All posts by cara

Pilot program shows that with a little help, ranchers can easily put new ideas and technology to work

Alberta Farm Express – Full Article

Morrie Goetjen was always bothered by one of the springs on his land and considered the muddy patch it made an eyesore.

But he didn’t really know what to do with it until he was invited to participate in a pilot program that offered eight ranchers a chance to implement technology that would improve their operations. Some worked with drones, some tried out financial management software, but Goetjen knew he wanted to develop the springs on his land, and chose to do that from a list of about 20 options.

“There were two springs in particular that I wanted to develop,” said the Cremona-area rancher, who is a former director of the Foothills Forage and Grazing Association.

“The spring was really high, on top of a hill, and the drop to the bottom of the hill was 100 feet. I hadn’t taken advantage of it at all.

“For many years, I’d been talking about what I should do, and I went on tours and field days, and I saw what other guys were doing with springs.”

Then along came the Rancher Researcher Pilot, which offered participants some funding to access expertise and cover part of the costs for adopting a new-to-the-ranch innovation or technology.

What Goetjen did was pretty simple — some piping and poly watering troughs being the main elements.

“There’s not an awful lot of technology involved in what we did. It’s a fairly basic system and it’s relatively inexpensive to do,” he said.

Goetjen found a local fellow who had developed a few springs, and contracted him.

“He did a fabulous job at a reasonable price,” he said.

One of Goetjen’s springs now runs at over five gallons a minute, while the other runs at three gallons a minute. Goetjen currently waters 100 pairs and 125 cows in the wintertime on his springs.

“Primarily, they were really inexpensive to install and basically maintenance free, except I will have to replace the tank eventually,” he said.

The second spring was a puddle on the side of a hill. Goetjen and his contractor dug down about eight feet until they found enough water flow to develop a watering system.

“The potential for that one is better than the other one because it can serve more pastures,” he said. “My next goal is to get my guy back and to trench — probably as much as a quarter-mile — into two paddocks, maybe even a third. It’s high enough, and the slope is perfect to run a water line.”

Since he came in under budget on the project, he was able to develop a third spring on the neighbour’s side of the road that didn’t require much excavating and run water into a big tank. Goetjen, a longtime advocate of rotational grazing, said he was pleased with both the results and the process. The major hoop to go through was to show that the new watering sources would allow him to add more cows to his operation, and hence boost his bottom line.

“For me, I knew what I definitely wanted to get done,” he said. “I just didn’t know the cost or how to stretch the dollars, but it turns out I stretched them pretty good.”

The project was first proposed by the Alberta Beef Forage and Grazing Centre, and was further developed by federal and provincial ag officials and Alberta Beef Producers.

“One of the objectives was to improve the process of information flow from scientists to the ranchers,” said Chinook Applied Research Association manager Dianne Westerlund, who served as the liaison for eight applied forage and research associations (which each found a participating rancher for the first pilot).

“It was an opportunity for them to take a couple of the technologies and apply them to their situation and provide some feedback to the scientists.”

The second round of the project will begin this year (with 20 participants already chosen by 10 applied forage and research associations), and results will be monitored until 2022. In the expansion project, ranchers receive $2,000 to go towards their innovation, which must be matched with their own funds or in-kind contributions.

The second pilot will have a more focused list of innovations, but participants will still choose one they think will have a significant impact on their operation. They will also be given a list of contacts, including scientists and other ranchers who are knowledgeable about the innovation that they’ve chosen.

The whole process is designed to get ranchers more engaged in adopting technology — and monitoring what sort of difference it makes, said Westerlund.

“We wanted to see the economic benefit, and there’s benefits that aren’t measured by dollars as well,” she said.

The Rancher Researcher Expansion Project looks to measure the impact of innovations adopted by cattle producers.

Participating ranchers have been recruited for this 3-year project that follows the Rancher Researcher Pilot that was initiated by the Alberta Beef, Forage and Grazing Centre (ABFGC) in 2017 and was completed in 2019.

The pilot’s goal was to address the gaps in the flow of information between ranchers and the scientific community. It provided 8 ranchers located in central and southern Alberta the opportunity to try out various innovations and technologies. It connected them with appropriate scientists and then evaluated the impact of those new practices on their operations.

The innovations covered in the first pilot project that ranchers pursued were projects like DNA parentage testing, precision ranching (use of drones), soil testing, pasture rejuvenation with legumes, dugout improvements, cost of production analysis, improving access to water, herd information management, low-stress weaning, BlueTooth technology (scale), pasture health/utilization/animal movements software, and DNA hybrid vigour testing.

‘Following the pilot, we felt that it was valuable to duplicate it on a larger scale with producer associations around the province,’ explains Dianne Westerlund, manager and forage agrologist of Chinook Applied Research Association (CARA), as well as the association liaison for the ABFGC and this project.

‘Each of the associations involved select 2 ranchers and work with them on innovations that they want to apply to their operations, and that have some potential to enhance the success of their operation,’ she adds. ‘The 2 producers we are working with at CARA are very interested to determine the innovations that are the best fit for them.’

Twenty new operations have been recruited by applied research associations in the province, including Battle River Research Group, CARA, Foothills Forage and Grazing Association, Grey Wooded Forage Association, Gateway Research Organization, Lakeland Agricultural Research Association, Mackenzie Applied Research Association, North Peace Applied Research Association, and Peace Country Beef and Forage Association.

Westerlund says that one change moving from the pilot to this expansion is creating a more in-depth process to help the participant pick the innovations to be used over the next 3 years. It includes an interview to focus on finding the innovation that could have the most potential value and make the biggest impact to benefit their operation. Participants are also provided an extensive list of experts in the innovation technologies, and the pilot producer contacts who have experience adopting and using the innovations they are considering. This allows for a more robust evaluation and understanding of the challenges and benefits they might encounter by adopting the various innovations.

Each rancher has access to a maximum $2,000 to put towards the adoption of a technology new to their operation. The rancher needs to provide the necessary matching dollars – 50% for expense items or 80% for capital items.

As with the pilot, participating ranchers are encouraged to use AgriProfits or a similar economic analysis package. Baselines are collected at the beginning of the project, and the use of the new technology will be monitored. The impact on production and economic benchmarks will be tracked, and participating ranchers will have the opportunity to discuss those impacts with a consultant.

‘Looking at the big picture,’ says Westerlund, ‘we are enhancing the information flow so that producers are aware of some of the innovations that are going on. We’re making that connection so researchers are getting feedback, too. We can let them know if they are moving in the direction that would be of real value at the ranch level.’

Funding for this project was provided by the Governments of Canada and Alberta through the Canadian Agricultural Partnership under the Adapting Innovative Solutions Program. In Alberta, the Canadian Agricultural Partnership represents a federal-provincial investment of $406 million in strategic programs and initiatives for the agricultural sector.

This project is also supported by the Alberta Beef Producers.

Do you have orphan oil and gas infrastructure on your land and are wondering what happens next?

The Orphan Well Association (OWA) is responsible to decommission and reclaim the site. The OWA operates under the legal authority of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) and is a not-for-profit, industry-funded organization that works to decommission and reclaim the wells, facilities, and pipelines left behind by defunct oil and gas companies.

How the OWA works

When a well, pipeline, facility or associated site no longer has a legally or financially responsible party that can be held accountable, it is known as an ‘orphan.’ At this point the orphan becomes the OWA’s responsibility, and work will be undertaken to safely decommission the infrastructure and restore the land as close to its original state as possible.

To complete this work, the OWA hires experienced contractors with excellent safety records. Throughout the process, the contractors strictly adhere to Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) and Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) regulations and requirements.

Is it an orphan?

When it comes to which sites are considered orphans, only those with no responsible party are formally designated as orphans by the AER.  Until the AER designates the site as an orphan, the OWA cannot undertake work on the site.

Within a month of a site being designated as an orphan, landowners will receive a letter from the OWA that will outline our process and seek your input on the site. A listing of all orphans in the Province can be found on our website (http://www.orphanwell.ca/about/orphan-inventory/). If you have not received a letter and cannot find the well listed on the OWA website, landowners are encouraged to contact the AER to determine who is responsible for the site. The AER may be contacted at 1 855 297 8311 or LiabilityManagement@aer.ca.

Not all inactive sites are considered orphan under provincial regulations. Some sites may be operated or owned by a solvent company or may be under the custody of a court-appointed receiver to be sold. In other cases, the defunct operator may have working interest partners (WIPs), which are viable partners that hold some working interest in the well, pipeline or facility. These WIPs are then legally responsible for the decommissioning or reclamation work.

New legislative changes may allow the OWA to work on these WIP sites, but only in cases where the OWA and the WIP have signed an agreement.

What does this mean for you as a landowner?

After arranging access on your land, contractors will perform an inspection of the infrastructure. Once everything is deemed safe, and equipment is documented and photographed, the OWA will place signage at the site indicating the location is now under the care of the OWA.

A company will then be assigned to safely plug the oil and gas wells, otherwise known as decommissioning (abandonment in regulatory terms). The wells are plugged, cemented, and the surface wellhead is cut below ground. Cutting below ground will allow landowners to safely cultivate over the former well. Crews will also remove any equipment in the area and then purge and decommission any accompanying pipelines.

At this point, your land will be ready for remediation, if required, and reclamation.

Once sites have been examined, crews will work to clean up any contamination that may be present (remediation). This may involve using a hoe or small drill rig to determine the extent of contamination. Any realized contamination is typically excavated and sent to an industrial landfill for disposal or treated on site. Clean backfill, if required, is sourced with landowner approval before being brought in.

The reclamation process includes removing any leftover gravel on site, recontouring the site to original drainage patterns, replacing topsoil and returning the lease and access road to its previous state. Weeds are also controlled at this stage.

Once work is complete, a reclamation certificate will be obtained from the AER, and the land can again be used as it once was.

Access to your land

Due to the downturn in the economy in recent years, the OWA has accelerated work because of the need to reclaim thousands of upstream orphan oil and gas sites in Alberta. This may mean that the OWA will need to access your land throughout the year, regardless of what agricultural stage your land is in.  The OWA appreciates your cooperation in allowing access for work crews. Wherever possible we will limit our footprint to the former lease and access road held by the defunct company. If off-lease work is required, the OWA will compensate landowners for any off-lease access.

Of course, throughout the process, the OWA will be in constant communication with landowners, keeping you up to date about what is happening. The OWA is committed to developing positive relationships with landowners while minimizing impact to any agricultural practices.

What the OWA can and can’t do

While the OWA does not take place of the former operator, the regulations grant the OWA the legal right to access both public and private land to complete work on a well, facility or pipeline that has been deemed an orphan. Any surface lease remains in the name of the defunct operator. As such, the OWA is unable to compensate landowners/occupants for unpaid surface lease payments from any defunct company. Landowners may apply to the Alberta Surface Right Board (SRB) for the recovery of unpaid surface leases. For information respecting these payments, please contact the SRB (toll free at 310-000, then 780 427 2444) or visit their website at https://surfacerights.alberta.ca/.

The OWA enjoys a long history of working closely and cooperatively with landowners. In rare cases, some landowners have restricted access in an attempt to secure unpaid lease payments from the OWA. In these circumstances the OWA has an obligation to inform the SRB of the situation. Section 36(8) of the Surface Rights Act gives the SRB the discretion to not grant any payments if the landowner is refusing access for decommissioning and reclamation.

Landowners can obtain further information regarding the impact of restricting access through the Farmers Advocate Office at 310-FARM (3276) or visit https://www.alberta.ca/farmers-advocate-office.aspx, or the Pembina Institute at https://www.pembina.org/pub/landowners-primer-what-you-need-know-about-unreclaimed-oil-and-gas-wells).

Interested in learning more about the OWA? For additional information please visit www.orphanwell.ca or contact the OWA at via email at landowner@orphanwell.ca. 

Helpful Definitions:

Orphan

When a well, pipeline, facility or associated site no longer has a legally or financially responsible party that can be held accountable. This requires formal designation by the AER.

Inactive

A well or site is considered inactive when there has been no production for one year (six months in the case of a sour well). An inactive site may be due to economic or technical reasons.

Decommissioned (Abandoned)

Sometimes referred to as abandonment or decommissioning, the well is permanently plugged and cut off below ground, pipelines are purged and cut-off, and any associated surface equipment removed.

Remediation

The process of cleaning up any contamination left on site. Contaminants are managed and removed according to AER and AEP requirements. Contaminated soil may be hauled to a landfill and then replaced with clean soil, or may be treated onsite until it meets AEP guidelines.

Reclamation

The process of returning the land to how it looked and was used before oil and gas development took place. This may involve recontouring the subsoil, replacing the topsoil, and re-establishing the vegetation.

In preparation for growing lentils in 2021, field selection, residue management and fall weed control should be considered in the fall of 2020.

While land rollers, flex headers, higher podding varieties and improved lodging resistance have allowed producers to grow lentils on less than ideal fields, it continues to be important to select fields with fewer rocks for harvest efficiency. Lentil plants have a very low tolerance to waterlogging and are susceptible to root diseases, so avoid selecting poorly draining soils as much as possible. Lentils do well on clay soil in lower rainfall areas, however, turn out better on sand and loam soils in soil zones with customarily higher precipitation or during growing seasons with higher than average rainfall. If lentil is grown on canola or mustard stubble, be prepared to consider a fungicide application for sclerotinia white mould.   

Grow your lentils in fields where much nitrogen was extracted from the soil by the previous crop. Planting lentils in fields high in nitrogen prevents the plants from effectively forming nitrogen fixing nodules, increases disease pressure on a wet year due to an increase in vegetative growth and delays maturity. Although newer lentil varieties are generally more determinate than older varieties, excess nitrogen in the soil continues to heighten the risk of excessive vegetative growth instead of adequate seed set if rainfall continues in July and August.

Lentils are sensitive to some herbicide residues in the soil. Check cropping restrictions of herbicide chemistries applied over the past few years with other crops to realize if it’s okay to plant lentils. Some residues do not break down for two or more years, especially under dry growing conditions. If you are unsure about a field, submit soil samples to a lab for a bioassay.

Root rots have been more problematic in pulse crops over the past few years, with the same root rot pathogens generally affecting both pea and lentil. To help prevent root rot from occurring, leave 3 years between field pea and lentil crops or between lentil and lentil crops; 6 years if the aphanomyces pathogen is present.

Ensure a uniform lentil stand next spring by evenly spreading residue or straw from the previous crop. Good straw management not only prevents variable crop emergence, but also provides maximum efficacy of the pre-seed herbicide application. Further to this, lentils seeded into heavy crop residue are more susceptible to spring frost injury. Even spreading of excess straw allows additional bare soil to absorb the sun’s heat during the day, releasing it at night, minimizing potential frost injury.

Avoid market class contamination by not growing red and green lentil varieties in rotation on the same field for at least four years. Experienced producers assign specific fields for only red or only green lentil.

Lentil has a thin crop canopy at the onset of the growing season, making it a poor competitor with weeds. Wild oat, as well as volunteer wheat and barley, are important weeds to control because they are difficult to clean from the smaller seeded lentil varieties. Given that some wild oats are resistant to Group 1 (i.e.: Poast Ultra) and Group 2 (i.e.: Odyssey) herbicides, a wider herbicide rotation slows their resistance development. Therefore, it is important to consider a fall application of a soil-applied granular herbicide like ethalfluralin (Edge), which uses a Group 3 mode of action. Edge suppress wild oat, volunteer barley and volunteer wheat as well as controlling other weeds resistant to other herbicide groups. Edge is the preferable fall applied herbicide in the Brown and Dark Brown soil zones because it also controls kochia, which can be resistant to Group 2 (i.e.: Odyssey) and Group 9 (i.e.: glyphosate) herbicides. Edge is only registered in lentil production for fall application. While Edge can be successfully applied without incorporation later in the fall when daylight hours are shorter, reducing chance of photo degradation, registered practice is to incorporate with a heavy harrow operation to ensure herbicide/soil contact while also evenly spreading crop residue. As a soil applied herbicide, Edge controls susceptible weeds in the treated soil layer as weeds geminate in the spring. Some Group 14 and Group 15 herbicides can be applied in the fall, providing lentil growers with more weed control options. However, they don’t have the same residual effect as Edge to provide season-long weed control the following year. Moisture is necessary to activate Group 15 (pyroxasulfone). Focus (Groups 14 and 15) can be applied in the spring or the fall, controlling some grassy and broadleaf weeds. However, caution is advised as Focus can damage lentil growth when growing conditions are not optimal, i.e.: high soil pH (7.5 and above), cool weather, prolonged and excessive moisture, seedling diseases, and poor agronomic practices, i.e.: shallow seeding. Although research shows that lentil crops generally recover from damage by Focus, nonetheless, setting a lentil crop back always puts it at more risk of flower abortion during July heat, which can reduce overall yield. Valtera/Chateau (Group 14) is only registered for fall application in lentil production. However, over-use of Group 14 herbicides can lead to selection pressure for weed resistance. Therefore, do not apply Heat, also a Group 14 herbicide, as a pre-seed burnoff in the spring when a Group 14 herbicide is applied in the fall.

–Neil Whatley

If you have any additional questions for Neil please contact CARA for his contact information

 

You may be wondering how to connect with other producers who have hay for sale, or you may have feed to offer for sale.  While more traditional methods such as the local paper or word of mouth might still work, consider looking to one of the other online resources for hay sales:

 

Alberta Agriculture Hay Listings http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/app68/hay

Alberta Hay and Feed Directory https://bit.ly/2peYPQg

Ag Buy Sell www.agbuysell.com

Hay / Feed For Sale in Saskatchewan, Alberta & Manitoba https://bit.ly/2OufIS5

Kijiji Hay Bales https://bit.ly/2xhh2Bl

SCA’s Feed & Forage Wanted and For Sale https://bit.ly/2xqzbM8

Internet Hay Exchange has listings in Canada and the US http://www.hayexchange.com/

 

When searching for hay, be aware that there is no standard way that hay for sale is listed. It may be in short tons or metric tonnes, cents per pound or often by the bale. Be sure to ask what the bale weights are, and to ask for feed analysis to be sure the hay you buy will meet the needs of your livestock.

 

Do you know of any other sites? Share the link on our facebook in the comments and we will add it to this list.

Darksided Cutworm
Euxoa messoria
Week 2 (May 14) Darksided cutworm

Identification
adults: Forewings grayish, each with an oval and a kidney-shaped paler spot with darker margins among irregular dark lines. Wingspan of about 35 mm. mature larvae: Hairless, up to 37 mm in length. Grayish in color with a prominent white stripe along each side just above the legs; upper surface with a reddish background color. Head is orange-brown with darker spots.

Distribution
Native to North America. Distributed from Atlantic to Pacific coasts, north from the southern USA into southern Canada.Lifecycle
Females lay up to 1000 eggs in soil or under debris in cultivated fields. Mature larvae enter a non-feeding pre-pupal stage for about 30 days before pupating. One generation per year.

Hosts
Broad range of herbaceous and woody hosts including vegetables, cereals, canola, corn, tobacco, flax, sunflower, vine, berry and tree fruits.

Feeding damage
above-ground (climbing) cutworm: Larvae feed at night on the leaves and stems of young plants causing defoliation
and death. Areas of bare soil increasing in size soon after crop emergence may indicate cutworm feeding damage.

Monitoring/Control
Inspect bare patches and surrounding margins for larvae, which hide at the base of plants during the day. Count the number of larvae in a 50 cm x 50 cm area of the crop; multiply by four to estimate the number of larvae per m2. Repeat this process 5 to 10 times at 50 m intervals.

Insecticide treatments may be warranted if economic thresholds are exceeded, but take steps to minimize effects on natural enemies; see
General Control Options (p. 26).

Economic threshold
cereal and oilseed crops: 5-6 larvae/ m2 (Phillip 2015).
peas: 2-3 larvae/m2.
dry beans and soybeans: 1 small (<2.5 cm long) larva/m of row or 20% of plants cut.

Notes
Larvae are similar in color to redbacked cutworm. The most destructive pest of tobacco throughout most tobacco growing regions of Canada (Cheng 1984). Can be particularly damaging to buds of trees and shrubs (Walkden 1950).

 

For more photos and to view the full pdf click here–> Week 2 Darksided cutworm

Cutworm Pests of Crops on the Canadian Prairies: Identification and Management Field Guide

Prairie Pest Monitoring Network Blog

Water intake for dry beef cows is around 1-1½ gals./100 lbs. of body weight and this estimate can double for cows nursing calves.

Summer has arrived but there are many areas that don’t get enough runoff water to adequately fill the stock ponds, forcing producers to move cattle looking for forage and water. When drought causes a great reduction in surface water available in farm ponds, the issue of water quality becomes nearly as important as quantity of water available.

Water is the one most important nutrient required by livestock. Decreased intake can adversely affect health, reproduction and growth. Excessive salinity (salt) in livestock drinking water can upset the animals’ water balance and cause death. Unsafe levels of salt and toxins depend on the age of the animal, its stage of production and the amount of water consumed each day.

Water consumption is dependent on many factors. Water intake for dry beef cows is around 1-1½ gals./100 lbs. of body weight and this estimate can double for cows nursing calves.

Oklahoma has many potential sources for run-off pond water contamination.

•  Soil minerals and salt leaching from the ground.
•  Oilfield drilling sites and saltwater disposal wells.
•  Agriculture application of nitrate and sulfate fertilizer.
•  Animal manure and human waste control systems.

Suggested uses of livestock water containing different levels of contaminants are listed below: (remember 1ppm = 1mg/liter of water)

Nitrates: 100 ppm or less should not harm livestock.100-300 ppm should not harm livestock by itself, but beware of additive effects when animals are exposed to or grazing foodstuffs containing increased levels of nitrates (sudan, haygrazer and johnsongrass).
Sulfates: Water levels of 2,000-2,500 ppm and sulfate levels in foodstuffs allowing the animal to attain a level of 4,000 ppm or greater; can be associated with a neurological disease in cattle causing blindness.
Total Salts:

•  Less than 1,000 ppm: These waters have a relatively low level of salinity and should present no serious burden to livestock.
•  1,000-2,999 ppm: These waters should be satisfactory for all classes of livestock. They may cause temporary and mild diarrhea in livestock not accustomed to them, but should not affect their health or performance.
•  3,000-4,999 ppm: These waters should be satisfactory for livestock, although they might very possibly cause mild diarrhea or be refused at first by animals not accustomed to them.
•  5,000-6,999 ppm: These waters can be used with reasonable safety for dairy and beef cattle, sheep, pigs, and horses. It may be well to avoid the use of waters approaching the higher levels for pregnant and lactating animals.
•  7,000-10,000 ppm: These waters are unfit for pigs. Considerable risk may exist in using them for pregnant and lactating livestock. In general, their use should be avoided, although older animals may subsist on them for long periods of time under conditions of maintenance and low stress.
•  Greater than 10,000 ppm: The risk of these high salinity waters are so great that they cannot be recommended for use under any conditions.

A routine water analysis performed at a lab with the help of your county Extension educator or local practicing veterinarian can be very helpful and cost very little. This would take all the guesswork out of trying to decide which animals would be safe to drink the water and which pastures might be able to be grazed.

As ponds start drying up, the concentration of salt and toxic ions begins to increase in them. Do the young calves in the group have a mild diarrhea due to salty water or coccidiosis? Do the distillers by-product feeds (which can be high in sulfur) have the potential to cause blindness in creep fed to my calves? Are pregnant cows at risk while grazing sudan forage and drinking water possibly containing nitrates? All these questions might be answered by a simple, routine livestock water analysis.

 

Rules of Thumb for livestock Drinking Water Quality Article link

The 2nd edition of Cookin For Cowfolk is now available!

Cook Book Pdf available for download and viewing here:

LCC Cook Book 2018

 

The Cook Book will be available as a hardcopy version. If you wish to order a hardcopy version please contact the CARA office at 403-664-3777 or email Olivia at cara-3@telus.net. There will be a printing and mailing fee for the hardcopy version.

CATTLE AND SOIL WORKING TOGETHER

Jocelyn Velestuk, MSc, PAg

Good soil management is vital to the long-term profitability of any farm operation, including those involving cattle. Farms that raise cattle can manage to improve rather than degrade the land. Balancing the removal of nutrients with the addition of manure and other fertilizers as well as using practices to encourage good microbial activity/diversity and improve soil tilth and water infiltration can have long-term benefits. Minimizing erosion and compaction from cattle traffic is also important to maintaining the soil structure and proper functioning of the soil. Let’s take a look at some of the different practices that farmers can adapt to improve their soil health and make their cows and soil work together.

Manure Management

Manure is a valuable organic form of fertilizer and can be an asset to soil management. Areas with low organic matter or shallow topsoil can benefit greatly from manure addition. Soil quality is improved with the addition of manure, which supplies, in a sense, a slow release form of nitrogen (N) as well as organic carbon (C), phosphorous (PO4^2-), potassium (K), and micronutrients such as zinc and copper. Nitrogen in manure is in both plant available and organic forms. The organic N is transformed over time to plant available forms of N through microbial activity through a process called mineralization.

The highly variable composition and nutrient content of manure depends on feed composition, bedding, and storage. Manure that is composted will often have increased levels of plant available forms of N, such as ammonium and nitrate, compared to fresh manure. So how much do you apply to meet your crop nutrient demands? The amount of manure to apply is often based on the available P in the manure because the N to P ratio (N:P) is often different in manure compared to what plants require. Fields that have had manure in the past will often show consistently higher soil P and additional fertilizer N might be required to create balanced fertility for crop growth. The sampling of manure and soil by a qualified agronomist can aid in creating a balanced fertility plan.

Cattle manure and urine deposited directly on the land from in-field winter feeding systems such as bale grazing, chaff grazing, cover crop grazing, or bale processing/rolling on pasture or cropland can also return some nutrients to the land. Nitrogen in a winter feeding system may have increased levels of plant available N in the spring because of the decreased loss of ammonia from the decomposition of urea in urine directly deposited on soil versus a system where the manure is spread. Another efficiency of in-field feeding is that cattle do the nutrient spreading themselves, saving the producer time, labor, and equipment costs. Feeding can also be done in areas such as hilltops that can benefit from the organic matter addition of manure and leftover feed.

Considerations when animals are on the land including minimizing manure in low areas and around wetlands as much as possible to prevent manure from directly entering the water. High cattle traffic on moist soil in the springtime is also a concern if the cattle are not pulled off the land before the frost melts. Cattle hooves can cause compaction which can result in decreased crop yields. Limiting cattle traffic on cropland to when there are frozen or dry soil conditions can alleviate some of the compaction risks.

Straw and Forage

Baling and removal of cereal straw for cattle bedding following crop harvest exports nutrients from the land such as N, P, K and organic C. Rainfall on straw swaths prior to baling may leach some of the nutrients in the residue back into the soil, although some biomass losses can occur. Potassium is a nutrient that relies on leaching from crop residue to return plant available K+ ions to the soil. Continuous removal of straw from cropping systems might result in a decrease in available K. Organic matter losses from straw removal over time can also decrease soil quality and the soil’s ability to retain nutrients. Methods to reduce the effects of straw removal can include rotating straw removal between fields (i.e. every four years) and lengthening the period of time between removals to build a protective surface mulch. One other consideration is importing straw to bring nutrients in to rather than out of the farm. A management plan for straw removal is important to maintain the long-term productivity of the land.

Annual forage crops used for silage or greenfeed such as barley, oats, and corn are removed at an earlier stage than crops for grain harvest. The desire for high nutrients in the feed results in the removal of the above ground plant material at a stage when the plant is actively taking up nutrients which means a high level of nutrients is removed from the soil. This loss of nutrients should be accounted for in the soil fertility plan in order to maintain the soil nutrient status for the upcoming and subsequent growing seasons.

Perennial Forage Stands

Perennial forages with their extensive root systems are beneficial to soil health as they increase soil organic carbon, enhance soil microbiological diversity and activity, and maintain soil cover to prevent erosion. Including forage legume species, such as alfalfa, will allow for nitrogen fixation and increase the soil N as well as access nutrients and water lower in the soil profile. Declining productivity in hay stands can be due to decreasing levels of available nutrients in the soil from the continuous removal of above ground stands. Plant species like alfalfa use high levels of K and P, although fixing high amounts of N. Providing balanced fertility for the duration of the stand is, therefore, important when seeding and maintaining hay crops.

Grazing management is also integral to the long-term health of forage stands. Allowing grasslands enough rest period and implementing practices such as rotational grazing are essential to maintaining healthier plant stands for long-term production. As previously mentioned, cattle distribute nutrients in manure as they graze and maintaining plant cover decreases erosion potential and retains more nutrients.

Minimizing erosion is integral when managing soil and can be done through minimizing tillage and maintaining plant cover. Feeding cattle on grassed areas can eliminate the need to till manure into the soil. When seeding annual crops into terminated forage stands, using a low-disturbance seeder with a disc or knife opener can result in comparable crop yields to terminating via tillage. When the soil is kept in place, the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi can create a network in the soil to increase the nutrient and water uptake of plants. A healthy, functioning soil has good microbial diversity including beneficial bacteria and fungi species. Soil that is left in place can also develop better soil tilth and structure over time, creating a better functioning soil.

A productive mixed farm operation is one that focuses on both the nutrition of animals and health of the soil. It all starts with balanced nutrition and adopting good management practices to make the soil and cattle work together. Tweaking the management of your farm can be as simple as making one change at a time with soil health in mind to suit what works for you and your farm. When farm management prioritizes maintaining soil fertility and long-term soil health alongside healthy cattle everyone wins!

 

This article was courtesy of the Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association (www.ssca.ca) Spring 2017 Newsletter

 

Article PDF available here

 

 

From the beginning of time, some agriculturists have marveled (if they thought about it at all) at the idea prairies and forests produced prodigiously without added fertility.

At last, we’re beginning to understand how such a thing can be accomplished, better yet mimicked.

A big part of the seemingly supernatural is done via a massive underground network of fungal superhighway that links many species of plants to microorganisms and transfers and shares huge amounts of vital plant compounds such as nitrogen, phosphorus, manganese, sulfur — all the major and minor plant nutrients — as well as plant-produced carbohydrates.

The star of this show is an organism called arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Together with its army of associated microbes, it can mine every major nutrient from the parent material of all soils, store huge amounts of carbon in the soil, hold and share water, moderate acidity and alkalinity, and build soil structure like nothing else.

Yet nearly every major agricultural practice of the past 10,000 years has torn it apart, to the detriment of mankind. As we have destroyed this life-giving fungi with tillage and set-stocked overgrazing and further with high rates of fertilizer and with long fallow periods, we have slit our own throats and made ourselves dependent on truly mined minerals, which we must draw out of nature with massive expenditures of human energy and millennia-old fossil fuels.

One example of this fungi’s magic is a compound it manufactures called glomalin, only discovered in 1996 by ARS soil scientist Sara Wright. It is a carbohydrate-based “soil glue” that contains 30-40% carbon. Glomalin is the substance that creates clumps of soil granules called aggregates. These are what add structure to healthy soil. They also keep other stored soil carbon from escaping.

Technically glomalin is considered a glycoprotein, which stores carbon in both its protein and carbohydrate (glucose or sugar) subunits. Because it stores so much carbon, glomalin is increasingly being included in studies of carbon storage and soil quality.

Further, scientists have found glomalin weighs from 2 to 24 times more than humic acid, which is the byproduct of decaying plants that once was thought to be the main contributor to soil carbon storage. Now scientists say humic acid contributes only about 8% of soil carbon.

As I alluded, glomalin is just one of the benefits of this amazing creature we’re calling AMF. The more we can harness its amazing qualities to help farm and ranch, the less money we can potentially spend and the more profit we should be able to make.

We’re focusing on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), what it does, and how to have more of it in the upcoming June issue of Beef Producer. So keep an eye on your mailbox. We’ll also publish all that material and more here on the website.

 

Article Link