While drones have a foothold in the game of precision agriculture, some researchers are toying with the idea of using them as pollinators as well.
Researchers ordered a small drone online and souped it up with a strip of fuzz made from a horsehair paintbrush covered in a sticky gel. The device is about the size of a hummingbird, and has four spinning blades to keep it soaring. With enough practice, the scientists were able to maneuver the remote-controlled bot so that only the bristles, and not the bulky body or blades, brushed gently against a flower’s stamen to collect pollen – in this case, a wild lily (Lilium japonicum). To ensure the hairs collect pollen efficiently, the researchers covered them with ionic liquid gel (ILG), a sticky substance with a long-lasting “lift-and-stick-again” adhesive quality – perfect for taking pollen from one flower to the next. What’s more, the ILG mixture has another quality: When light hits it, it blends in with the color of its surroundings, potentially camouflaging the bot from would-be predators. | READ MORE
As a postdoc at the University of Guelph’s College of Biological Science, Liu had been working on a project transforming starch branching enzymes (SBEs) from maize into arabidopsis plants. For weeks, he’d been analyzing the interesting effects of the maize SBEs on the arabidopsis plants’ starch pathways. Then one day he realized the plants he’d been working on had grown much larger than the control plants. Not only that, but there were also far more seedpods, and their leaf and root systems were bigger, too.
“That was the beginning – I saw a really big arabidopsis plant and thought, let’s take a picture. Something has happened biologically,” Liu says.
He showed the photo to his supervisors, Guelph professors Michael Emes and Ian Tetlow.
“We’d found some interesting effects on the starch, and had done all sorts of measurements,” Emes echoes. “And then one day we stood back and looked at the plants, and we finally saw the wood for the trees. We saw these plants were really different.”
A healthy plant from a typical arabidopsis line normally bears about 11,000 seeds; the new plants bore 50,000 seeds per plant – a more than 400-per-cent increase in seed production.
“The plants were bigger, the leaves were bigger, there were more stems, there was more flowering and more seed,” Emes says. “It’s not just that there were a lot more seeds, there was a lot more of everything.
“It was one of those serendipitous events in science. If you’d asked me to produce a plant with more seeds I would have said you couldn’t get there from here,” he adds.
Liu’s focus had been on trying to analyze how the SBEs’ functions changed in arabidopsis leaves, but after this discovery his focus changed to studying the impact on seed yield and biomass, comparing transformed plants with wild-type arabidopsis plants. Importantly, the quality of the oil remained the same as for the non-transgenic plants.
The team published their findings this spring in the Arabidopsis is not a starch crop, but an oilseed genetically similar to canola, so the obvious application of the finding is in breeding higher-yielding oilseed crops for biofuels. Emes and Tetlow have already begun preliminary work with canola, but also foresee potential applications in camelina, soybeans and other crops.
While the dramatic increase in seed production might not occur as easily in canola as in arabidopsis, Liu says even a tenth of the effect would still mean an increase of 40 per cent – a substantial impact on yield.
“This is orders of magnitude different than conventional breeding,” Emes says.
But what, exactly, is going on in the plants?
The good times are here
Emes has a theory that the starch metabolism in the transformants has improved the plants’ ability to grow and reproduce.
The team is working on two lines using two starch genes from maize. In one of the new lines, there is a massive increase of starch in the leaves, which the plant breaks down overnight. In the other line, there is a bigger impact on yield; there is still an increase in starch in the leaves, but it doesn’t all break down at night, leaving a carbohydrate reserve.
“We know that carbohydrates, during seed development, come from the leaf through the vascular system and into the reproductive system. These are important to flower development and what’s called embryo abortion – the plant makes a kind of ‘decision’ on whether or not to produce seeds,” Emes explains. “Flower and seed production is limited by the supply of carbohydrates. So these plants are now saying, ‘The good times are here, let’s go for it.’ ”
Emes suspects that the wild type arabidopsis plant has an endogenous mechanism that constrains growth because it’s genetically evolved to always keep something in reserve. But in the transgenic plants, the brakes have been taken off.
If the scientists can crack the code on the maize SBEs’ effect on oilseeds, Emes sees potential applications for feedstock and oil for human consumption, as well as biofuels. He is currently seeking public and private funding to continue the project in canola.
Liu, now a regulatory scientist for the J.R. Simplot Company, says much more work is required to improve seed quality as well as yield in future breeding projects. “If you want to improve quality, if you want to improve omega-3 fatty acid or other special fatty acid content, for now I don’t have any insight on how you can improve those things, from this study,” he says. “At least, from the analysis of the arabidopsis you don’t see a change in these properties – you just get higher yields.”
But Liu is optimistic about the future applications of his work. “Genes are so powerful,” he says. “One small change could be a potential opportunity for dramatically improving crops.”
Despite efforts to reduce phosphorus levels in freshwater lakes in North America, phosphorus loads to lakes such as Lake Erie are still increasing, resulting in harmful algal blooms. This has led to increased pressure to reduce phosphorus from non-point sources such as agriculture.
While no-till has long been touted for its ability to reduce phosphorus (P) losses in field run-off by minimizing the amount of phosphorus leaving farm fields attached to soil particles, recent research raised concerns that phosphorus levels in tile drainage from no-till fields were higher than from conventionally tilled fields.
A group of long-time no-till farmers, called the ANSWERS group, wanted to see if this was the case on their own farms under their management practices. The farmers approached the government and researchers in order to set up a scientific study.
Funding came from Environment Canada’s Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), the Agricultural Adaptation Council’s Farm Innovation Fund and the Grain Farmers of Ontario. “It was a collaboration between researchers, farmers and government,” says Merrin Macrae, a researcher from the University of Waterloo. Macrae was involved in the project, along with Ivan O’Halloran, University of Guelph (Ridgetown), and Mike English, Wilfrid Laurier University.
The results were good news for farmers who have adopted no-till. There were no significant differences in the P losses between any of the tillage treatments, Macrae says.
The multiple-site, multiple-year project took place from 2011 to 2014 on farm fields near St. Marys and Innisfil under a corn-soybean-wheat rotation. A modified no-till system had been in place at both locations for several years prior to the study. This system is a predominantly no-till system but with some shallow tillage at one point during the three-year crop rotation, for example, following winter wheat. This tillage system is referred to in the study as reduced till (RT); the other two tillage systems in the comparison were strict no-till (NT) and annual disk till (AT) treatments.
Tile water was monitored for three years for each of the tillage treatments. The tile drains were intercepted at the field edge (below ground) to capture edge-of-field losses at each study plot. Discrete water samples were collected from each tile using automated water samplers triggered by tile run-off. The weather was also monitored.
Tillage type did not affect either the dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) or total phosphorus (TP) concentrations or loads in tile drainage. Both run-off and phosphorus export were episodic across all plots and most annual losses occurred during a few key events under heavy precipitation and snow melt events during the fall, winter and early spring, Macrae explains. The study shows the importance of crop management practices, especially during the non-growing season, she says.
Both tile drainage flow and phosphorus losses were lower than the researchers expected, Macrae says. Previous studies suggested about 40 per cent of precipitation leaves cropland in tile lines but in this study that proportion was significantly lower.
Macrae admits the researchers were surprised there wasn’t more dissolved phosphorus in the tile drainage water from the NT and RT sites due to the increased presence of macropores and worm holes. However, she points out that these farmers also use best management practices (BMPs) for phosphorus application in addition to using a reduced tillage system. For example, the farmers apply only the amount of phosphorus that the crop will remove. The phosphorus fertilizer is also banded below the surface instead of being surface-applied.
Macrae believes soil type also plays a role in the amount of dissolved phosphorus leaving farm fields in tile lines. “These sites were not on clay soils,” she says. “Clay soils are more prone to cracking, which could lead to higher phosphorus concentrations in tile lines.”
The research highlights the importance of bundling BMPs, Macrae emphasizes. “It’s not just tillage. Farmers should adopt a 4R’s approach: right source, right rate, right time, right place.”
Macrae also says farmers should do what they can to ensure nutrients stay in place, such as maintaining good soil health, using grassed waterways, riparian buffer strips and water and sediment control basins (WASCoBs) where needed, and carefully choosing when and how to apply nutrients.
“Since most of the water movement occurred during the non-growing season, the study showed the importance of how fields are left in winter and why it is important to not spread manure in winter,” she says.
The variability of rainfall intensity, duration and timing will also impact phosphorus losses, she adds.
In future, Macrae hopes to study the impact of tillage on phosphorus losses from clay soils as well as the impact of other management practices such as manure application and cover crops.
“The Canadian Drought Monitor is kind of an early warning system. It provides a clear picture of what is occurring in near real-time. We’re tracking drought conditions continuously so that we know where we’re at and we can respond quicker to problems,” explains Trevor Hadwen, an agroclimate specialist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). AAFC leads the Canadian Drought Monitor initiative, working in close collaboration with Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada.
He notes, “There is a very large process around developing the Drought Monitor maps that is unique to this particular product. It is not as simple as feeding climate data into a computer and having it spit out a map.” That’s because drought is difficult to measure. It can creep up on people as the cumulative effects of ongoing dry conditions gradually mount up. Its effects are often spread over broad areas. And different groups define drought conditions differently, depending on their interests and needs.
So, the Canadian Drought Monitor draws together diverse information like precipitation amounts, water storage levels, and river flow amounts, as well as information about drought impacts on people. And it combines various drought indicators used by the agriculture, forestry and water management sectors into a single composite indicator.
“All that information is put together to create one easy-to-read map product, with just five classes of drought or dryness. Users can get a very clear picture of the areal extent and severity of the drought with one look at the map,” Hadwen says.
The five drought classes are: D0, abnormally dry – an event that occurs once every three to five years; D1, moderate drought – an event that occurs every five to 10 years; D2, severe drought – an event that occurs every 10 to 20 years; D3, extreme drought – an event that occurs every 20 to 25 years; and D4, exceptional drought – an event that occurs every 50 years. The monthly maps are available in an interactive form that allows users to see the changes in drought location, extent and severity over time.
The Canadian Drought Monitor provides useful information for people in many sectors. Hadwen gives some examples: “For agriculture, the information helps with things like where people might want to market grains, where there might be shortages, where there might be areas of good pasture, where livestock reductions might be taking place, all those types of things. The information is also very valuable outside of agriculture, in terms of water supplies, recreational use, forest fires – the list can go on for quite a while.”
The Canadian Drought Monitor maps feed into the North American Drought Monitor maps. “The North American Drought Monitor initiative started about 12 years ago. The U.S. had been doing the U.S. Drought Monitor project for a number of years, and Mexico and Canada were interested in doing similar projects,” Hadwen notes. “So we joined forces to create a Drought Monitor for the continent.” All three countries use the same procedures to monitor, analyze and present drought-related information.
The continent-wide collaboration provides a couple of big benefits. “Number one, drought doesn’t stop at the borders,” he says. The North American initiative provides an integrated view of drought conditions across the continent.
“Also, the Drought Monitor is extremely powerful in terms of the partnerships that have developed and the linkages to some of the best scientists in North America. We share ideas and build off each other, developing better and more accurate ways of assessing drought. We can utilize some of the information generated from U.S. agencies, like NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] and the National Drought Mitigation Center, and agencies in Mexico. This collaboration effort helps increase the efficiency of the science and the technical aspect of drought monitoring.”
According to Hadwen, the continental collaboration has been really helpful in building Canadian agroclimate monitoring capacity. “Over the last decade or so we have certainly matured a lot, and we’ve started to develop some really interesting tools and applications for Canadian producers and agricultural businesses to help deal with some of the climate threats to the farming industry, including droughts, floods, and everything else,” Hadwen says.
AAFC’s Drought Watch website (agr.gc.ca/drought) provides access to the Canadian Drought Monitor maps and to
other agroclimate tools such as maps showing current and past information on precipitation, temperature and various drought indices, and the Agroclimate Impact Reporter (scroll down to see sidebar).
WHEN COMPLAINING ABOUT THE WEATHER MAKES A DIFFERENCE
If you love to talk about the weather's impacts on your farming operation, the Agroclimate Impact Reporter (AIR) could be for you. If you want your comments about these impacts to make a difference, then AIR is definitely for you. And if you want to find out how the weather is impacting agriculture in your rural municipality, your province, or anywhere in Canada, then AIR is also for you.
AIR is a cool online tool developed by AAFC that grew out of a previous program to collect information on some drought impacts. "We have had a program in place to monitor forage production and farm water supplies in the Prairies for well over 15 years. Then about three years ago, we started to develop a tool to replace that program – a tool that would be national in scope and that could gather information on a whole range of agroclimate impacts," Hadwen explains.
AIR taps into a volunteer network of producers, AAFC staff, agribusiness people and others. "We use crowd-source data for this, gathering information from a whole wide variety of people. Some of them we know through our registered network, and others have a subscription to our email box and provide comments to us on a monthly basis," he says.
"We're trying to gather as much information from as many people as possible on how weather is impacting their farming operations. We ask the participants to do a short [anonymous] monthly survey, usually about 25 quick multiple choice questions, to let us know how things are going."
AIR is collecting impact information in several categories including: drought, excess moisture, heat stress, frost, and severe weather (like tornadoes and hail storms).
"We plot that information and produce a whole bunch of individual maps showing very subject-specific information from each survey question," Hadwen notes. "We also have a searchable online geographic database. On a map of Canada, you can zoom in on different regions and see where we're getting reports of a large number of impacts or not as many impacts. You can even drill down into that map and see the exact comments that we are getting from [the different types of respondents, in each rural municipality]."
The information collected through AIR provides important additional insights into the weather conditions and related issues and risks. He says, "Sometimes the data we have in Canada isn't as fulsome as we would like, and sometimes it doesn't tell the whole story. For instance, the data [from weather stations in a particular area] might show that it didn't rain for a very long period and the area is in a very bad drought, but the producers in the area are telling us that they got some timely rains through that dry period that helped their crops continue to grow. Or, the data might show that we received a lot of rain in a season – like we did in 2015, if you look at the overall trend – but the farmers are telling us that there were big problems in the spring. So, combining both those types of information certainly helps draw the whole story together a little better."
AIR information feeds into the Canadian Drought Monitor to help in assessing the severity of drought conditions. As well, the AAFC's Agroclimate group incorporates AIR information into its regular updates to AAFC's Minister and senior policy people; it helps them to better understand what is happening on the land, and that knowledge can help in developing policies and targeting programs.
Information from AIR is also valuable for businesses that work with producers, such as railroad companies wondering about regional crop yields and where to place their rail cars, and agricultural input companies wondering if they need to bring in extra feed or fertilizer.
AAFC is in the process building AIR into a national program. "We want to collect agroclimate impact information from right across the country. We have a history in the Prairie region, so we have more Prairie producers providing information. We've made inroads into B.C., so we're getting some reports from there already," Hadwen says. "[Now] we're going out to Atlantic Canada and Ontario. And over the next couple of years, we'll be expanding AIR right across the country."
If you are interested in becoming a volunteer AIR reporter, visit www.agr.gc.ca/air.
May 12, 2016 - With farming season soon to be underway, a research group is looking for canola to help with their study.
Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute (PAMI) researchers are hoping to further pursue a study they began in 2014 by monitoring canola used for summer storage.
Apr. 26, 2016 - Honey bee colonies in the United States are in decline, due in part to the ill effects of voracious mites, fungal gut parasites and a wide variety of debilitating viruses. Researchers from the University of Maryland (UMD) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently completed the first comprehensive, multi-year study of honey bee parasites and disease as part of the National Honey Bee Disease Survey. The findings reveal some alarming patterns, but provide at least a few pieces of good news as well.
The results, published online in the journal Apidologie on April 20, 2016, provide an important five-year baseline against which to track future trends. Key findings show that the varroa mite, a major honey bee pest, is far more abundant than previous estimates indicated and is closely linked to several damaging viruses. Also, the results show that the previously rare Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus has skyrocketed in prevalence since it was first detected by the survey in 2010.
The good news, however, is that three potentially damaging exotic species have not yet been introduced into the United States: the parasitic tropilaelaps mite, the Asian honey bee Apis cerana and slow bee paralysis virus.
"Poor honey bee health has gained a lot of attention from scientists and the media alike in recent years. However, our study is the first systematic survey to establish disease baselines, so that we can track changes in disease prevalence over time," said Kirsten Traynor, a postdoctoral researcher in entomology at UMD and lead author on the study. "It highlights some troubling trends and indicates that parasites strongly influence viral prevalence."
The results, based on a survey of beekeepers and samples from bee colonies in 41 states and two territories (Puerto Rico and Guam), span five seasons from 2009 through 2014. The study looked at two major parasites that affect honey bees: the varroa mite and nosema, a fungal parasite that disrupts a bee's digestive system. The study found clear annual trends in the prevalence of both parasites, with varroa infestations peaking in late summer or early fall and nosema peaking in late winter.
The study also found notable differences in the prevalence of varroa and nosema between migratory and stationary beehives. Migratory beekeepers -- those who truck their hives across the country every summer to pollinate a variety of crops -- reported lower levels of varroa compared with stationary beekeepers, whose hives stay put year-round. However, the reverse was true for nosema, with a lower relative incidence of nosema infection reported by stationary beekeepers.
Additionally, more than 50 per cent of all beekeeping operations sampled had high levels of varroa infestation at the beginning of winter -- a crucial time when colonies are producing long-lived winter bees that must survive on stored pollen and honey.
"Our biggest surprise was the high level of varroa, especially in fall, and in well-managed colonies cared for by beekeepers who have taken steps to control the mites," said study co-author Dennis vanEngelsdorp, an assistant professor of entomology at UMD. "We knew that varroa was a problem, but it seems to be an even bigger problem than we first thought. Moreover, varroa's ability to spread viruses presents a more dire situation than we suspected."
For years, evidence has pointed to varroa mites as a culprit in the spread of viruses, vanEngelsdorp noted. Until now, however, much of this evidence came from lab-based studies. The current study provides crucial field-based validation of the link between varroa and viruses.
"We know that varroa acts as a vector for viruses. The mites are basically dirty hypodermic needles," Traynor said. "The main diet for the mites is blood from the developing bee larva. When the bee emerges, the mites move on to the nearest larval cell, bringing viruses with them. Varroa can also spread viruses between colonies. When a bee feeds on a flower, mites can jump from one bee to another and infect a whole new colony."
Nosema, the fungal gut parasite, appears to have a more nuanced relationship with honey bee viruses. Nosema infection strongly correlates to the prevalence of Lake Sinai Virus 2, first identified in 2013, and also raises the risk for Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus. However, the researchers found an inverse relationship between nosema and Deformed Wing Virus.
Some viruses do not appear to be associated with varroa or nosema at all. One example is Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus, which causes loss of motor control and can kill individual bees within days. This virus was first detected by the survey in the U.S. in 2010. At that time, less than one per cent of all samples submitted for study tested positive for the virus. Since then, the virus' prevalence roughly doubled every year, reaching 16 per cent in 2014.
"Prior to this national survey, we lacked the epidemiological baselines of disease prevalence in honey bees. Similar information has been available for years for the cattle, pork and chicken industries," Traynor said. "I think people who get into beekeeping need to know that it requires maintenance. You wouldn't get a dog and not take it to the vet, for example. People need to know what is going on with the livestock they're managing."
While parasites and disease are huge factors in declining honey bee health, there are other contributors as well. Pesticides, for example, have been implicated in the decline of bee colonies across the country.
"Our next step is to provide a similar baseline assessment for the effects of pesticides," vanEngelsdorp said. "We have multiple years of data and as soon as we've finished the analyses, we'll be ready to tell that part of the story as well."
Frequent fallow without nitrogen fertilizer led to long-term soil degradation and lower yield. Photo by Bruce Barker.
In this era of focusing on short-term results, a long-term viewpoint is indeed, unique. But the long-term crop rotation study established in 1951 at Lethbridge, Alta. is a model for the long view, especially in biological systems where changes can take decades.
“We still maintain the long-term plots. We need to reapply for funding every three to five years for these studies, to purchase seed, fertilizer and pesticides,” Elwin Smith says. Smith is a bioeconomist at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) at Lethbridge Research Centre.
Smith, along with colleagues Henry Janzen and Francis Larney, established a six-year bioassay study in 1995 that was imposed on the long-term Lethbridge plots to look at the impact of long-term rotations on soil quality, productivity, nitrogen (N) fertilizer effects on wheat yield and quality, and whether N fertilizer can overcome poor long-term rotations. The results were analyzed and published in the Canadian Journal of Plant Science in 2015.
The long-term plots
The soil was an Orthic Dark Brown Chernozem clay loam with level and uniform topography, and calcareous subsoil. Seven rotations were established, reflecting crop rotations that were common in 1951. In 1985, several changes to the plots and rotations were made to add alternate crops being grown at the time and an additional N management component to maintain crop productivity. Thirteen rotations were included in the study from 1985 through 1994 (see Table 1 below).
From 1995 to 2000, all 116 plots were no-till seeded to spring wheat cultivar Katepwa. A preseed burnoff of glyphosate was applied to control weeds. In-crop weeds were controlled with appropriate herbicides. Phosphorus (P) fertilizer was applied with the seed to all plots as 0-45-0, at an average rate of 7.9 kg P/ha (16 lb P2O5/ac).
The rotation plots for each replicate were divided into two randomly assigned strips, one with zero N fertilizer (control) and one strip with N fertilizer applied at an average rate of 56 kg N/ha (49 lb N/ac).
The first two years of yield data were excluded from the bioassay analysis of total wheat yield because of confounding short-term effects of land use the year prior to the study.
Smith says the 1995 soil analysis indicated crop rotations with less frequent fallow and with N input had higher soil quality, as indicated by soil organic carbon (SOC) and light fraction carbon (LF-C) and N (LF-N). Organic matter was higher in long-term plots that had N added to the system or with lower fallow frequency. The higher organic matter also contributed to improved wheat yield. (See Fig. 1 below.)
“The presence of frequent fallow in crop rotations had a negative effect on total wheat yield, long-term productivity and grain N concentration, even with past and current application of N fertilizer,” Smith reports.
Treatments fertilized with N had a four-year total wheat yield approximately 30 per cent higher than unfertilized treatments. Without the application of N, total wheat yield was highest in the FWWHHH rotation, followed by plots that previously had native grass, and continuous wheat with previously added N. Smith says plots without N and high fallow frequency (FW, FWW) resulted in lower total yield regardless of N added in his study.
In Smith’s study, N fertilizer was unable to compensate for the lower productivity of fallow-based rotations that did not replenish N removed by the crop, or for rotations that were in fallow one-half of the time and had added N.
“The yield differences from this study demonstrated that previous N fertility management and crop rotation impacted current crop yield. Management practices that replenished N to the system had higher current yield, while rotations with fallow reduced current yield. The current application of N fertilizer could not overcome the yield disadvantage from previous systems with frequent fallow and no N fertilizer,” Smith says. “Producers need to recognize the importance of crop rotation and N fertility management on both long-term and current crop productivity.”
Glenlea Research Station at the University of Manitoba is home to several long-term systems-level research studies. Photo by Julienne Isaacs.
According to Don Flaten, a professor in the department of soil science at the University of Manitoba (U of M), when new research data from one of U of M’s long-term studies is published, word quickly spreads to his colleagues around the world. “Before long, they’re calling to say, ‘Don, why didn’t you tell us about this data sooner?’” he says.
Data from long-term research studies becomes exponentially valuable over time, but such studies are becoming rarer – particularly when they operate at the systems level, analyzing a variety of qualities in the agricultural system, and their interactions, over time.
“Studies like these are always under pressure because they consume resources,” says Martin Entz, a professor in the U of M’s plant sciences department, and head of Glenlea Research Station’s 24-year long-term organic and conventional cropping study. “When times get tough, they’re on the chopping block.”
Flaten says universities are especially challenged to maintain long-term trials. He leads the National Centre for Livestock and the Environment’s (NCLE’s) long-term manure and crop management field laboratory at Glenlea. “Our study has no permanent technical support,” he says. “It relies on year-to-year funding from granting agencies. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s (AAFC) support for long-term studies is vital.”
The project also relies on local industry partnerships with the Manitoba Pork Council and the Dairy Farmers of Manitoba, and a variety of national and provincial grants.
Glenlea is home to several long-term systems-level research studies, including Entz’ study, which began in 1992, and is Canada’s oldest evaluation of organic cropping systems. But Entz says there are even older studies across Canada, such as AAFC’s long-term crop rotation study based at Indian Head Research Farm, which has been running since 1958. Lethbridge is also home to a very simple rotation study (not systems-based) that has been running since 1911.
“These studies are national treasures, producing amazing results that we’d never expect,” Entz says.
According to Christine Rawluk, NCLE’s research development coordinator, long-term systems-level research studies are important because systems are incredibly complex and change over time. “If you make a decision based on a short-term study, you don’t know if the change you’re implementing has true benefits or negative consequences in the long-term,” she says. “Time is a really important part of the system itself.”
Systems are vulnerable to a wide range of factors, such as weather and soil variability, and management practices.
NCLE’s manure and crop management study analyzes the effects of different types of manure fertilizer on soil nutrients over time. “One year or even three years doesn’t give you the whole picture, particularly with nitrogen, because the yields don’t start showing an effect from solid manures before five years or more,” Rawluk says. “So if we were to look at it for just one growing season, we wouldn’t have an accurate sense of how organic reserves of soil nitrogen are becoming available over repeated years.”
Flaten says farmers take a long-term approach to farming by applying specific management practices over extended periods, so it only makes sense to analyze practices in the long-term at the research level. These studies can account for the impact of short-term practices in the long term. “And sometimes there are results you don’t understand, which challenges us to realize there’s more to systems than we know,” he says.
Entz says his long-term study has paid off in spades. “One of the things we’ve discovered is that the more ecological farming systems that use fewer external inputs over time, with small adjustments to management, have become very productive and economically and biologically efficient. We’d never have discovered that if we’d only done that for five years,” he says.
The Glenlea studies have a highly practical element. Researchers actively encourage involvement from industry groups and producers so they can influence the studies from the ground up.
NCLE’s studies aim to encourage partnerships between crop and livestock producers. “We’re looking for opportunities to capitalize on the integration of livestock and cropland,” Rawluk says. “Whether it’s a mixed operation or a situation where your neighbour has annual crops where you’re applying your manure, we’re looking for opportunities for collaboration at the farm level.”
There’s another key benefit to Glenlea’s long-term systems-level research studies: they actively encourage interdisciplinary conversations and cross-departmental collaboration, which counteracts a culture of specialization that has actually been counterproductive to agricultural research.
Long-term systems-level studies are designed to be sustainable, which means seeking input from experts across the university. “When considering parameters for the Glenlea study, we consulted with economists, soil scientists, entomologists,” Entz says.
“Specialization has become the norm, and agriculture is no different – we have specialists in particular areas of soil fertility, and in plant diseases,” he notes. “You’d be surprised how difficult it is for those specialists to talk to each other. But the farm system is not specialized – what happens in one part affects the other parts. That specialization has precipitated very specialized research. Everyone is solving a problem their own way. But at some point you have to put it all together.”
Flaten calls long-term systems-level studies “goldmines” of data for agricultural research. Entz agrees. “The systems-level approach to long-term studies is valuable because life works at the systems level,” he says.
The 2015 drought in Alberta and Saskatchewan is part of a thousand-year history of recurring Prairie droughts. That history includes multi-year and even multi-decade droughts. If you overlay that difficult past with a warmer and possibly drier future, what might that mean for Prairie agriculture?
“Looking at the zone on the Prairies where most of the field crops are grown, the 2015 winter-spring is by far the driest in the past 68 years,” David Phillips, senior climatologist with Environment Canada, says. For the Prairie region, good quality weather records only go back 68 years, although records for the major Prairie cities start in the late 1800s. “Although parts of Manitoba had more precipitation than normal in 2015, parts of western Saskatchewan and Alberta were exceedingly bone dry.”
The severe drought conditions persisted in much of Alberta and Saskatchewan until late July, when rains came to parts of the drought-affected region, especially in Saskatchewan. Phillips gives an example: “In Saskatoon, from Jan. 1 to July 30 in 2015, the total precipitation, snow and rain, was 147 millimetres (mm). Looking at records that go back to the 1880s, the driest weather for January to July was in 2001, with 124.6 mm. But in 2015, during the first 26 days of July, there was only 18 mm of rain in Saskatoon, and then from July 27 to 31, there was 67 mm. So, from Jan. 1 to July 26, Saskatoon had a grand total of only 80 mm. Even in 2001, for that same period from Jan. 1 to July 26, the total was 112 mm, so it wasn’t even close to as dry as it was in 2015.”
Trevor Hadwen, agroclimate specialist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, highlights some of the agricultural impacts of the 2015 drought in Alberta and Saskatchewan. “Early on, people were having to reseed crops because of poor emergence. Then it was just too dry for crops to emerge from the soil. So a lot of crops were later seeded, and by the time they got moisture, they were very late into the season and people were concerned that frost would be an issue in the fall.
“Another impact starting very early in the spring was that pasture and forage production was very poor. Very dry and delayed productivity of grasslands developed throughout Saskatchewan and Alberta, and there was a lot of concern for feed availability.”
Hadwen says the late July rains saved the crops in Saskatchewan and parts of Alberta, but other areas in Alberta continued to suffer drought conditions. “By the end of the summer, Saskatchewan was above average for rainfall despite the extremely dry spring. In Alberta, the drought areas really started to concentrate around the Edmonton region, and in some portions of the south. In southern Alberta, rainfall shortages were made up by some irrigation in the spring, helping those areas very significantly. So the main areas of impact for drought overall this summer ended up being in the Edmonton and northern Alberta regions.” By the end of October, significant drought conditions still persisted in central and northern Alberta.
Phillips notes the 2015 growing conditions could have been even worse. “The summer of 2015 was about the tenth warmest, but thank goodness it wasn’t any warmer than that because there would clearly have been more drought issues. The other thing that saved some growers, particularly in Saskatchewan, was that 2014 had been very wet, so the crops [in the spring of 2015] were probably sucking off that moisture from 2014.”
Past trends, future possibilities
Prairie droughts are definitely not a new phenomenon – just ask Dave Sauchyn from the University of Regina. He has been studying past climate trends on the Prairies by measuring the widths of annual growth rings in trees.
“We’ve been collecting dead wood for 25 years now; we have more than 8000 pieces. In order to grow, trees need light, heat, soil and water, and they have plenty of all of those in summertime except water. So, the pattern of tree growth tells us very much about the amount of water available every year for the last thousand years,” Sauchyn explains.
“We’ve found droughts that were much more severe and much more prolonged than anything we’ve seen on the Prairies in the last 120 years, including the 1930s. For example, just before Europeans came to the Canadian Prairies, there were droughts of 10 or 20 years in duration.”
Sauchyn’s research shows that, over the past 1000 years, the Prairie climate has included many droughts that have lasted a decade or longer.
He adds, “Based on the science, it is entirely possible that we could see prolonged drought some time in this century.”
In the coming decades, the Prairies are likely to continue getting warmer. “The most consistent scenarios show increasing temperatures, so a continuation of the trend observed over the last half century. And much of the warming is occurring in the winter, so the Prairies and most of Canada are getting less cold. Minimum temperatures – the temperatures at night and in winter – are rising,” Sauchyn explains.
Predictions relating to Prairie moisture conditions are more complex. “One trend is more precipitation, especially in winter, because as the temperature of the air increases, it can hold more moisture. Also, the source of our moisture is the oceans, and the oceans are getting warmer, so they are producing more water vapour,” Sauchyn says. Warmer, wetter weather sounds promising for Prairie crop production. However, the models also indicate the extra water may not necessarily arrive in ways that are best for crop production. Some of the extra water may arrive as winter rains, when crops aren’t growing, and the range of moisture conditions will likely be much larger, swinging between extremely wet and extremely dry conditions.
So the predictions present a mix of advantages and disadvantages for Prairie crop production, including opportunities to grow higher value crops that require a longer growing season, increased risks of drought stress, heat stress and waterlogging, and changes in disease, insect and weed issues as these organisms adapt to their changing environment.
“I think it is a matter of adapting, doing things differently, storing precipitation, using creative ways to do more with the precipitation you get, and trying to adapt your planting decisions to cushion the blow,” Phillips says. “By preparing for the changing weather and responding to it, we can mitigate the effects of it or capitalize on it. I think we have to be climate smart, weather smart, in what we do – try new things and be resilient enough to change according to how things are going.”
Overall, Phillips is optimistic about the future for Canadian crop production in the face of climate change. “There are many challenges today for growers, but incredible advances have been made. And I think better science will help deal with some of the challenges ahead. Also, I think we’re in better shape in Canada than in many other countries to be able to weather the storm, so to speak, of a warming climate. I think growers are willing to try new things, and with a changing climate, that will be one of our strengths. The inventiveness, adaptability and resiliency of growers make me think the future is bright.”
Sauchyn has been studying adaptation and vulnerability to drought on the Prairies in recent years. He says, “Adaptation is nothing new to Prairie farmers. The Prairies have one of the more inhospitable climates in the world – throughout the history of Prairie agriculture, farmers have had to adapt to a climate that is colder and drier and has a much shorter growing season. They just have to keep adapting because the climate keeps changing like a moving target.”
ARE THE PRAIRIES GETTING STORMIER?
Although news and social media stories may give the impression that Prairie weather is getting stormier, the jury is still out on the actual trends. That’s mainly because Prairie records aren’t long enough to establish firm trends.
John Hanesiak, a University of Manitoba scientist who studies storms and atmospheric processes, explains that at least 30 years of good records are needed to start examining weather trends and the records for Prairie storms are just getting to that length.
“For tornadoes, our record is really good from about 1985 onwards. For heavy rains, hail, damaging windstorms and things like that, our record is not quite as good because people generally don’t report those events as well. A storm event could be quite local and Environment Canada may not necessarily know how bad it was. Also, sometimes there isn’t the ability for someone to go and verify that the storm event was severe.”
Another complication is that reporting biases can muddy the trends. “There is ‘population bias’: you get better reporting from areas with a lot of people than from places where there aren’t many people. [So as the population grows in a region, you get more reports.] And people are more prone to report these events nowadays than they used to be – people have cameras all the time, whereas even 10 years ago that wasn’t the case,” Hanesiak notes. He adds there are statistical methods to try to account for those biases, “but we don’t really know how good they are.”
Hanesiak summarizes the current situation for Prairie storm events: “For tornadoes, usually we see between 40 and 45 per year on the Prairies, based on a 30-year average; Manitoba gets about 10, and Alberta and Saskatchewan get about 15 or 20 each per year. There are usually about 30 strong wind events and about 15 heavy rain events per year. And there are about 60 hail events per year; most of those are in Alberta because of the proximity to the mountains.”
Some of Hanesiak’s research involves figuring out future trends in severe storm events. “One of the problems that has been plaguing us for the last while is that climate models are usually needed to do long-range projections and the climate models have spatial scales in the order of 120 to 200 kilometres. But we need to get down to 10 kilometres or less to resolve the detail that is needed for convective summer storms.”
Fortunately, regional climate models have recently been developed that have scales down to about 30 or 40 kilometres. So they can capture more details of the jet stream patterns and moisture patterns in the atmosphere than the climate models can. Hanesiak says, “We know that more moisture and stronger winds in the upper parts of the atmosphere are important for producing severe weather. So we can look at those kinds of things and see how they have changed, and try to tease out what we might expect in the future.”
Hanesiak’s research group is currently using this approach to run a hail model. The researchers are just starting to analyze the data from this work, but their initial findings are intriguing. “It looks like we might expect to see fewer hail days in the future on the Prairies, but when they do happen they will tend to have more larger hail, so they’ll have more damage potential,” Hanesiak says.
“Also, there seems to be a seasonal shift. At present, [in the southern Prairies] we tend to see most of our hail and severe weather around the June-July time period. But that seems to be potentially shifting by mid-century toward the April-May time period, with less hail in July-August. The northern Prairies and the Northwest Territories don’t see that many hail events now, but in the future it looks like their June-July-August period will be quite changed, with more frequent and more severe hail events.”
Hanesiak’s research group is planning to do more of this type of research. For instance, next year, one of Hanesiak’s graduate students will be using the same approach to look into future trends in Prairie tornado events.
Researchers used polyethylene tanks meant for fish, at Simpson, Sask. Note the grass growth on top and the drip line. Photo by Larry Braul, AAFC.
Thank the Swedes for this idea: “biobeds” that promise to protect water quality for generations to come. The concept represents a low cost, environmentally friendly way to deal with the rinse water flushed out of agricultural field sprayers.
According to Larry Braul, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada water quality engineer in Regina, the biobed is an organic filter for pesticides, using conventional low value material. The use of biobeds has become an accepted practice in Europe in the past 15 years.
Braul and Claudia Sheedy, research scientist with AAFC at Lethbridge, Alta., are co-leading the project to develop a biobed model to support Canadian farmers. Starting with one biobed at Outlook, Sask. in 2014, AAFC expanded the project in 2015 to sites at Simpson, Sask., and Grande Prairie and Vegreville, Alta. An additional biobed was constructed in fall of 2015 and will be monitored in 2016 at Lethbridge. “At the end of 2016, we expect to have enough data to produce a construction, operation and maintenance manual for biobeds,” Braul notes.
Initial results promising
“The first year at Outlook, it was highly effective. It removed more than 98 per cent and up to 100 per cent of the pesticides it received. That was very positive, and the results we just got back for 2015 are very similar,” Braul says.
“Our climate is much colder than Europe and we have more intense rainfall events. We are working to address those issues with designs revised for the Prairies,” he adds.
In principle, a biobed is relatively inexpensive, easy to use and significantly accelerates the natural breakdown processes for pesticides. The most challenging aspect at this point is in finding or developing an inexpensive method to easily collect the sprayer rinse water. On most farms when rinsing, the sprayer arms are fully extended while water is pumped through the system. As a result, a catch basin for that spray would need to be up to 120 feet long by about 20 feet wide and would need to drain the spray to a point where it can be collected.
The contained biobed for the rinse water uses a mixture of topsoil, compost and straw. It provides an ideal habitat for microbes to break down the pesticides carried in the rinse water, to the point they pose no threat to the environment.
In the project’s first year, Braul and Sheedy discovered the biobed at Outlook was still frozen a few inches below the surface in May, when they hoped to use it. It needed to be warmed to about 10 C, so that microbes could process the rinse water.
They resolved that issue for 2015. Braul says, “Microorganisms like warm conditions. In a new biobed, we put heat tape at the bottom. We can get them up to almost 30 C at the end of May, so they can really start breaking down the pesticides. With a little heat application at the right time, we are probably doubling the decomposition rate they’re getting in Europe.”
European research found that half and up to 90 per cent of pesticide contamination in groundwater could be traced to the places where sprayers were rinsed, Braul says. Two factors go into that: there’s a concentration of pesticides in one place, and a lot of water washing it down. It’s too much for the microorganisms to process.
Often the topsoil is stripped off and replaced with gravel at the site where the farm sprayer is rinsed. This removes the organic matter that absorbs pesticides and allows the pesticide to leach through the soil zone. Often, it’s fairly close to the well that supplies the water.
“That’s the worst situation for managing the site,” Braul says. “It becomes quite a significant source of contamination. Instead, if we capture that rinsate, contain it and treat it, we can make a significant impact on the contamination problem.”
The Swedes were first to address the problem. They collected rinsate and applied it to the top of a simple hole in the ground filled with the biomix material. “The Swedes applied the rinsate to the top of the biomix and let it seep through into the ground. It was the standard for six or seven years. It was a heck of a lot better than putting it on gravel, because it absorbed a lot of the pesticide. Now, with more sensitive instruments, we know that model doesn’t remove all the pesticides,” Braul says.
Current practice is to build a contained biobed up to a metre deep. In the UK, that would be lined at the bottom with clay or plastic, and drained with weeping tile.
For their first project, Braul and Sheedy built a wood frame structure. On later projects they also used open polyethylene tanks meant for fish. Plans call for putting the biomix into big tote bags already used for storing granular fertilizer or pesticide. “Really, you can use anything as a container for the biomix,” Braul says.
The biomix material needs three basic components: topsoil (from a field is best, because it will already have microbes adapted to degrading pesticides); woodchips or straw (to provide the lignin for microbial food and structure); and, compost or peat (to provide the organic matter that absorbs the pesticides).
Among design variations tried in 2015, the most efficient was a two-cell system about a half-metre deep. Each cell has a six-inch layer of crushed rock at the bottom. A sump pump collects leachate from below the crushed rock in the first cell and pumps it to the surface of the second cell. “Two cells remove a much higher percentage of the pesticide than single cell biobeds,” Braul notes.
Although literature from the European experience suggests that nearly all the microbial activity happens in the top six inches of the biobed, most beds are one metre thick to provide additional absorption capacity. At the University of Regina, microbiologist Chris Yost is using DNA testing to determine the type and number of microbes at various depths. Yost hopes to determine the region of greatest microbial activity.
At Outlook, a two-cell biobed only a half-metre deep worked better than expected, Braul says. In practice, degradation of pesticides in the biomix can take three to six months, he adds.
There’s still a need to deal with the reasonably clean leachate coming from the bottom of the biomix, and a need for eventual disposal of the biomix itself. “Effluent has an extremely low level of remaining pesticide. We recommend spraying it on an area that has some organic matter and lots of microorganisms, and allow nature to do its work. One option is to put it into a tank and spray it someplace, or you can sprinkle it safely on grass or drip it along a row of trees. The little amount of remaining pesticide will be degraded in the topsoil,” he says.
Setting up a collection pad for the sprayer rinsate would be the biggest single cost. It can be constructed from heavy plastic but a concrete pad is ideal. “If you want to collect everything you rinse out, you have a fairly large concrete pad. Depending on where you are, it probably could cost $5,000 to $10,000. That’s a big challenge – but some inexpensive creative options are possible,” Braul says.
Mar. 21, 2016 - Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (AF) undertakes a number of research projects to ensure the quality and safety of land, air, and water for our food producers. Although long-term monitoring shows the overall quality of Alberta's irrigation water is good or excellent, a study is currently underway to use DNA fingerprinting techniques to determine the sources of contamination of irrigation water. While there are no current concerns, this is an opportunity to improve water quality for the future.
The Water Quality Section of AF is currently working with the Taber Irrigation District on a pilot study to understand the sources of E. coli in irrigation water. The study is funded by Growing Forward 2, a federal-provincial-territorial initiative. The District has made water quality a key part of their mandate to ensure farmers are growing the best quality crops.
Often, irrigators are required to have water quality tests completed to market their produce, and with recent changes in regulations in the United States (US), this need may increase. In the US, the Food Safety Modernization Act requires testing of water that is used to irrigate fruits and vegetables which are consumed raw. These regulations may affect Alberta producers with irrigated crops destined for export to the US.
This study will assist in identifying opportunities to continue to improve water quality, and help producers meet their food safety requirements for the global marketplace. The key item being measured in the study is E. coli. Generic E. coli are present in the intestines of most people and animals, and are excreted in feces. E. coli are therefore used to measure fecal contamination in water. The testing is complicated, as there are "naturalized" E. coli that occur in the environment and are not indicative of fecal contamination.
"Research gives us a better understanding on the amount of fecal and naturalized E. coli in irrigation water. The discovery of naturalized E. coli is very important because food safety is concerned about fecal contamination. If we find E. coli in water, we need to determine whether it is fecal or naturalized, which then determines if there is a food safety concern or not," says Andrea Kalischuk, director of water quality, AF.
"Our study in the Milk River area showed cliff swallows and cattle contaminated some of the water, but a significant proportion of naturalized E. coli was also observed" says Kalischuk. Whatever the study identifies as a source of contamination, the research team and irrigation district will need to work with producers to seek a balanced solution that supports both the agriculture industry and wildlife habitat, while meeting food safety requirements.
This is the final year of a three-year study, and a summary report will be shared with producers on AF's website in the fall of 2017.
Wheat beside canola stubble. Photo by Steve Larocque.
Morrin, Alberta farmer and certified crop advisor Steve Larocque’s journey into extreme precision agriculture was made possible by a dose of chance, an eye for potential, and a willingness to step into the unknown, followed by a whole lot of brain-bendingly intense mental energy. The results, preliminary yields suggest, may change the way top farmers use controlled traffic farming (CTF).
“We chanced on what I call fencerow farming almost by accident, which I guess is the way most really cool, innovative things are discovered,” Larocque says. “Now that we’re seven years in, I really believe it is the future of controlled traffic farming for top farmers, at least for those who are as anal or type A as me.”
Back when Larocque first jumped into CTF, his initial challenge was to figure out how to adjust his equipment to manage residue while staying on CTF tramlines. While most people seed right between previous rows, Larocque found that ground hard and dry, especially in low moisture years. Instead, he offset his hitch by just two inches, allowing his shanks to seed right alongside the previous year’s stubble where the soil is comparatively softer and moister. While this seed placement is unusual, Larocque’s wouldn’t be much of a story if his efforts had ended there. But, about the same time, he started thinking more and more about something that at first glance seems entirely unrelated: old fence lines.
Over decades, fence lines catch drifting soil, building up a four, five, even 10 foot wide raised area that boasts a substantially deeper A horizon (top soil strata) compared to the rest of the field. Long after the fence line is removed, the built up area offers a better growing medium with richer, more deeply placed nutrients and a greater amount of beneficial biological activity.
Like many farmers, Larocque noticed time and again that his yield monitor spiked as his combine heaved up and over the headlands of long-gone fence lines. There had to be a way, he figured, of mimicking that fence line effect along every row of his field to achieve a yield jump in each and every plant. Not one to watch and wait for others to innovate, Larocque converted his farm into a large-scale “fencerow farming” experiment.
Since he was already placing seeds close to old stubble to capture maximum moisture, Larocque began seeding in a four year placement rotation (ie: row A in year 1, two inches left of row A in year 2, two inches right of row A in year 3, back on top of row A in year 4). This seed placement resulted in a six inch wide “fencerow” every 12 inches throughout the field.
Intensive soil testing suggests Larocque’s fencerow seeding method is generating a host of benefits. The consistent location of the stubble row builds up and concentrates organic matter like mini fencerows. In dry years, the highest soil moisture content is found inside the previous year’s root ball and can spell the difference between weak and strong emergence. Equally importantly, Larocque says, fencerow farming allows him to improve the availability of nutrients through row loading.
“If you seed across your stubble or even between rows, you dilute your mobile nutrients. You’ll accumulate them over time but never in high concentration. What we are trying to do is create a biological zone that is super loaded with as much nutrient as possible – macros, micros, biologicals, even fungicides and pesticides – anything that can support the plant in furrow,” Larocque says. “We keep all of the nutrients within the same furrows, maximizing availability to the crop, decreasing nutrient immobilization, and super loading the biosphere to support tons of biological activity.”
“We’ve been using fertilizer in the same way for 40 years. We’re seeing yield improvements because we have better varieties than we used to, but we’re not seeing yield improvements from how we actually use fertilizer. There are ways of using the same inputs we’ve always used but using them with much more efficiency,” he adds.
With six seasons of fencerow farming under his belt, Larocque says it is still too early to prove with yield data the single most important question about fencerow farming: whether it actually produces sufficient financial benefit to justify the required RTK technology’s $35,000 price tag, and the admittedly intense mental effort.
“We believe that it absolutely will prove itself, but we haven’t put in enough years yet. And we still have some fine-tuning to do to tighten up our furrows so we only cover 25 per cent of our land with furrows, not 50 per cent as we do now. All indications show that we’re on the right track. But it takes at least six years to change things substantially enough in the soil’s structure, biological health and nutrient availability to be really noticeable, and we’re only on year seven,” he says.
While Larocque’s preliminary results look good, the results of long-time fencerow farmer Dean Glenney offer even more promise. Glenney has been quietly growing corn in southern Ontario according to fencerow farming principles for more than 20 years. Larocque hopes to soon achieve comparable results to his fencerow farming predecessor.
“Glenney is pulling 300 bu/ac corn while everyone else around is pulling 170 bu/ac corn on the same rainfall. That gets a guy like me excited,” Larocque says. “It may take a decade to see the results but once we’re there, we hope to achieve what Dean Glenney has in Ontario with the same technique.”
Larocque is convinced today’s generally accepted concept of controlled traffic farming just barely scratches the surface of precision agriculture’s benefits. While he admits his precision-to-a-whole-new-level farming technique might sound extreme, he firmly believes the results from his farm will pave the way for top farmers.
“There’s no question: what I call fencerow farming is the future for the top 10 or maybe 20 per cent of Alberta farmers,” Larocque says.
In fact, the greatest deterrent to greater uptake is not the technology itself but rather the culture and expectations surrounding Canadian farming, he says.
“Until the pain of staying the same is more than the pain of change, people will continue to do the same thing over and over, and watch from the sidelines. Why would you change when things are working OK – not working amazingly, but working OK?” Larocque says. “You see much greater adoption of innovation in places like Australia or South America because they don’t have back stops like crop insurance there. Guys have to be really sharp or they get knocked out of the business.”
Fencerow farming does take an added level of management, admits Larocque. For him, though, the mental exercise required to create, analyze, fine tune and problem solve a workable fencerow farming system into existence in his fields makes farming “a lot more fun.”
To farmers who might be nervous about jumping into this intense form of farming, he says: “Half the battle is just getting your head wrapped around it. You absolutely can do it, and you can do it on larger scale. You don’t flip the switch and start fencerow farming, you just baby-step into it. Once you put in the up-front time to get started, controlled traffic farming makes your life easier because you know exactly where to go. And if you can get bigger returns for the same amount of crop inputs? That’s what we need to prove to get people on board.”
Dense, compacted subsoil layers can have serious crop yield impacts. They can impair root penetration, limiting root access to water and nutrients, and they can decrease water infiltration and increase the risk of ponding, runoff and erosion. One way to try to improve soil with a compacted layer is to use a deep tillage implement, but that can be expensive. So University of Saskatchewan (U of S) soil scientist Jeff Schoenau is leading a new project to evaluate precision subsoiling.
A common cause of subsoil compaction is repeated wheel traffic, for example in travel and loading areas, especially if heavy field equipment is used on clayey soils in wet conditions. As well, natural soil-forming processes can create a hardpan layer, such as in Solonetzic soils.
Solonetzic soils have a hard, sodium-rich B horizon (the soil layer below the topsoil, or A horizon). “The presence of large amounts of sodium causes some soil dispersion and the creation of these hardpans due to clay movement into the B horizon,” Schoenau explains.
The majority of Canada’s six to eight million hectares of Solonetzic soils are found in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Solonetzic soils tend to occur in areas with high-sodium parent materials or where groundwater carries sodium into the soil. For example, there are broad areas dominated by Solonetzic soils along the edge of the Missouri Coteau in Saskatchewan, such as the Central Butte area and the Radville to Estevan area.
Building on previous findings
Although subsoiling was studied in past decades on the Prairies, not much research had been done recently until Schoenau’s research group conducted a study that began in 2010. In that study, they used a paraplow, a type of subsoiler that has been on the market for quite a while. As the tip of a paraplow moves through the subsoil, it lifts and then drops the soil column, loosening the soil. It causes limited disturbance of the soil surface, as the loosening point is run at a depth of 45 centimetres.
That study’s treatments compared spring and fall subsoiling, two different subsoiling depths and two different shank spacings. It took place at three irrigated sites and one dryland site in south-central Saskatchewan in the Lake Diefenbaker area.
One site had soil structural issues because of its Solonetzic soils. Unfortunately, the study’s fieldwork took place during two unusually wet years, 2010 and 2011, and the Solonetzic site had to be abandoned due to flooding.
At the other sites, the researchers didn’t detect any serious compaction problems. Nevertheless, subsoiling did affect soil conditions and water infiltration at those sites.
“One of the things we found is that subsoiling did significantly increase the infiltration of water and reduced the density and strength of the soil. How long those effects persist depends on the moisture conditions; we tended to see less persistence if it was really wet than if it was dry,” Schoenau says.
Subsoiling resulted in variable and typically small yield increases of about five to eight per cent. He notes, “If you compare that yield advantage to the subsoiling costs, it was about a breakeven proposition. We concluded that the effects would have to persist longer than one year or else be of a larger magnitude in order for subsoiling to be really economical on these particular soils, where serious compaction issues were not evident.”
So, if you break even on subsoiling costs in soils without serious compaction problems, then might subsoiling be economical if it were just targeted at those patches in a field where serious soil structural problems occur?
Schoenau’s new precision subsoiling project could help answer that question.
He is working on this project with his colleague in the department of soil science, soil physicist Bing Si. The Saskatchewan Agriculture Development Fund, Saskatchewan Wheat Development Commission and Western Grains Research Foundation are funding the project.
The two sites for this project are both in the Lake Diefenbaker area near Central Butte and are both dryland locations. At one site, the researchers have induced some soil compaction through repeated wheel traffic. At the other site, they have set up a smaller experiment on a field with significant structural limitations due to a Solonetzic hardpan layer.
In the fall of 2015 at the two sites, the researchers began by mapping the location and depth of spots where the subsoil’s soil strength and density were high enough to limit root growth. “We have a cone penetrometer, and we use a sampling grid to make maps of the penetration resistance [soil strength] before and after the subsoiling,” explains Schoenau. A cone penetrometer is an instrument consisting of a narrow steel shaft with a cone at one end. As the penetrometer is pushed into the soil, the pressure gauge at the top end of the shaft indicates how much pressure is needed to move the cone through the soil.
Also in the fall, the researchers carried out the subsoiling in replicated plots, comparing three treatments: subsoiling only those parts of the plot identified as having a dense subsoil layer; subsoiling the entire plot; and no subsoiling, as a check.
They used a modern subsoiling implement – a John Deere 2100 minimum till ripper provided by Western Sales, a Saskatchewan farm equipment dealer. These types of subsoilers have a set of coulter disks to open the soil and then a following set of shanks with a near-horizontal tip (or share) at the base of each shank. Schoenau says, “As the unit moves through the soil there is little disturbance at the soil surface, just from the shank itself. But down deep at the depth of operation, which is around 30 centimetres, the shank creates a lifting or loosening action.”
He explains that dense subsoil layers typically occur at variable depths below the surface. He adds, “In some of our early work, we found that if we went too shallow, subsoiling didn’t work as well. Similarly if we widened the spacings above what was recommended and went to really wide spacings, we didn’t get as good results.”
For the next two years, the researchers will be monitoring the effects of the 2015 subsoiling on soil properties and crop yields. Schoenau says, “In the spring of 2016, we will be looking at the persistence of the effects on bulk density and penetration resistance. Then we’ll measure crop yield at the different transect points in our replicated plots. And we’ll be doing that for the following two years so we will have yield data from wheat in 2016 and canola in 2017.” Then they’ll evaluate the costs and benefits of precision subsoiling compared to subsoiling of a whole field.
For crop growers with fields that have zones of high-density subsoils, the project should provide new information on the value of precision subsoiling.
“I think it will show the potential benefits of applying the subsoiling technique to soils and particularly to areas of a field where there is an issue with soil compaction from wheel traffic under very wet conditions or naturally occurring dense B horizons,” Schoenau says.
“I think it will give us insight into how subsoiling affects the properties of the soil and ultimately how that translates into any potential yield benefits and enhanced economic returns to the grower.”
The first step in getting reliable data on the value of hail-rescue products is to be able to accurately and consistently simulate hail damage to crops. That’s not as simple as you might think. But Alberta researchers have come up with an innovative, inexpensive and effective hail simulation tool. So in 2016 they’ll start evaluating a variety of hail-rescue products in replicated, multi-location trials.
Hail can shred and strip off leaves and flowers, break stems, bruise seeds, aggravate crop disease, produce uneven maturity in crop stands and reduce yields. In Alberta, hail damage is a serious issue. Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC), an Alberta crown corporation that has been providing hail insurance to Alberta farmers for over 75 years, had its highest hail claim year in 2012, when it paid $445.6 million on 8400 claims.
Ken Coles, general manager of Farming Smarter, is leading the hail-rescue project, which started in 2015. His interest in hail damage was sparked by Alberta farmers who wanted to learn more about the effects of products such as fungicides and nutrient blends that were being marketed as treatments to help crops recover from hail damage. “We felt fairly strongly that we could answer their questions, but we’d have to do it in a controlled manner and probably in small plot studies, which meant we had to simulate hail,” he explains.
“We tried for a couple of years to get a project funded with not much success because the funders didn’t like the chances of us being able to come up with something that could simulate hail in a meaningful way. They seemed more interested in having us go to actual hailed fields, but my experience in field-scale research indicates we wouldn’t be able to control the variables enough to learn what’s what with any confidence, if we used that approach.”
He adds, “I think farmers have found the same thing when they try to evaluate the effects of a hail-rescue product on their own fields. The hail itself is so variable that you can’t know with any certainty whether spraying the product was worth it or not.”
Fortunately, the Alberta Pulse Growers Commission (APG) was willing to fund the project without shared funding from other crop producer groups. According to Coles, APG’s interest in the project was sparked by the experiences of pulse growers. “Some of the best anecdotal stories about hail-rescue products come from pulses, peas in particular. I’ve heard stories about responses to some of the strobilurin fungicides applied after hail that sound like big fish stories – farmers would spray half their hail-damaged field with the product and that half would out-yield the other half by 80 or 100 per cent. So the thought is that maybe there is something happening.”
Phase one of the project was to develop a hail simulation tool. To do this, Coles teamed up with Ralph Lange at Alberta Innovates Technology Futures (AITF).
Lange and his lab started experimenting with hail simulation about four years ago when AFSC asked them to study some issues around hail damage in canola. “AFSC wanted to look at the interaction between crop disease and hail. They also wanted to update the data used to correlate yield loss with the amount of hail damage; the existing tables were developed for canola varieties that were in production a long time ago. As well, we conduct some education and training for AFSC, so our hail damage work is also tied into that,” Lange explains.
To find reliable, accurate answers to AFSC’s questions, they needed to figure out how to simulate hail. Lange says, “When you do herbicide, fungicide or fertilizer experiments, it is easy to do each treatment several times at a location and at several locations. But you can’t get a cloud to hail on your treatment plots and not on your control plots.”
Lange’s group tried various ways to solve the create-your-own-hail challenge. For instance, they used scissors to remove branches from canola plants. “However, when a hail stone strikes a plant, it doesn’t always remove a branch completely. The branch may hang there by threads, or the hail may simply bruise it without breaking it. The scissors didn’t replicate that damage accurately enough,” he notes.
They also experimented with throwing pea-sized gravel by hand from a high vantage point down onto the plots, which produced fairly realistic damage. However, the people throwing the gravel would have risked getting repetitive strain injuries to create high levels of crop damage on replicated plot trials. Plus there was gravel all over the plots. Yet another method they tried was to use a flail mower, keeping the mower at a low speed and a relatively high height above the plots. However, it caused too much damage to accurately replicate what happens to hail-damaged plants.
“Then Rod Werezuk [a research technologist in Lange’s lab] came up with the idea of hitting the plants with a chain to simulate something with a roundish shape falling out of the sky,” Lange says. “We found that a fairly small chain – the original one was a dog leash – creates damage that looks a lot like hail. We confirmed that with the AFSC crop adjustors because they have seen thousands and thousands of instances of hail damage.” So Lange’s group has successfully been using hand-held chains for their canola plots.
“But of course, if you want to do multiple experiments over different locations, with different damage levels and all those things, then doing it by hand isn’t practical,” Lange notes.
So Coles took the chain idea and mechanized it. This custom-built machine involves many small chains on a rotating drum that is attached to the front of a small tractor. To test the machine, Coles collaborated with Lange’s group on their canola project in 2015. Lange’s team used their hand-held chains and Coles used the machine, and they compared the results. As well, AFSC crop adjustors evaluated the hail simulation effects on the plants.
“Amazingly enough, the machine turns out to be quite effective at simulating hail damage,” Coles says. “It’s not perfect yet, but we’ve identified where we need to make some tweaks to make it a little better.”
One of the great things about the machine is that the researchers have all sorts of ways to adjust it so they can get the exact hail effect they want. For instance, they can control the tractor speed, the drum speed and the direction of travel, and they can change the chain configurations and use different sizes or lengths of chains.
Coles says, “It gives us the ability to repeat the treatments, for replicated treatment plots. It also allows us to compare a hail-damaged crop to the same crop that wasn’t damaged. That’s critical to doing good science so we can know what the crop’s yield potential was without the hail.”
Lange adds, “We think this has great potential to put some solid numbers behind hail research. You can think of all kinds of scenarios. For instance, we’re looking at crop disease. Your first-year university plant pathology textbook will say hail damage to a plant will promote disease. Now we can replicate that to see if that is true or not, and to see how much damage it takes and when that damage has to occur, which diseases are affected more than others, and so on.”
Now that they have a mechanized hail simulator, the researchers will be starting phase two of the project: the hail-rescue trials in pulses. It will be a collaborative effort between Coles, Lange and the Smoky Applied Research and Demonstration Association (SARDA), involving three years of trials at Lethbridge (Coles), Vegreville (Lange) and Falher (SARDA). This fall they are building two more of the simulators, so each site will have its own machine. All the sites will have pea plots, and the Lethbridge site will also have dry bean plots.
They are planning to have five hail damage levels (0, 25, 50, 75 and 100 per cent) and probably three timings for the hail damage (early, mid and late season). For the hail-rescue treatments, they will be comparing two fungicides, two nutrient blends and a combination of fungicides and nutrients. They will be evaluating the treatment effects on such factors as crop growth, harvestability and yields.
They have also added a new component to the project for 2016. Coles explains, “I’m going to work with Dr. Anne Smith, a remote sensing scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, to look at the use of drones. I’m excited about the potential of drones, but I think it’s been a little overhyped and underdeveloped. Everyone is struggling with finding true value for drones in the agriculture industry, and much of the evaluation is being done in a way that is not reproducible, not even comparable. So I wanted to do a project where drones might help, and we thought this hail project would be a neat one.”
The idea is to use the plots to calibrate hail-damage imagery from drones. A drone can be flown over a crop field in parallel passes, taking photos at regular intervals to map the field. The drone’s camera can be set up to capture different wavelengths of light reflected from the field’s surface. Healthy plants have different reflectance characteristics than damaged or dead plants. The resulting imagery can be correlated with the crop’s actual condition, if the imagery has been “ground-truthed,” where known crop conditions are associated with the patterns in the imagery. So Coles and Smith will be flying a drone over the hail simulation plots to get the necessary ground-truthing data. Then they can develop a formula, or “algorithm,” to convert the patterns in the imagery into information on hail damage.
“If we can calibrate the imagery, then we could fly a farmer’s field and assess the level of hail damage and the spatial distribution of the damage,” Coles explains. “That might give the farmer better information for decision-making. For example, let’s say half the field is ranked at 90 per cent damage and the other half is 30 per cent. So if the farmer wants to apply a hail-rescue product, then he knows where to apply it.”
Looking further down the road, Coles might want to explore other questions about hail-damaged crops. In 2015, he had hail damage on his own farm for the first time, so his personal interest in the issue has skyrocketed. “It opened up my eyes to the challenges associated with hail – the percentage damage versus the timing of the damage, the crop type, the spatial distribution of the hail damage. There’s more to dealing with hail than just decisions about hail-rescue products. Around my farm, everyone with hail damage phoned the feedlot and ended up silaging their crops off. And I wondered, ‘Should I be doing that?’ I have a seed production contract with a local seed grower, so whether I can still make seed affects the decision. And then wherever there’s hail damage you get secondary growth with tillers. In my case, I estimated that I had 30 to 40 per cent regrowth. So if I have part of my crop ready to harvest and the other part is still green, what should I do? No one I asked really knew what to do.”
He adds, “Hail is a tough thing to deal with as a farmer because you have so much invested in your crops and you want to make the best of what you do have.”
Feb. 11, 2016 – The federal government and three provincial canola grower organizations are jointly funding new agronomic research focused on sustainably and profitably increasing canola production in Canada.
"Continued innovation in agronomic practices is a cornerstone to our industry's Keep it Coming strategic plan," says Patti Miller, president of the Canola Council of Canada (CCC). "This research investment plays a key role in determining best management practices that will help us achieve our shared vision of a 52 bushel per acre average yield by 2025."
Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay made the funding announcement today. The investment is being made through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Agri-Science Project (ASP) under Growing Forward 2. Over $980,000 in federal funding is being combined with contributions from the Manitoba Canola Growers Association, Saskatchewan Canola Development Commission and the Alberta Canola Producers Commission for a total investment of $1.9 million over five years. Program management is being provided by the CCC.
The ASP, entitled "In Pursuit of 52 by 2025," brings together several priority areas in which it was identified that canola research could be enhanced, and would benefit significantly from additional resources, including disease management, stand establishment and pollinator health. The project also addresses crop production concerns that aren't typically addressed by private industry but play a pivotal role in increasing canola yield and quality, increasing profitability, increasing sustainability and reducing production risk.
"Continued support by the federal government and collaboration amongst participants will help us address the key research challenges with focused efforts and minimal duplication – a critical step in maximizing research dollars," says Miller.
Projects being funded under the "In Pursuit of 52 by 2025" ASP include:
- Characterization of the new strains of the clubroot pathogen in Alberta
- Identification and genetic mapping of canola for resistance to clubroot pathotype 5X
- Understanding the mechanisms for race-specific and non-specific resistance for effective use of cultivar resistance against blackleg of canola in Western Canada
- Integrated approaches for flea beetle control – Economic thresholds, prediction models, landscape effects and natural enemies
- To germinate or not to germinate? Towards understanding the role dormancy plays in canola seed and seedling vigour, and stand establishment
These projects are collaborative, involving a number of research institutions across Canada including AAFC research stations, universities, provincial agriculture departments and other public and private research facilities.
The CCC is a full value chain organization representing canola growers, processors, life science companies and exporters. Keep it Coming 2025 is the strategic plan to ensure the canola industry's continued growth, demand, stability and success – achieving 52 bushels per acre to meet global market demand of 26 million metric tonnes by the year 2025.
Manitoba grain farmer and winery owner Grant Rigby wants some answers about salinity. Rigby farms is a fourth-generation 1882 homestead on the rolling Waskada clay-loam soils of southwest Manitoba, near the town of Killarney. With a University of Manitoba degree in agronomy and a master's degree in food science, Rigby hopes to find those answers.
"We produced big yields in the 1980s and 1990s," he says. "Then I started noticing a decline in productivity. White salts started showing up for the first time ever in very small patches near sloughs where the crops had been lush; they had lodged there most years."
Rigby saw compaction where the tractor drove close around sloughs. As well, he began seeing stunted crops in higher rings around sloughs. By 2000, Rigby started making changes to how he did things, and by 2002, he was done with most industry-approved approaches.
"We decided to solve it ourselves. I got rid of heavy equipment and all herbicides. I also quit using ionic chemical fertilizer, to get on board the organic marketing opportunity," he recalls.
While he notes those efforts helped, they didn't answer his question – where did the salinity come from? Today he's still working on that.
Along highways and fields on the Prairies, he says, it is typical to see "several acres per mile" where salinity has moved in. For the worst bare patches, he notes it will be extremely costly, if not impossible, to recover production. No domesticated crop species will thrive in these areas. Almost always, they are low areas with the best and deepest topsoil.
"On my farm, we were starting to get bare patches where no crops grew. There were a few spots where white salts were crystallized on the surface. Those no longer exist on my farm. I did it by letting weeds grow. I let biology thrive there," he says.
Standard practice for countering salinity is to plant deep-rooted perennial forage, usually alfalfa, to extract water from below and suck the salts down with it. "I did plant alfalfa and clover. Where they didn't grow, fortunately the salinity was not so advanced that other wild species couldn't survive. Foxtail barley and kochia invaded the bare spots. They lived where no domesticated species would, and they saved my farm from the bare spots we see on many other farms in the neighbourhood now," Rigby says.
"Quackgrass and dandelion started growing under the foxtail barley and kochia, so I added alfalfa. Now I grow hay in those patches, and I can now plant annual crops there, but I don't try to eradicate all the wild species," he adds. For example, if he suppresses the alfalfa and quackgrass with shallow discing and spiking, he can establish annual fababean or flax. "The perennials recover, but I get some grain to harvest while halting salinity with perennial roots."
The Manitoba branch of the Canadian Society of Soil Science summer tour came to view Rigby's salinity issues in August 2012. It was an eye-opener: the white stuff was calcium sulfate.
"Some wondered if the sulfate originated with the sulfate fertilizer that we had applied," he says.
Rigby hypothesizes that salinity may be a consequence of routine fertilizer application. The fertilizers that farmers typically use are salts that dissociate into ions. "Ammonium sulfate splits into ammonium and sulfate ions. The sulfate anion remains dissolved in the soil water. The ammonium cation displaces native calcium cations off the soil clays. As the soil water drains, the calcium and excess sulfate leach," he says. "Where the calcium sulfate solution puddles and dries, they combine as the dry white calcium sulfate salt that we see."
Ionic fertilizers are a plausible cause of salinity, but that may not be correct in every situation. Rigby notes there are other possibilities:
- Deep perennial roots and mycorrhizae, developed during 10,000 years of grassland, stabilize the soil and hold calcium ions adsorbed on the clays. Now, by killing deep roots or cutting ditches into the parent material below, calcium may be free to move.
- Ancient biology in the subsoil became starved of photosynthetic energy after sod breaking. Now, it may be releasing its biological sulphur as dead leachable sulphate.
- Deep compaction caused by high-speed turning of heavy equipment at headlands and corners suffocates roots of air, and enables salt solutions climbing up via capillarity.
- Prior to cultivation, sulphur was evenly distributed in the deep perennial Prairie soil at its maximum biological concentration limited by the sun's energy. Now, collected in low areas by soil erosion, sulphur might be in surplus relative to annual cropping photosynthesis.
- Toxins may be killing subsoil life. Cadmium from old phosphate fertilizer and from tractor tires concentrates at headlands and may kill soil fungi populations. Systemic chelating pesticides may tie up the micronutrient supply in deep root tips, far below topsoil where bacteria adapted to degrade them. In high-salt patches, pesticide biodegradation may not be occurring.
- Pure snowmelt water in sloughs may pick up calcium sulphate from the field as it climbs up the field by capillarity. Calcium sulphate solutions flowing down from hills may collide with slough water at the salinity ring around sloughs.
- Roads built of expanding clays sponge the pure water from snowmelt and add calcium to it. When compressed under passing vehicles, the salt solution may be pumped down and outwards under fields.
"I think it's an emergency," Rigby says of the growing salinity issues. "If a grower sees any spot on the farm where nothing is growing, it needs action. It's going to get bigger. Areas of landscape are being lost for future generations. They're not getting food off of them even now.
"In the dry 1930s, this area never had a massive crop failure. The rolling land always had crops in the fertile moist areas around sloughs, where today there is salinity," he adds.
Typically, the rich arable lowland no longer produces the best crop. The calcium sulphate is too high there for annual grain crops. "That's a very bad sign, especially if we get another decade of drought."
For remedies, Rigby skims off the white calcium sulphate using a grain shovel to avoid further compaction, and then returns it to the knoll. He covers the patch with straw or a loose tillage mulch to stop the evaporation that draws salts to the surface. He also uses lighter machinery, and relies on nitrogen-fixing legumes until stabilized forms of non-ionic nitrogen can be purchased. He maintains sparse old alfalfa within grain crops to sustain deep subsoil life and hold sulphur on uplands.
But first, Rigby says, we really need to understand salinity.
"Salinity is the evidence that we're making a serious agronomy mistake. Farming caused it. We caused it. It wasn't here when my family homesteaded this place. We made the decisions that produced it. We're responsible. I think we're all responsible.
"Grain could cost more to grow, but if my hypotheses are valid, there's really no other option other than to change what we're doing," he emphasizes.
Jan. 12, 2016 - The federal government and the government of Saskatchewan announced $7 million toward crop-related research through the Saskatchewan Agriculture Development Fund (ADF). The funding extends to 40 research projects.
Examples of the projects receiving funding include researching the impact of drought and heat during flowering on canola yield, the screening and management of Fusarium head blight, and improving lentil, faba bean and canary seed varieties, to name a few.
According to a news release, the funding is bolstered as a result of support from industry partner organizations. As a key component to ADF projects, producer involvement and funding is critical to the success of research projects. Commodity organizations provided additional funding of nearly $2.8 million to the crop-related projects with the Western Grains Research Foundation (WGRF) providing nearly half at $1.1 million. Significant funding was also provided by the Saskatchewan Wheat Development Commission, the Saskatchewan Canola Development Commission, the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers, the Saskatchewan Flax Development Commission and the Saskatchewan Barley Development Commission.
Funding for ADF projects is provided under Growing Forward 2, a federal-provincial-territorial initiative. A complete list of funded projects is available at Saskatchewan.ca under Agriculture Development Fund.
Jan. 7, 2016 - Drought and extreme heat slashed global cereal harvests between 1964 and 2007 – and the impact of these weather disasters was greatest in North America, Europe and Australasia, according to a new study published in Nature led by UBC and McGill University researchers.
At a time when global warming is projected to produce more extreme weather, the study provides the most comprehensive look yet at the influence of such events on crop area, yields and production around the world.
"We have always known that extreme weather causes crop production losses," said senior author Navin Ramankutty of UBC's Liu Institute for Global Issues and the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability. "But until now we did not know exactly how much global production was lost to such extreme weather events, and how they varied by different regions of the world."
The researchers analyzed national production data from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization for 16 cereals in 177 countries. They also examined 2,800 international weather disasters from 1964 to 2007.
Findings indicated that cereal harvests decreased by nine per cent to 10 per cent on average due to droughts and extreme heat. The impact from droughts also grew larger in more recent years.
Production levels in North America, Europe and Australasia dropped by an average of 19.9 per cent because of droughts – roughly double the global average.
"Across the breadbaskets of North America, the crops and methods of farming are very uniform across huge areas, so if a drought hits in a way that is damaging to those crops, they will all suffer," said first author Corey Lesk, a recent graduate of McGill's Department of Geography. "By contrast, in much of the developing world, crop systems are a patchwork of small fields with diverse crops. If a drought hits, some of those crops may be damaged, but others may survive."
The analysis did reveal a bright side: the extreme weather events had no significant lasting impact on agricultural production in the years following the disasters.
"Our findings may help guide agricultural priorities and adaptation efforts, to better protect the most vulnerable farming systems and the populations that depend on them," said Ramankutty.
Shallow banding N risks volatilization lossWhat would the late John Harapiak think of this: Nitrogen…
New pea processing plant to be built near Portage la Prairie, M.B.A new $400 million pea processing plant is in the…
Tracking soybean aphidsA new study is helping Quebec researchers understand how to…
Banking on edible dry beansWhen Meghan Moran, the canola and edible bean specialist for…
Canada Young Farmers ConferenceFri Feb 24, 2017
AgExpoWed Mar 01, 2017
Central Ontario Agriculture Conference Fri Mar 03, 2017
National Farmers Union - Ontario ConventionFri Mar 03, 2017
Re-Tooling the Diagnostic Toolbox Soils and Crops 2017Mon Mar 06, 2017