Archives 2020

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