The frost-free period, amount of precipitation and length of daylight are considerably different among the selected locations. These environmental factors play a critical role in germination, canopy establishment, rate of stem elongation and ultimately affect yield quality and quantity. Across the sites and tested

Page 10 September, 2017 10 Continued from page 9

varieties, seeding delayed by a month caused a significant 15% reduction in grain and straw yield. Lower straw yield on plots seeded in mid-June was attributed to a reduced canopy height. Considerable differences in harvest index were found between the locations. Under the Peace Country conditions favoring production of vegetative biomass, harvest index was lower than at Lethbridge. This observation indicates that hemp for grain should be produced at southern locations, while the north is more suitable for the fiber production. Trial 3 addressed basic requirements for nitrogen fertility. Nutrient requirements and uptake were expected to

differ between the locations as a result of variability in soil temperature at seeding and soil type. Nitrogen availability is considered as one of the factors contributing to the extent of self-thinning and it also affects distribution of biomass between the generative and vegetative plant parts, ultimately determining grain and fibre yields. Increasing rates of nitrogen fertilizer impacted grain and fiber production in different fashions. Grain reached maximum yields at 120 kg /ha N and then slightly decreased, while straw yields peaked at 90 kg /ha N and subsequently plateaued when higher N rates were provided. Genotypical differences were found among the tested varieties with regard to nitrogen applications. Both studied grain-type varieties

(X59 and Finola) were more responsive to the increasing rate of N fertilizer than the fiber type Silesia with respect to seed production, while the opposite was reported for stem production indicating that separate N fertilization programs should be developed for varieties of different usage types. Information and knowledge generated during the course of this project was used to develop tools assisting hemp growers for implementation of best management practices including “Hemp Production eGuide” (http://hemptrade.ca/ eguide) and “Industrial Hemp Enterprise” (http://www1. agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/ deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex126).

February, 2018

Page 11

The Gray wolf (Canis lupus) The Gray wolf (Canis lupus) is an intelligent and resourceful predator found throughout Alberta’s foothills, mountains and boreal forest. It is the largest member of the wild dog species (Canis) and can weigh up to 60+ kgs. Typical prey includes moose, elk, deer, bison and smaller animals. They typically hunt at night as a pack, which can range from 2 - 20+ wolves. Populations in Alberta are considered stable.

Wolves and People

Myths and stories have been told throughout history about wolves. While some have been positive many have negatively portrayed wolves, often as a result of conflict with people. Livestock depredation is one such example. Normally, wolves are wary of people and will generally keep their distance and stay hidden. However, wolves that have been directly or indirectly fed by people (i.e. garbage, carcasses, etc.) and become food conditioned, or have learned to hunt livestock, are more likely to become problematic and pose livelihood and safety risks.

Be WolfSmart and adopt best management practices on your farm! Reducing and preventing conflict between wolves, people and livestock can be achieved by being WolfSmart. Best management practices include: 

Removing and properly storing attractants such as dead carcasses, other food sources and garbage.



Plan your breeding season, as the scent of birthing mothers and new born calves are strong attractants for wolves. Also remove afterbirth or still borns, and time castration and branding so calves can heal, thereby reducing smells, before they are released into pastures.



Use defined storage areas at least 200m from calving or feeding areas to reduce hiding cover. Also, plan your pasture sites, avoiding areas of thick vegetation, creek beds, etc.



Using pens, electric fencing, or guard dogs (e.g. Anatolians or Great Pyrenees) for livestock. Also increase the routine presence of people checking on livestock, at various hours.



Using hazing or scaring devices, such as fladry, strobe lights, or sirens to scare wolves away or alert people. Fladry combined with electric fencing has been particularly effective—use a series of bright cloth flags (red or orange) tied at 18-inch intervals on fencing to deter wolves.

Some resources that may be helpful include: http://www.watertonbiosphere.com/projects/carnivores-communities/ http://www.ablamb.ca/images/documents/management-modules/Predation-Management.pdf https://www.bcac.bc.ca/sites/bcac.localhost/files/WPLP%20Best%20Management%20Practices%20for%20Cattle.pdf http://www.albertatrappers.com/ Wolves can also be hunted or trapped in Alberta, subject to provincial regulations. Further information is available at MyWildAlberta.com

If a wolf approaches, growls or snarls:     

Show the wolf you are not easy prey—make yourself look bigger by waving your arms, and gather children or others close to form one large body. Always leave the wolf an escape route—never corner it. Back away slowly, looking for a safe place, and never turn your back. Carry and use bear spray. This is also advantageous for other species (i.e. bears, cougars). Make lots of noise and throw rocks, sticks or other objects if the wolf approaches.

Report wolf encounters by calling local Fish and Wildlife at 310-000. After regular business hours use the Report A Poacher line at 1-800-642-3800.

February, 2018

Page 1-13

Event Name

Location

Leading Edge Farm Management Conference

Red Deer Holiday Inn Hotel and Suites South, Red Deer

SARDA AGM and Extension Event

Chevalier Centre, Falher

Alberta Soils Science Workshop

Innotech Alberta, Edmonton

PCBFA Annual General Meeting

Dunvegan Inn and Suites, Fairview

AgSafe Quick Start Program TBA, Falher

2018 PRFSA Production and Marketing Seminar and Alfalfa Seed Production Rycroft Ag Center, Rycroft Workshop & Forage Seed Agronomy Update Ag Drone School

Crystal Creek Hall, Grande Prairie Lacomb Research & Development Center, Lacomb

2018 International CLUBROOT Workshop

Time

Date

Cost

9:30 am - 12:00 noon

February 13 & 14

$200

Visit www.albertacanola.com to Register

9:00 am to 4:00 pm

February 20

FREE

Please Pregister 780-837-2900 or www. sarda.ca/events

$250

Khalil will be presenting on behalf of SARDA Visit www.sarda.ca/events and follow the links

2:00 pm - 1:00 pm

February 20 - 22

Comments

3:30 pm -

February 23

$65

Purchase tickets now at https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/pcbfa-annual-general-meeting-2018-tickets-42697241599

TBA

March

FREE

Visit www.sarda.ca/events and follow the links

8:30 am to 4:30 pm

March 14 & 15

$20 Mar 14 $40 Mar 15

To register or for more info contact Calvin Yoder at 780-864-3879 Talon Gauthier at 877-630-2198 Pre-registration Required!

TBA

April 16-17

$590

9:30 am to 3:30 pm

June 27

FREE

Register at www.landview.com or call 780-448-7445 For more information go to https://albertacanola.com/event/canolapalooza/

For more information go to

Edmonton

TBA

August 7-9

TBA

https://albertacanola.com/ event/2018-international-clubroot-workshop/

February, 2018

Page 14 14

Wheat class changes to have minimal affect in insurance coverage By Mustafa Eric

The recent changes that have been introduced by Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) to wheat classes have led to some modifications in the way affected type of wheat crops will be insured beginning in 2018. In the first step of the wheat class modernization, as of August 2016, CGC moved five smaller acre Canada Western Red Spring Wheat (CWRS) varieties into the new Canada Northern Hard Red (CNHR) class. Twelve varieties from the Canada Western Red Winter (CWRW) and 10 Canada Prairie Spring Red (CPSR) varieties were moved into the new Canada Western Special Purpose (CWSP) class. The largest variety of CPSR moving to its new category is AC Foremost, a very popular and productive variety (with 53 per cent of CPSR acres insured in Alberta). Notable varieties of Canadian Western Red Spring (CWRS) migrating to their new class include Harvest (12 percent of insured acres) and Lillian (six per cent). In response to new classification of these wheat classes, AFSC has taken steps to ensure that clients will be minimally affected from the coverage of the wheat crops they grow.

“The goal of the insurance changes reflecting the CGC wheat class modernization is to minimize the impact to AFSC clients and continue to offer accurate insurance for wheat,” said Jesse Cole, Research Analyst at the Research and Product Development Department at AFSC. With this goal in mind, it has been decided that yield history for some affected classes like Canada Prairie Spring (CPS) and Hard Red Spring (HRS) will not be changed. “Clients with yield history for these wheat classes will not experience any change to their yield coverage for CPS and HRS,” said Cole. “Individual yield coverage for new classes will be created using historical records for varieties migrating from CPS and HRS to the new Canada Northern Hard Red (CNHR) and Canada Western Special Purpose (CWSP) classes,” he added. Yield records will be used as far back as 2001 to create coverage that reflects the history with varieties now belonging to the new classes. Options, benefits and features will reflect other wheat classes wherever possible, Cole stated.

Features of annual crop insurance like hail endorsement, spring price endorsement, variable price benefit, re-seeding benefit and unharvested benefit will all be available when insuring new categories of wheat. Clients must remember to elect the new wheat classes on their Annual Crop Insurance forms no later than April 30 to be eligible for coverage in 2018.

End use options

“Insurance offered for annual crops have ‘end-uses’ attached to the policy, depending on the eventual use of the product,” added Cole. For example, commercial is the most common use, including human consumption, livestock feed, etc. Other uses include pedigreed for certified seed production and organic for crops grown organically. “End-uses have slightly different insurance characteristics depending on the crop,” Cole went on. “The new wheat classes will have end-use for commercial, pedigreed, organic and silage/ greenfeed. They will not have one for high protein.” The new classification will not affect seeding dates, which

February, 2018 Page 15 will remain the same as other wheat types The new types will be eligible for clients to elect in all risk areas for dryland and irrigated production. More changes will be coming to wheat classes as CGC has announced that in August 2018, 25 CWRS and four Canadian

Prairie Spring (CPSR) varieties will be moved to the new CNHR class. Sixty per cent of insured CPSR and 20 per cent of insured CWRS wheat will migrate into the new CNHR class based on 2016 insured wheat data. Insurance adjustments regarding those new classes will be

announced once they have been finalized. Producers who wish to know more details about the new wheat classes and their insurance options should contact AFSC branch offices or call AFSCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Client Contact Centre 1.877.899.2372 or email info@ afsc.ca.

Page 16 February, 2018 16â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Emergency Response Planning on the Farm mind however, that the person with a specific responsibility may be the one injured so consider appointing various tasks to each individual.

www.agsafeab.ca

Are you prepared should an emergency arise on your farm? Do you have a plan in place? Many farmers know what to do in case of an emergency, but what if they are the one who is injured? Does your family know what to do? What about your employees? In an emergency when time is of the essence will you remember your LSD? What about emergency numbers? The importance of being prepared for an emergency is often overlooked. Creating an emergency response plan (ERP) for your operation can mean the difference between life and death. A plan can help preserve life either human or livestock, salvage your establishments, your equipment or your land.

When creating an emergency response plan, there are a few key things to keep in mind. The first step is to assess your operation and identify things that could potentially go wrong and cause an emergency situation. Structural fire, contact with a power line, natural gas leak, medical emergency, fall from a height, grain entrapment, flood or other natural disasters are some examples. Secondly, plan how you would manage these events should they occur. Who will call for help? Who will provide first aid? Involve everyone on the farm in this discussion and in the planning process. Decide who is best suited for each role and make sure they are comfortable with these responsibilities. Keep in

A third important step, is to inform everyone where the emergency equipment is stored on the farm. This could be first aid kits, fire extinguishers, eye wash stations or portable eye wash solution bottles. Other equipment could be for livestock emergencies or rescues from heights for example. Equipment can be stored at the main house, in the barn, shop and in tractors. We must remember to keep our equipment in good working order. Because they are not often used you should not assume they are working properly. Make sure first aids bandages are clean and free of rodent encounters. Verify that fire extinguishers are fully charged. Periodically check all your emergency equipment to ensure it is in â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;ready to useâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; condition. The forth step and the most common known step is to create an emergency contact list. This list should incorporate numbers that you may potentially require. Think about adding numbers such as; 911 (ambulance, fire department and RCMP/police), poison control, Alberta Health link, power company, gas company, phone company, local hospital administration, Alberta wildfire, Premises ID and people who are appointed to administer

February, 2018 Page 17 first aid and rescue. Don’t forget about your address or location. It is easy for producers to know their fields and often give them a ‘name’, but that does not help emergency responders to your location. Consider making a list of all your fields and pastures and their specific LSD. You may even consider writing driving directions to those locations from a main road or from a point of reference such as the main farmyard. Take this list and place it by the phone, in the shop, in the barn, the combine, the tractors, there is never too many places this can be. When creating your ERP, know that this helps emergency services respond to your emergency. Knowing where

hazards are such as gas lines, power lines, fuel and chemical storage helps everyone stay safe in an emergency. It is also good practice to sketch your farm. This enables you to help responders visualize your establishment before they enter. Having a drawing also allows you to direct firefighters to water sources such as dugouts, creeks and rivers. Now that you have a plan established, test it! Create a mock/pretend emergency that encompasses all the components of your plan. After you are done, discuss amongst yourselves to see how well it went. Did the communication tools work (cell phones, two-way radios, alarms)? Were directions to the location accurate? Did the

emergency equipment fit the situation? Make changes to your plan how you see fit. An emergency response plan can be as simple or as complex as you wish it to be. Remember that the more prepared you are, the more time you save in a time sensitive emergency. 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 Emergency Response Plan specific to your operation.

Page 18 February, 2018 18

Hello from the deep freeze! Having recently dug ourselves out from the nearly two feet of snow last week, it’s good to see the sun again! The County of Grande Prairie is pleased to announce the 2018 Farm Family. Arriving from Norway via Minnesota, and hiking the Edson Trail, Eugene’s grandfather Gus started it all in 1914. The 3rd and 4th generation (Eugene and Clint) and their wives (Ruth and Jennifer), are currently raising cattle and grain, and the 5th generation, Gunner will be raised in the family style. The Slette family has a long history of volunteer involvement in their community and 4H, and embodies the values the County embraces in choosing a Farm Family. Congratulations to

the Slette Family of LaGlace! In the office, we have been organizing numerous workshops, and preparing for the coming field season. On a rather miserable winter day in January, we co-hosted with SARDA ,a Clubroot Information Session in Sexsmith. In spite of the weather, we had a good turnout. Speakers from AB Agriculture and Forestry, and the Canola Council of Canada spoke on the characteristics of clubroot, the risks for spread into our county, and what could be done to reduce those risks. I also spoke about what the County is doing to minimize risk, and what the policy is if we find it here. Each year we inspect a minimum of 100 fields for clubroot, and have been doing this for the past 7+ years. To date, we have

not seen any evidence of clubroot in our fields. Clubroot has been confirmed in Big Lakes County and the MD of Greenview. Other Peace municipalities are clean. The Peace Country Classic will be held at Evergreen Park this spring, March 8th through 10th. The Farm Family Banquet will be hosted by the County of Grande Prairie on March 9th, in the beautifully renovated Clarkson Hall. The Ag department will have a booth at the PCC, so come and see us, and check out the displays! Until next time, stay warm!

February, 2018 Page 19

SARDA Updates by Shelleen Gerbig, P.Ag.

SARDA seeded its highest number of trials ever in 2017; 75 trials including canola, spring wheat, winter wheat, peas, barley, oats, faba beans, industrial hemp, flax, forage seed and quinoa. These trials were located in five different sites and the total number of plots was a staggering 3123. Although a few of the trials were destroyed by natural disasters, cutworms and hail, the majority of the trials were nursed through to successful competition. Even some of the plots damaged by hail were treated as a learning opportunity and data were gathered. 2018 is shaping up to be a busy year as well. We already have a number of trials and projects booked and in the planning stages. One of the favorite new trials conducted was the SARDA Variety Trial. Staff was able to

Hail Simulation Machine

source 20 different wheat varieties and 7 pea varieties from local producers and seed companies. These varieties were compared in replicated plots in 3 different locations in the south peace. The plots highlighted the genetic differences between the varieties

and showcased the location differences in climate and soils. SARDA plans to add to this trial by collecting protein and lodging ratings as well as yields. New potential varieties will be added and SARDA will continue to prioritize the trials to have results available early when growers need them. Other favorite trials, are the hail simulation trials. In these trials, we monitor the ability of crops to recover from varying degrees of hail damage on different growth stages. In addition, we look at the application of foliar fungicides and fertilizers and how they affect the recovery. This trial is duplicated in Lethbridge so we also monitor any location differences. 2017 was year 2 of 3 so the trials will be continued in 2018.

Page 20 February, 2018 20â&#x20AC;&#x192; continued from page 19

2017 was year 2 of 3 so they will be repeated in 2018. The extension department was busy in 2017. Planned for 2018: AGM and Extension Event, Summer Field School, Crop Walks, and Workshops. The Back Forty newsletter will continue with 6 issues, and many notices will be sent regarding issues and rule changes for agriculture. The website will continue to evolve with new information and events added every week. SARDA staff have also expanded their presence on Facebook and twitter. Our

Council, the Mighty Peace Watershed Alliance, the Heart River Watershed Advisory Committee, the Athabasca Watershed Council and the Northern Industrial Hemp Production Initiative for Alberta. We work collectively with other organizations in the Peace Region. A concept supported and promoted by the Board is the Regionally Connected Agriculture Apply Adapt Adopt. This would use the new CAP (Canadian Agriculture partnership fund, formally known as Growing

Industrial Hemp New potential crops are always interesting and SARDA had several new crops in the list of trials. quinoa, industrial hemp, and faba beans were tried with varying degrees of success. Quinoa was grown for the first time in 2017 and suffered significant damage from cutworm. It will be grown again in 2018. The industrial hemp trials finished in 2017. The results from the 3 years of trials by SARDA, InnoTech Alberta and Farming Smarter will soon be released. There were several different trials of faba beans.

Quinoa

Summer Field School

involvement in the community is strong as we supply judges for science fairs and participate in the Classroom Agriculture Program. March of 2019 will be our Premier Ag Trade Show, so planning will begin in 2018. The Environmental Program continues with water quality monitoring, spring and fall in 3 locations, pest monitoring, and a number of workshops and tours. We also maintain memberships on the Lesser Slave Watershed

Forward) to match the AOF (agriculture opportunities fund). This could potentially double the fund for the 12 ARAsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and Forage associations in Alberta. A contingent of the SARDA Board and PCBFA Board, met with Minister Oneil Carlier, Agriculture and Forestry, and Minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd, Energy, to further promote this concept. The Board and staff will continue to move forward with policy change, and branding. We

February, 2018 Page 21 start 2018 with a new website design and will be looking forward to new display and promotion equipment. Through effective work and attention to detail, our quality of work

is respected throughout the agriculture industry. Our ability to transfer information between research institutions, industry representatives, and primary producers is well recognized.

We are an association with strong roots in the agricultural community, directed by producers and coveted by industry.

February, 2018

Page 22 22

Alberta Succession Programming Do you have a succession plan? 70% of business and farm owners in Canada are looking to transition in the coming years and only 9% have a formal succession plan. Without a plan, businesses and farms will be forced to divest for pennies on the dollar or shut down completely. Education is key for a proper succession plan and that is why Succession Plan Canada, Succession Matching, and Community Futures Capital Region have partnered on three programs for business and farm owners across Alberta.

Business Transition Webinar Series

The webinars are 30 minutes each and participants can access them from the privacy of their own home or office. Session 1 - Writing a Succession Plan Session 2 - Family Transitions Presented by: Elaine Froese

Farm Family Coach Session 3 - Employee Share Ownership Programs Presented by: Dan Ohler, ESOP Builders Canada Session 4 - Third Party Sales Presented by: SuccessionMatching Session 5 - Emotional Readiness for Change Presented by: Dave Sinclair, Business Transitions + Session 6 - Mentorship Presented by: Doug Lawrence, Talent C Session 7 - Human Resources Issues Before, During, and After Transition Presented by: Christie Ferguson, 1 Stop HR

Session 10 - Tax Planning Presented by: Jordan Anderson, A-1 Accounting Session 11 - Insurance Strategies Presented by: Andrew Shorter, AMS Financial Group Session 12 - Legal Considerations Presented by: Joe Gill, Mckercher Law Session 13 - Financial Planning for Retirement Presented by: Cliff Wiegers Session 14 - Finding Financing for Buying a Farm Reschedule for next series.

Session 8 - Marketing Presented by: Kim Hoyer, Factor X

Session 15 - Business Financing Presented by: Ryan Reynard, Lake of the Woods Community Futures

Session 9 - The Importance of a Chartered Business Valuation Presented by: Paul Maarschalk, Maarschalk Valuations

Link to sign up for Webinars http://www. successionplancanada.com/ contact-us.html

February, 2018

Page 23

FARM SAFETY - YOUR WAY

AgSafe Alberta is a collaboration of crop and livestock producer groups that have come together to develop and deliver industry led farm safety management tools and programs for farmers and ranchers in the province of Alberta. The overall goal is to help farmers and ranchers integrate practical safety management programs into everyday operations of the farm, in order to prevent illness and injury for everyone involved on the farm.

As part of a pilot project, AgSafe Alberta Advisors are available to help Alberta agricultural producers set up farm safety management systems customized to each farm. Producers can start with one farm safety component, using one of the QuickStart Guides such as â&#x20AC;&#x153;Emergency Response Planning.â&#x20AC;? Producers may choose to build a full farm safety program with guidance from an AgSafe Advisor. The key to success will be to start with something manageable and then let the program grow and change over time. AgSafe Alberta Advisors are available to help producers walk through the process at whatever level they are comfortable with. Producers will not be charged for Advisor services during the pilot project.

1 2

Visit

AgSafeAB.ca for more details

3 4

Contact an AgSafe Advisor - Email: donna@agsafeab.ca - Call 403.348.9321 - Sign up at www.agsafeab.ca

Decide preferred level of farm safety programming - One or two QuickStart topics - Hazard assessment introduction - Full safety management system

Meet with the AgSafe Advisor

Start working towards your farm safety goals with help from an AgSafe Alberta advisor.

Implement your Program

Enjoy the reassurance that you are working to protect the people on your farm.

Farm Safety: Start small and let it grow!

February, 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