Artificial intelligence, automation and data systems dominated nearly every session, from crop protection to robotics to biotech discovery.

However, beneath all that, one quieter theme kept surfacing.

A lot of the early, practical value of these systems is not in running machines. It is in interpreting data and turning it into recommendations.

WHY IT MATTERS: As AI tools take on more of the data work, farmers will still need trusted advice to turn those recommendations into decisions that work in their fields.

In fact, based on the discussions at the summit, that part of the conversation was in the rear view mirror. Much of the focus now is on what comes next — building systems that can act on those recommendations.

Soil tests, weather stations, satellite imagery, equipment data is familiar ground for agronomy. What is changing is how quickly and how consistently that information can be processed.

In one session about biotech discovery, speakers described AI systems that can design and refine experiments with minimal human input.

It is a long way from a Prairie field, but it is easy to imagine that same approach being used to improve plot trials or even guide on-farm decisions aimed at maximizing yield.

And it is already happening.

On the farm, that same capability is showing up in decision support — not perfect, not complete, but improving. These tools are getting better at taking large volumes of information and turning it into clear, actionable decisions.

From interpretation to action

And that raises a fair question. If more of that interpretation work can be done by a system, where does that leave farm agronomists?

The answer is not that they disappear. It is that the job shifts.

Research agronomists are not really in the crosshairs here. They are still building the knowledge base. The question is what happens to the people turning that knowledge into decisions on the farm.

That kind of agronomy has never just been about reading numbers off a report. It is about context: knowing the field, the farmer, the equipment and the risks they are willing to take.

A recommendation generated from data still has to be weighed against reality. Is the field fit? Does the timing work? What happens if the weather turns? Does it fit the rest of the rotation?

Those are not problems that go away with better models. In some ways, they become more important because more recommendations are coming, faster and with more confidence behind them.

What these systems may change is how agronomists spend their time. Less time pulling data together. Less time building base recommendations from scratch. More time stress-testing those recommendations, adapting them to local conditions and helping farmers decide what to act on and what to ignore.

There is also a practical layer to this that did not get as much attention on stage. These tools do not just appear on farms fully formed. They need to be set up, calibrated and understood. Someone has to translate them from a product into something that actually works in a field.

One discussion on soil health touched on a more basic issue: even something as fundamental as soil testing is not fully standardized. Results can vary depending on how samples are taken, handled and processed.

That is an opportunity.

It suggests there is still a role for the local private agronomist — someone who knows the region and their customers, understands local soil conditions, along with insect and disease pressure, and someone who farmers know personally and trust.

The role doesn’t disappear, it changes

It is easy to frame new technology as a threat to existing roles, but agriculture has22s a way of absorbing new tools and reshaping the jobs around them.

GPS did not eliminate the nesed for farm agronomists. Variable rate did not either. They changed the conversation.

This one feels different. These systems are starting to take on the interpretation work that has traditionally defined farm agronomy. However, the pattern is familiar.

The technology is moving quickly, that much is clear. However, it is still being tested against the same reality. Fields, weather and economics have a way of exposing weak ideas.

On-farm agronomy does not sit outside that process. It is part of it.

If anything, the need for people who can bridge the gap between what a system suggests and what actually works on the ground will only grow.

The post How AI is changing on-farm agronomy and decision-making appeared first on Grainews.

The practice is commonly treated as a get-it-done-early job, with fields rolled soon after seeding to push down stones and smooth the surface.

Extension guidance for post-emergence rolling has typically urged caution, often pointing to the first trifoliate stage as a safer window while also emphasizing the role of soil and weather conditions.

WHY IT MATTERS: Risk of yield loss from bent and broken plants is one thing, but risk of damage from squashing your soil should also be considered.

However, an ongoing study from the University of Manitoba is taking a stage-by-stage look at how that risk develops. The work is helping define the post-emergence window more clearly, showing low risk early and rising damage if rolling is delayed.

A multi-year study led by U of M researcher Kristen MacMillan, with support from Manitoba Pulse and Soybean Growers, tested rolling soybeans across a wide range of crop stages, from post-seeding through flowering, to better understand where that flexibility ends.

The results show a clear window where post-emergence rolling causes little damage and no yield loss — and a sharp line where risk rises quickly.

Rolling is standard practice on many soybean farms, particularly on stony ground. The goal is to protect low-hanging soybean pods and reduce harvest losses by smoothing the seedbed.

However, MacMillan said rolling can also create unintended soil problems.

“We’re crushing those soil aggregates,” she said.

“We’re dispersing them into very fine particles.”

That can lead to surface sealing and poor infiltration during rainfall events, a problem in years when moisture is already limited. It can also increase the risk of wind erosion, especially on finely worked ground.

Those risks prompted the team to ask a simple question: if rolling has downsides, how long can growers safely delay it?

The study compared an unrolled check with rolling at multiple soybean stages: post-seeding, emergence, cotyledon, unifoliate, V1–V2, V3–V4 and flowering.

Rolling was also done under different conditions, including warm, sunny days and cooler, cloudy ones, when plants are more brittle. The roller used in the trial was slightly heavier than most commercial rollers, creating a conservative test.

At the cotyledon stage, damage was minimal.

“Only about one per cent of the plants in the plot were broken,” MacMillan said.

“This was really surprising.”

She noted that the seed furrow plays an important protective role early on. Plants emerging within the furrow were often shielded from the roller, while damage was more likely where the furrow was flattened by tractor tires.

At the unifoliate and early trifoliate stages, results were similar. Plant breakage remained low — generally less than three per cent early, and still less than 10 per cent through V2 — with no yield loss observed.

“Plants were bouncing back very nicely,” she said.

As soybeans advanced toward V3 and V4, damage increased sharply, with tire tracks playing a big role in plant breakage.

By the third to fourth trifoliate stage, about 17 per cent of plants were broken overall. Within tire tracks, damage climbed to 24 per cent, compared with about nine per cent in undriven rows.

“More than double most of the plant damage is happening from the tire tracks,” MacMillan said.

Yield losses followed the same pattern, increasing as rolling was pushed later into the season.

At flowering, results were unequivocal. Nearly half of all plants were broken when rolled at R1, with severe stem damage visible immediately after the pass.

“That was really late,” MacMillan said.

“Those plants did not look happy.”

Based on two years of data so far, the study points to a practical takeaway: growers have roughly a two- to three-week window after emergence where rolling can still be done safely.

Under Prairie conditions, that typically means the first three weeks of June, when soybeans range from unfolded cotyledons through V2.

Rolling beyond that point carries rising risk, especially once soybeans reach the third trifoliate stage and tractor tire damage becomes unavoidable.

MacMillan said the work is ongoing, with one more year of data still to come. However, the pattern has been consistent.

“There is a window,” she said.

“They can be rolled post-emergence, and that can help reduce those soil impacts.”

The post When post-emergence soybean rolling works, and when it doesn’t appeared first on Grainews.

That was the core message Brendan Metzger delivered at the Manitoba Agronomists Conference.

The chemistry itself, he said, has not suddenly changed. What has changed is the cropping context around it, particularly as glufosinate moves into systems that expose management mistakes more quickly and more consistently.

WHY IT MATTERS: With glufosinate use expanding on the Prairies, careful management will matter more in slowing resistance pressure.

Metzger, a senior herbicide biologist with BASF, said the risk facing Liberty is real and accelerating. Glufosinate resistance has already emerged in other regions, and Prairie farmers are now using the product in crops and rotations that strip away many of the safeguards that once kept resistance at bay.

Reports of glufosinate-resistant waterhemp in several U.S. Midwest states, and kochia escapes being reported in North Dakota, suggest resistance is now close at hand.

Liberty still works, he said, but the margin for error is narrowing.

Longevity so far

To understand why management now matters so much, Metzger first walked agronomists through why glufosinate avoided resistance for so long in Western Canada, especially when compared to glyphosate.

Glufosinate was introduced in the mid-1990s, at roughly the same time glyphosate-tolerant crops entered the market. Yet while glyphosate resistance emerged relatively quickly, Liberty avoided that outcome for nearly 30 years.

“It’s been largely a success story,” Metzger said.

“There’s been no documented cases of resistance to glufosinate in Western Canada.”

He said that longevity had little to do with glufosinate being inherently resistance-proof. Instead, it reflected how and where it was used.

For much of its commercial life, glufosinate lagged behind other herbicides in total acres treated. Lower overall use meant lower selection pressure on weed populations. Just as importantly, most glufosinate applications in Western Canada occurred in canola.

Canola’s competitiveness played a quiet but critical role.

Rapid early growth and quick canopy closure suppressed escapes and reduced the number of weeds exposed to sub-lethal doses. That cultural weed control helped mask small mistakes that might otherwise have contributed to resistance.

“So we have the cultural weed control aspect working in our favour as well,” Metzger said.

Rotation added another layer of protection. Even in relatively simple canola–wheat systems, glufosinate was rarely applied back-to-back on the same acres. Breaking up modes of action further reduced resistance risk.

Those factors combined to give Liberty a long runway, Metzger said, but that runway is now shortening.

Less competitive

Metzger warned that as soybean acres expand, so will selection pressure on glufosinate.

While Liberty-enabled canola already accounts for a large share of Prairie acres, Metzger said the more consequential shift is happening in soybeans as seed companies move aggressively toward glufosinate-tolerant platforms across North America.

Roughly a quarter of western Canadian soybean acres are expected to be Liberty-enabled in 2026. Metzger said that expansion is being driven largely by widespread glyphosate resistance, with glufosinate long viewed as a relatively underused alternative.

Unlike canola, soybeans are far less competitive.

Wider row spacing and slower canopy closure mean fewer escapes are hidden. Weeds that survive an application are more likely to remain visible, reproduce and contribute seed back to the soil.

Corn shares some of those same characteristics. In those systems, Metzger said, poor management is more likely to translate directly into resistance risk.

Another concern for Liberty is that its mode of action amplifies the consequences of poor application.

Glufosinate is a contact herbicide. It only affects weeds it lands on, and those weeds must receive a lethal dose to be killed. That makes the product especially vulnerable to sub-lethal exposure.

“A sub-lethal dose, whether that means not adding enough product to the sprayer or not getting it to the target at the proper dose, can select for resistant individuals over time,” said Metzger.

Risk management

Delta T, which relates spraying conditions to air temperature and humidity, is particularly important for water-based formulations such as Liberty, said Metzger.

Compared to oil-based products, glufosinate droplets take longer to cross the leaf cuticle, increasing the risk that moisture evaporates before the active ingredient can move into the plant.

Metzger said Liberty remains an effective tool, but he cautioned against assuming it will behave the same way it did when most acres were in canola.

As more soybean and corn acres shift toward glufosinate tolerance, resistance risk will be shaped less by the chemistry itself and more by how consistently it is managed.

Coverage, timing and weed size are no longer details to fine-tune, Metzger said. They are the difference between preserving the tool and quietly selecting for trouble.

Liberty still works, but on today’s Prairie farms, it no longer forgives mistakes.

The post Management decisions matter more as resistance pressure builds on glufosinate appeared first on Grainews.

At the 2025 Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance (CHTA) annual conference in Winnipeg in November, one of the clearest messages came from agronomist and biologist Trevor Kloeck, who warned that hemp evangelism has done real damage to the crop’s credibility.

Why it matters: Realistic expectations help farmers match hemp to the fields and management it needs to perform.

Kloeck, president and co-founder of Plantae Environmental, spoke during the conference’s Hemp Resiliency Workshop. He said the industry has long struggled to temper the optimistic zeal of some of its supporters.

“I think it was all very innocent,” he told Grainews. “As real opportunities emerged, that optimistic voice got very loud and drowned out the sober, business-minded voice.”

Early messaging often leaned heavily on broad claims that the crop required little management, could be grown anywhere or would naturally outperform other rotations. It’s easy to see why early adopters were drawn in by the promises, but the moment boots hit the dirt, farmers learned some hard lessons about the crop.

“Hemp isn’t a crop you can plant and forget about,” said Kloeck. “It responds to good agronomy better than most crops, but it will also punish bad agronomy more severely.”

That gap between expectation and reality shaped farmer perceptions early on. Many growers who tried hemp in the 1990s and early 2000s found the crop rarely lived up to the hype. Harvest challenges, fibre wrapping, fertility needs and inconsistent markets all contributed to a Prairie-wide sense of disappointment that the industry still contends with today.

A legacy of boosterism

Part of the challenge for the hemp sector is that enthusiasm around the crop often outpaced the industry’s ability to deliver. For instance, initial claims that hemp would rapidly replace plastics, concrete and a long list of industrial materials weren’t grounded in reality, said Kloeck. Hemp does have wide potential, but the promises came faster than processor demand, market development and regulatory progress.

“Making products from hemp and making a business out of hemp are different things,” he said. “We forgot that we were also building the bones of a new industry.”

That pattern resurfaced during the 2018 CBD bubble. After the U.S. legalized hemp, thousands of U.S. growers rushed into CBD production, many encouraged by promotional campaigns promising quick profits.

But extracting CBD turned out to be difficult, the market wasn’t ready, and the hype collapsed as quickly as it began. Many growers were left with unsold biomass, financial losses and a lingering bad taste in their mouths.

Kloeck said evangelism hasn’t only misled farmers, it’s affected high-level business relationships too. He described working with a major multinational company, one large enough to “write a $5-billion cheque without going to the bank,” that was interested in hemp fibre.

When the company asked for carbon-offset data, Kloeck’s team provided measured, defensible figures. But the company came back comparing those numbers to claims made by another supplier — claims Kloeck said were “mathematically impossible.”

For Kloeck, it was a clear example of how overstatements can hinder opportunities rather than accelerate them. That unrealistic pitch skewed expectations and made it harder for legitimate suppliers to compete.

A shift toward realism

Kloeck believes a reset is underway. Processors, researchers and growers have made steady gains in agronomy, harvesting methods and product development. But rebuilding trust means being open about the crop’s limitations as well as its potential.

The way forward, he said, is to treat hemp as a premium, management-intensive crop, something closer to malt barley than a low-effort rotation filler.

“You don’t grow malt barley everywhere,” he said. “You grow it on selected fields, and you manage it carefully. That’s how we have to think about hemp.”

Hemp’s long-term potential is still significant. Kloeck noted it can fit well in Prairie rotations when matched to the right soils, management and markets.

The CHTA is reporting that fibre demand is slowly increasing, feed registrations continue to move through regulatory channels and food-grade seed production remains steady. But continued growth depends on avoiding the overstatements that once clouded public messaging.

“The potential is so good we don’t have to embellish,” he said. “We have an opportunity to build a multi-billion-dollar sector without getting into those nebulous areas. It’s part of the solution, not the whole solution.”

Back to basics

For Prairie farmers, Kloeck said the message is straightforward: hemp can be a profitable crop, but only under the right conditions and with realistic expectations. Matching fields, selecting the right genetics, planning for harvest and securing reliable contracts remain essential steps.

“Hemp has a legitimate opportunity to offer farmers better returns than canola, given time,” he said. “But we have to be sequential. We have to get there in steps.”

The post Hemp’s future hinges on honest agronomy, experts say appeared first on Grainews.

A few years back I checked on a number of canola and grain fields north of Edmonton that had been heavily hailed in late June. All the fields, encompassing several thousand acres, looked like chopped vegetable salads. The owners talked wipeouts for the season but I advised them to wait a few weeks. Well, by late July all the fields were growing well and healthy in a good-moisture year, but obviously a month behind in crop maturity. At the end of a rainy summer and a long frost-free fall, all of the growers in the hailed area took off crops close to their target yields.

Thunderstorms with heavy rain and little or no hail can, depending on intensity, produce as much as five to 10 lb. of nitrate per acre from the reactive nitrogen dioxide produced by the lightning. Such storms contribute as much as one seventh of the planet’s fixed nitrogen fertilizer.

When you observe a thunderstorm, you’ll see the lightning bolts of the storm repeatedly strike into the ground, unless of course there is some high-ground tower nearby. Have you ever wondered what that lightning bolt did when it hit the Earth?

My first test came in Ontario in 1972 when I was checking out a rutabaga crop that was partially infested on a lower part of the field with clubroot. For your information, a rutabaga is just a winter annual Argentine canola. I found there was 100 per cent infection of the rutabagas in this lower part — but there was one healthy rutabaga, plumb in the middle of this group. I dug up this rutabaga and replanted it in a University of Guelph greenhouse, thinking that I had discovered a new kind of resistance, only to find there were already clubroot-resistant rutabagas readily available but customers did not like the varieties. They preferred the very clubroot-susceptible Laurentian rutabaga.

The grower then took me to other parts of the hilly rutabaga field and pointed out several dead, damaged areas of rutabagas. These damaged rutabagas were in roughly circular patches 10 to 15 feet in diameter. The rutabagas were dead and wilted in the middle of the circles, but healthy on the outer edges. I guessed and said “lightning bolts” – the grower smiled and said yes. He said he’d seen these spots on his lightning-prone cropland for years before he figured out the answer. He complimented me on my guess.

Subsequently, in travelling around Prairie cropland in Western Canada over the years, I pointed out many times that these diseased “spots” in canola, potato and cereal croplands were lightning strikes, to the relative amazement of many farmers. I even diagnosed a “diseased” farm vegetable garden in the Peace region that was indeed a lightning strike.

Bolted down

Unfortunately, lightning strikes can be far more destructive when peat and forest land are involved. I remember talking to Canadian forestry researchers at Edmonton in 1986 about lightning damage The personnel showed one aerial photograph of forest stands in Alberta’s foothills with brown/bleached specks dotted here and there. Again, I guessed lightning damage, as a good guess, and they were very surprised. It had taken them a few years to arrive at lightning bolts as the cause.

The lightning strikes during rainstorms, which killed off groups of trees, did not result in forest fires. Now, with drier weather conditions in recent years, these lightning strikes have frequently started forest fires. The persistence of up to 60 or more of these forest fires in Alberta, for example, is due to dry or fairly dry peat bogs. The irony is that we have people who oppose peat harvesting for horticultural soil mixes without the thought that these drying bogs become major fire hazards during dry windy summers. Peat bog fires can last for years. Vast areas of Russia’s Siberian forests have been severely damaged by fires, due to fire control failures and indiscriminate peat harvesting and drainage projects.

Trouble in the trees

Another aspect of lightning damage is the surprising number of tree “kills.” When you notice in particular very large spruce trees, especially around the more southern Prairie farmsteads, you often see one or more dead spruce trees in the farm shelterbelt or individual dead specimens. It could be disease, or perhaps prolonged spring flooding, but a very common cause is lightning.

Over the years I have been asked to look at specimens of dead spruce trees, both white and Colorado spruce, in cities and rural areas. Many times, I have diagnosed lightning strikes as the cause. How do I know? When lightning hits a spruce tree in, let’s say, August, nothing is obvious. Unfortunately, by May or June the following year, the tree is obviously dead. If indeed lightning was the cause then the lower four to five feet, if not trimmed, will still be green. If the spruce tree is close to a house, the spruce can be healthy green up to the house eaves. Lightning will jump the last few feet into the house or ground. In a shelterbelt, lightning may kill one to perhaps four or five adjacent trees.

Remember, lightning strikes are very common on the Prairies, so when you see these odd dead patches of cropland or suddenly dead spruce trees, think of those summer storms. If lightning hits a cottonwood or pine tree it usually causes the upper branches to split severely, damaging the tree, which may not be killed, as with a spruce tree.

On the old fable that lightning never strikes twice in the same place, I have proof that it can and does. The Leduc Rugby Club (near Edmonton) has had to replace one of its 40-foot (13-metre) goal posts twice in two years, due to them being shattered by lightning strikes at the exact same spot.

The post Lightning gives and takes in Prairie fields appeared first on Grainews.

Richard Gray, professor in the College of Agriculture and Bioresources at the University of Saskatchewan and Canadian Grain Policy Research Chair at the University of Saskatchewan, together with Michelle Ross, research assistant at the University of Saskatchewan College of Agriculture and Bioresources, have been commissioned by the Western Grains Research Foundation (WGRF) to conduct a benefit-cost analysis evaluating the Integrated Crop Agronomy Cluster (ICAC).

“With the overall study, we’re hoping to better understand the value and impact of research in the cluster,” said Ross.

The ICAC is an agricultural research cluster created to address the gap in multi-crop and systems-based agronomy research. From 2018-2023, nine million dollars were invested in ICAC research, with funding from WGRF, industry partners and Agriculture and Agri-food (AAFC) Canada’s AgriScience Cluster funding under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP).

With ICAC, most of what has been generated in the cluster is general agronomic knowledge that has built up over time to help producers,

“We’re focussing on three separate tools in the cluster, and those are the Fusarium Headblight Maps, the Prairie Crop Disease Network and the Test Monitoring Network,” she said.

All three are free for producers.

Building awareness

“The kind of questions that we’re asking is overall awareness of these public resources for both producers and agrologists and where producers and agrologists access this information,” she said.

The survey will improve understanding about how these resources are used, and if they affect farm decisions, she said.

“What initiated the research is that AAFC is making this a requirement under the next round of funding agri-science clusters with the SCAP (Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership) model for funding,” she said.

“We need to understand the impact of the funding, and while there are a lot of studies on how there are high returns overall to agriculture research, more research is needed to quantify those benefits, including research of the agri-science cluster,” she said.

Tough decisions

Ross said tough decisions need to be made when public and producer dollars are spent.

“Having evidence-based decision making is needed to best serve everyone; the industry and the public,” she said.

The survey is looking to gauge farmers and agrologists’ awareness of the Prairie Pest Monitoring Network, The Fusarium Headblight Maps, and the Test Monitoring Network.

Ross and Gray also want to find out whether producers and agrologists are using these tools to make decisions on farms.

Ross said participating in this survey is good for farmers, because while ICAC is publicly funded, but also funded through industry groups, and groups like the WGRF.

“Producer money has been used to do this research and create these resources,” she said.

“This goes back to due diligence, because there’s a very long wish list on what money could be spent on, so we need to understand the impact of this research,” she said.

The survey is quite short and will take a producer about 15 minutes to fill out. The survey can be completed on the phone, or on the web.

Ross said she hopes many producers and agrologists fill out the survey, so the research team can get a clear picture across the prairies.

The survey is open until December 31, 2025 and can be found here- https://www.surveymonkey.ca/r/AgronomyResourcesSurvey

akienlen@fbcpublishing.com

The post Survey looks to gauge whether producers are aware of free agronomic tools and where producer funds are going appeared first on Grainews.

A new course by the Canadian Forage and Grassland Association delves into all these components and more.

“The High-Performance Forage course will be available early in 2026 to producers, agronomists and technical teams interested in improving the quality of Canadian forage available for market both domestically and internationally,” according to Kaylee Healy, the CFGA’s communications and knowledge technology transfer logistics manager.

The course covers a range of topics designed to give participants in-depth knowledge on the different aspects of growing high-performance forage across Canada, including examining regional challenges.

READ MORE:

• Grow forages, starve weeds
• Short- and long-term thoughts on forage management
• Lessons learned growing forage mixtures for beef production

This 12-module course is designed for producers who are already growing forage and who are ready to take their product to the next level to take advantage of existing and new markets. Participants can expect to walk away with an in-depth understanding of forage production and practical next steps to improve the quality of forage produced by their operations.

The course is being developed with the help of forage specialist Dan Undersander from the University of Wisconsin, who brings knowledge of more than five decades of advancing forage production.

His expertise spans all aspects of forage management, including production and harvesting methods for hay, haylage, baleage and silage, as well as forage analysis and grazing. His work is supported by other subject matter experts from across Canada and the United States.

“We’ve been building this information for the last three years with Dr. Undersander,” Healy said.

“It’s building on a series of workshops held back in the early 2000s. They were in-person workshops geared towards agronomists and technical experts in forage to help develop higher-quality forage across Canada.”

What’s in the course?

The course takes a ground-up approach, starting with planning growing systems, defining the rations and yield potential. Planning the system helps identify goals, determine labour and management costs and determine crop goals. It is the foundation for the rest of the course and includes elements to help producers track and assess performance.

It’s important to understand the seed mix, including seed genetics, which will grow best in a producer’s region based on climate, soil fertility and other growing conditions.

The module also looks at seeding rates and seeding strategies.

Fertility is an important component of growing quality forage. It begins with understanding the nutrients and density required to match the seed selection made.

Emphasis on soil testing illustrates the need to understand soil pH and existing nutrients, plus soil additives including nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulphur, calcium and magnesium. This module also explores the use of liquid and solid manure and touches on the impact of salinity.

Seed management looks at different tillage systems designed to facilitate proper seed placement and other seedbed preparation considerations, while weed control covers topics such as assessing weed pressures and challenges. It specifically looks at when weeds cause a problem, how to manage weeds through pre-seeding and post-seeding, mechanical needs for weed control and when spraying may be required.

Disease and pest management dives into understanding the pressures that these problems place on crops. The module looks at how to identify problems and manage them.

The course offers a diverse look at harvesting and harvest systems, beginning with targeted harvesting time. This is a natural segue into matching forage quality to animal requirements and targeting moisture levels at harvest.

The harvest module also looks at minimizing field losses, selecting the best mower for your operation, the use of conditioning systems, racking, preservation and making baleage.

Making forage is only part of the equation. The course also features modules on storage including packing density, bunk filling rates and other storage considerations to minimize loss.

Producers feeding out forage will appreciate the module on feed-out management, which touches on topics such as maintaining a fresh bunk face, designing storage systems and engaging a nutritionist. It closes with tracking forage quality and building rations.

As the course winds down, participants will gain a better understanding of tracking and performance, including what records to keep, why producers should keep them and how to inventory quantity and quality in storage.

The initial plan, the tracking and the records help producers better understand the cost of production for an operation. Producers walk away from training with a template to develop the cost of production for their own operation, looking at the cost of harvest and storage losses and the overall cost of forage production.

The course closes with discussion on sustainable management, greenhouse gas impacts and management strategies to help producers with soil carbon sequestering and determining manure storage and application methods for their operations.

Producers will complete training with a plan on how they can improve the quality of forage they produce.

“The course presents information using a combination of written and video materials and provides resources and action items so producers can take the techniques and strategies outlined in the material and apply them to their farm,” Healy said.

Why now?

The CFGA has been working with Undersander and other experts for several years to create this training series based on the demand from producers and extension specialists to improve the quality of forage produced in Canada. It has been long recognized that forages are essential to maintaining the health of cropping systems in addition to being an important crop on its own.

Growers face a number of challenges regionally, including disease, pests, drought, excessive moisture and varying rates of soil fertility.

A pilot three-day workshop offered this past March in Manitoba underlined the desire for knowledge and the need to build new supports and connections for growers.

“With experts planning retirement or moving into other roles, the CFGA recognized the opportunity to capture this knowledge now and assist with transferring it to the next generation of producers, agronomists and technicians who are looking to improve Canadian forage,” Healy said.

“This free online course will be available through the CFGA’s learning management system in both English and French early in 2026.”

The new High-Performance Forage course joins other online educational opportunities provided by the CFGA, including Advanced Grazing Systems with sub-courses on dairy and brown soil zones.

The post New high-performance forage training program to launch in 2026 appeared first on Grainews.

Quattro Ventures in Alberta is one of very few. Emily Ford, senior agronomist at the joint-venture farm where mint is cultivated for the essential oils market, knows of only one other Prairie farm producing this specialty crop.

Ford said this presents some unique challenges for agronomists like herself.

“When you are growing other specialty crops, let’s say potatoes in southern Alberta for example, you usually have a wealth of peers and experts to phone up when something looks funny or you have a problem,” Ford said.

Why it matters: If a given crop isn’t often commercially grown on the Prairies, that doesn’t necessarily mean it was never possible.

With mint, there isn’t a network of people Ford can readily turn to for help. She noted some agronomic information is available through organizations, such as the Mint Industry Research Council in the United States, but much of what Ford understands about commercial mint production has been largely self-taught.

“I didn’t know anything about mint five years ago until I started working at Quattro,” Ford said, adding trial and error has been an important aspect of the learning process.

“If you are given the opportunity to work with a crop like this, you just dive in, read as much as you can, lean on the people who know something about it, and don’t be afraid to make mistakes. You have to work with farmers to figure it out together, because mint is so different from other crops that are really commonly grown,” she said.

“I think agronomists become agronomists because we’re curious people who want to find out how things work, so I can say this has been a fun challenge.”

Community curiosity around this novel crop has been strong as well. Ford noted a lot of producers in the area have visited Quattro Ventures so they could get a first-hand look at commercial mint production.

“We do a lot of farm tours, but so far no one has taken the plunge and tried it.”

Located in the Bow Island/Burdett area in southeastern Alberta, Quattro Ventures comprises five family farms cultivating a diverse array of crops across dryland and irrigated acres. This includes dill, another speciality crop grown for the essential oils market, as well as cereals, seed canola, peas and potatoes.

Ford helps run the 3,000-acre operation as part of the farm’s management team, which includes both owners and non-owners. Quattro Ventures was founded by the Palliser Triangle Marketing Group, a collection of forward-thinking farmers intent on exploring new agricultural marketing opportunities. The idea behind it was to unite the strengths of individual family farms while leveraging the group’s collective knowledge, resources and markets.

Essential oils are highly concentrated, aromatic liquids extracted from plants that capture the plant’s fragrance and flavour. The spearmint and peppermint essential oils produced by Quattro Ventures go into such things as candy, chewing gum, toothpaste and cosmetics, while the farm’s dill essential oil is used for dill pickles.

According to Ford, India and the U.S. Pacific Northwest are the main areas that produce mint for the essential oils market. In Ford’s estimation, Quattro Ventures has grown to the point where it now produces 25 per cent of North America’s mint oil.

One reason more Prairie farms haven’t followed Quattro Ventures’ lead could be that commercial mint production isn’t for the faint of heart.

Mint is a perennial rhizome crop that propagates through rhizome cuttings, not seed, so specialized agricultural machinery is required for planting and harvesting. Specialized processing equipment is also needed to extract and distill the oil from the harvested mint leaves.

Ford acknowledged some farmers may shy away from the risks associated with producing an unfamiliar crop such as mint, given the hefty expense of getting everything up and running.

“It’s a big investment. You need to have specialized equipment and facilities to process the oil and get it to market, and it’s very expensive.”

Area well-suited for mint

According to Ford, Quattro Ventures’s location in southeastern Alberta has several attributes that make it a prime area for producing high-quality mint oil.

One is linked to where it is situated in the Canadian brown soil zone. “Because of the soil types we have here, we produce a certain oil that meets quality standards the flavour houses or brokers are looking for with purity, menthol content, aroma, all of those sorts of things.”

Growing conditions in the area are another major plus. Mint requires long, warm summer days and cooler nights for optimal oil production. Quattro Ventures fits the bill, with an extended growing window of 124 to 132 frost-free days and average crop heat units in the 2,400 range.

As well, mint is a thirsty crop requiring reliable, consistent moisture, especially during peak summer heat. Quattro Ventures relies heavily on irrigation infrastructure provided by the St. Mary River system — something that’s particularly important within the drought-prone Palliser Triangle region where the farm is located.

“You can’t grow mint without irrigation,” Ford said. “At peak crop staging with the hot, dry weather, you’re looking at an inch to an inch and a half of water a week.”

Planting and field management

Each mint production cycle at Quattro Ventures starts with disease-free tissue culture plantlets the farm gets from a specialty nursery. The plantlets aren’t planted in fields right away but are placed in nursery blocks where they serve as a source of clean rhizome rootstock.

“Once those plantlets are established, the next spring we go back and dig up some of the rhizomes from that clean stock. We use a modified potato digger to dig up them up and then they’re planted into a production field.

“You only need one inch of a viable rhizome to create a mint plant. The first year we really focus on establishment and then after that, we’re looking at production and are harvesting a crop every year.”

The mint fields, once established, will remain productive for up to five years, Ford said, adding “because it is a five-year crop, there is no tillage on that piece of land for five years.” She noted this kind of tillage reprieve provides a nice break for fields, particularly since Quattro Ventures grows some heavier tillage crops, such as sugar beets and potatoes.

“I think that’s really beneficial for soil health, not just for the mint crop but for all the other subsequent crops we grow on that land.”

According to Ford, mint is a heavy feeding crop for fertilizer, which is applied to Quattro Ventures mint fields in the spring. Typically, each acre receives 120 to 150 pounds of nitrogen, along with 100 pounds of potassium and 80 pounds of phosphorus. Because mint doesn’t grow in rows, fertilizer is distributed through broadcast applications.

In recent years, Quattro Ventures has started using environmentally smart nitrogen products for its nitrogen applications in mint fields. Ford said the slow-release fertilizer allows nutrient availability to be better matched with crop uptake. It has also meant fertigation, something the farm has practiced in the past, is no longer needed.

The mint at Quattro Ventures is typically harvested in late July to early August. Swathed crops are chopped with forage harvesters and loaded into specialized tubs, which connect directly to steam lines at a central distillation facility at the farm where the essential oils are extracted.

Crop residues left over from the distilling process serve a very useful purpose, Ford said. They spread the “mint plugs” on the fields to increase organic matter and remediate areas that are erosion-prone.

“It is a nice soil addition, with very similar characteristics to well-composted cattle manure. And there aren’t any restrictions on what fields you can put it on because it’s clean. It has been steamed to 300 degrees, so essentially all the weed seeds are not viable.”

Weed, disease and pest management

According to Ford, weed control in mint is critical, especially after it is first planted in a production field.

She noted because mint is a broadleaf crop, there are limited options for broadleaf weed control. As a result, Ford said, “we really focus on the first couple of years trying to get weed free. Usually by the fifth year, it’s a tough time to try to control those broadleaf weeds.”

Careful herbicide selection is also essential because of rotational considerations for the following crops. “Re-cropping restrictions mean there are only certain chemicals we can apply in the first couple of years of a mint stand.”

As far as disease threats go, powdery mildew is an important one to watch for in mint because it is a heavy canopy crop. Powdery mildew is a fungal infection that can cause mint leaves to wilt and fall off.

“It is imperative to maintain those leaves, because the leaves are where the oil is. You don’t want them on the ground,” Ford said, adding early fungicide applications are used as a preventative measure at Quattro Ventures to help protect against powdery mildew.

Ford noted verticillium wilt is also on the farm’s radar since it has been a problem for mint producers elsewhere, particularly in areas when mint has been cultivated for much longer than it has in southeastern Alberta.

“We have been lucky not to see it here. That’s something you have to really watch out for, because there’s nothing to be done about verticillium wilt once it shows up.”

According to Ford, disease control efforts are hampered due to very few products with minor use registration being available for a specialty crop such as mint. It’s a big reason Quattro Ventures always ensures it is sourcing disease-free mint stock.

Ford said while mint is generally resistant to major insect pressure, spider mites can emerge during hot, dry spells. They can harm mint plants by sucking the oil out of the leaves.

However, spider mites usually only appear near the field edges, Ford noted, adding the bugs avoid moisture so they can be effectively controlled with irrigation.

The post How a southern Alberta farm maintains mint condition appeared first on Grainews.

It’s important to note that soil sampling and testing are excellent tools to assess nutrient levels in your fields. That information sets the stage for smarter fertilizer planning in the spring. It’s also relevant that fewer than 20 per cent of fields in Western Canada are sampled each year. To me, that’s a huge missed opportunity to understand your soil and build a solid fertilizer plan.

When to soil sample

Ideally, sampling in early spring gives the most accurate measurement of soil nutrient status for spring-seeded crops. However, springtime is often too short and rushed to allow proper analysis and developing your fertilizer plans. So, if soils are moist, late fall (after soil temperature has dropped to 5-7 C) is often the most practical time. If soils are very dry, sampling in early fall is fine.

Nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur levels can fluctuate from fall to spring, especially in moist soils with warmer-than-normal winters. Variations in nutrient levels from fall to spring are more likely in the Chinook regions of the southern Prairies. I don’t recommend sampling frozen soils during the winter simply because of the difficulty in obtaining representative sampling depths.

Further, I encourage farmers to go out with the person doing the soil sampling on their farm. It allows you to develop a good sense of how soils vary across fields and to see where samples are taken to ensure representative sampling. When you are with the sampler, you know where and how the samples were taken.

What are the options for sampling?

Many fields across the Prairies have moderately rolling topography, resulting in soil variability across the landscape. This can pose a challenge in deciding how to take representative soil samples. Samples must be representative of the field or each soil/crop management zone of a field. Work with your fertilizer dealer or agronomist to help you decide how to sample each field.

Briefly, here are a few ways fields can be soil sampled:

Random sampling of a whole field: Works best in fields with relatively uniform soil and topography. It involves taking representative soil samples throughout the entire field, but make sure to avoid unusual areas.

Sampling soil/crop management zones: Works best in fields with variable soil and topography. Uniquely different zones are mapped based on soil characteristics, topography, and/or crop yield potential. Representative soil samples are taken within each management zone. This method works well in fields with variable soil. Each management zone can be randomly sampled or benchmark sampled (see point 3). Work with an experienced agronomist to map each soil/crop management zone carefully.

Benchmark soil sampling: Involves sampling a one-to-two-acre area that is representative of most of the field or soil/crop management zone. Each year, the same area is soil sampled. When a field is variable in soil or topography, three or more benchmark locations may be needed to account for that variability.

When selecting soil/crop management zones with your agronomist, make use of crop yield maps, aerial photos, topographic maps, soil salinity maps and/or satellite imagery information. Also, use your personal field knowledge and observations of crop growth differences (crop establishment, vigour, colour, and growth) and landscape/topography of each field to identify where different soil types occur.

Number of sampling sites

I suggest taking samples from a minimum of 20 sites for each field, soil/crop management zone or benchmark area. Les Henry used to suggest 30 sites, which is even better. The more sampling sites taken, the more representative your samples will be of the field.

A common mistake is only taking six or seven soil cores from a field or management zone, which is not enough and may result in unreliable information for your fields and the development of inaccurate fertilizer recommendations. Why? Typically, each soil sample sent to a soil testing lab weighs about two lbs. One acre of land, six inches deep, weighs about 2,000,000 lbs. If a 160-acre field is soil sampled to a six-inch depth, a two-lb. soil sample must represent about 320 million pounds of soil. The soil sample would represent less than one-millionth of the field. So, it is critically important that an adequate number of soil cores be taken!

Choosing depth increments

There are various recommendations for sampling depth. My preference is to separate each soil core into depth intervals of zero-to-six, six-to-12 and 12-to-24 inches (0-15, 15-30 and 30-60 cm) and place the three sampling depths into three clean plastic pails. Do not use metal pails! Do this at each site sampled. Many agronomists suggest zero-to-six- and six-to-24-inch (0-15 and 15-60 cm) depths, which is easier and faster but does not give as useful information on nutrient stratification.

Most research on nitrate and sulphur in Western Canada’s annual crops has been based on sampling to 24 inches. Sampling in three depth increments gives a clearer picture of how these nutrients are distributed through the soil profile.

Phosphorus and potassium are less mobile, so keep the zero- to six-inch depth sample separate.

After the 20-plus soil cores are taken, thoroughly mix each composite sample and lay out the soil samples to completely air dry to stop nutrient changes. If moist soil samples are sent directly to the lab in sealed bags, soil microbes can alter the levels of plant-available nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur, causing incorrect estimates of soil nutrient levels. If samples are sent directly to the lab in a moist condition, they must be shipped in coolers and kept below 5 C and arrive at the lab the next day for drying.

Sample analysis

The key macronutrients to test for are nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and sulphur (S). Measure N, P, K, and S in the zero-to-six- and six-to-12-inch depths, and N and S in the 12-to-24-inch depth. For most soils in Western Canada, testing for calcium (Ca) or magnesium (Mg) isn’t usually necessary, since these nutrients are rarely deficient.

It is a wise idea every few years to check levels of soil micronutrients copper, iron, manganese and zinc. Testing for micronutrients every year is only necessary if one or more micronutrients are in the marginal or low range; otherwise, testing every few years is fine.

It is important to note the tests for boron and chloride are not reliable, so I do not recommend testing for them. The problem is with the soil test methodology and critical levels used, which often result in unnecessary fertilizer recommendations.

Checking organic matter, pH and soil salinity is worthwhile for keeping an eye on your soil. Other tests, like cation exchange capacity, base saturation, or base cation saturation ratios, generally aren’t useful for planning fertilizer. CEC doesn’t change much because it depends on clay content, and base saturation mainly flags soil problems such as sodic soils. Research shows that BCSR adds little value in Western Canada, so you can skip the cost.

Finally, make sure the soil testing lab that does your soil analysis uses the correct soil test methods. For Alberta farmers, all soil test P calibration has been with the Modified Kelowna method since 1990 by Alberta Agriculture. It is also the recommended P method by Saskatchewan Agriculture. Soil samples from Alberta and Saskatchewan should be sent to a lab that uses the modified Kelowna method for the best 4R interpretation and fertilizer recommendations.

For Manitoba farmers, all soil test P calibration has been with the Olsen method (also referred to as the bicarb method), so use a lab that uses the Olsen method. Other soil test P methods, such as the Bray method, have never been calibrated to Western Canada’s soils. I do not recommend methods that have not been calibrated for western Canadian soils.

Next, interpret your soil tests. Make sure you seek the advice of several agronomists when developing your fertilizer plans for next spring.

The post Soil sampling for Prairie farmers: How to test for nutrients and avoid common mistakes appeared first on Grainews.

Idaho potato farmer Blake Matthews caught the attention of Nature United with his crop-nutrition-first approach to pest management.

Matthews grows 3,000 acres of irrigated annual crops, including 400 to 500 acres of potatoes, the same in sugar beets, and the rest split among corn, barley and wheat. Over the past five-plus years, the farm applied one in-season fungicide to potatoes and only last year applied localized spray for insects — specifically, grasshoppers.

This minimal pesticide requirement may sound unbelievable, especially to other potato growers. “We do make some big claims,” Matthews says.

In addition to lowering pesticide use and synthetic fertilizer use, Matthews also says soil organic matter across the farm is in the three to four per cent range, up from a range from 0.7 to two before he put the focus on soil health and plant nutrition.

These numbers, in turn, caught the attention of Brad Johnson, Idaho agriculture strategy manager for Nature United (called The Nature Conservancy in the U.S.). Johnson says the non-government organization’s goal is to help modern agriculture become more sustainable. “We want to keep all tools, but seek judicious respectful use of pesticide products,” Johnson says.

Matthews Land and Cattle is one of Johnson’s demonstration farms.

Potatoes are an input-intensive crop, Johnson says. Potato crops often get soil fumigation for nematodes, along with fungicides and insecticides throughout the growing season. Matthews has all but eliminated these applications, Johnson says.

What’s more, Johnson adds, Matthews has also reduced tillage from four or five passes down to two passes, and reduced overall water use by 18 to 20 per cent.

Matthews “lets biology run the system,” Johnson says.

The core of the system is a soil health plan from long-time local agronomist Jared Cook. “Diseases and insects attack weak plants,” says Cook, agronomic specialist and sales consultant with Rocky Mountain Agronomics in Idaho. “And weakness is often related to nutrition.”

Cook has been working with Matthews and his family business, Matthews Land and Cattle, for 14 years. A key part of the soil health plan is manure compost from dairies and cattle feedlots, which improves organic matter and reduces the need for other fertilizer sources. Cook also prescribes two broad-spectrum hormones, which he won’t share because they are, he says, part of his competitive advantage.

For nutrients, Cook wants balance. He doesn’t want nitrogen availability to get ahead of the other nutrients. “In that situation, nitrogen robs yield,” he says. (Later in this article, Western Canadian crop nutrition experts comment that this can be true for potatoes and wheat, but perhaps not canola.)

“My game is to prioritize mineral nutrition, then use hormones to drive greater response,” Cook says.

The author told Cook during their interview that he usually looks at hormones and biologicals with a degree of skepticism. Cook supports that skepticism. “My approach has changed,” he says. “Ten years ago we didn’t have as many players in this space and I had almost complete trust. Now growers need a trusted advisory team.”

Cook emphasizes his methodical approach to nutrient decisions for all crops, using weekly and biweekly plant sap analysis of new and old leaves in combination with rapid soil testing. For Matthews, his in-season top-ups run through the irrigation system while watering.

With traditional tissue tests taken from new growth only, “you actually never know where the nutrient is coming from,” Cook says. “It could and should be from roots like normal or it could be from old leaves, where mobile nutrients are leaving the old growth to support new growth. We know yield is optimized when you can hold the plants’ old growth and new growth leaf nutrient density to a tight tolerance between them.”

Without accurate diagnosis, input use is “a guessing game and we just don’t need to be guessing,” Cook says. “These new advances in plant testing methods give us the edge in making the right decisions.”

Of course the final question is: does this intense level of management pay?

“We haven’t seen anything really for a yield change. We have, however, seen our quality go up in many different aspects,” Matthews says. “As far as the spend goes, for the most part, we’ve just traded dollars. We’ve replaced fertility with the compost, and replaced fungicides, insecticides and fumigants with nutritionals and biologicals. Overall, though, we probably save about $100 per acre from what our old program used to be.”

Reaching out to Prairie expertise

For many farms, ideal fertilizer management is simple: use soil tests to identify the right rate based on the farm’s yield target. Then choose nutrient sources that meet crop needs at the lowest cost and the greatest logistical efficiency. Manure can be a great nutrient source and organic matter booster when available and when applied based on nutrient analysis.

With these basics established, farms could dig deeper — in the way Matthews has — and hire an experienced agronomist to develop a more comprehensive plan.

Jared Cook outlines the four practices at the heart of his program:

• Balanced nutrition can make plants more resilient to insects and disease, and reduce the need for fungicides and insecticides.
• If farms put the primary focus on higher nitrogen rates, that extra nitrogen — when other nutrients are out of balance — can actually rob yields.
• Plants with correct nutrition have higher sugars (brix) and more secondary metabolites – compounds plants use to defend themselves.
• There are 16 essential elements, each with a specific mode of action. We need to pay closer attention to micros.

Do those four practices work for the common crops and farm systems in Western Canada? We polled western Canadian specialists — crop nutrition researchers, experienced agronomists and plant physiologists — to see what they thought of Cook’s four practices.

Balanced nutrition can make plants more resilient to insects and disease, and reduce the need for fungicides and insecticides. Is this true?

“It’s true, a crop with balanced nutrients can better tackle diseases and insects,” says Raju Soolanayakanahally, a plant physiologist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Saskatoon. “Balanced nutrients permit vigorous growth, thus providing active immunity as a result of increase phytonutrient, protein and lipid synthesis. Apart, photosynthesis will operate at its peak under balanced nutrition and adequate soil moisture. So if pests attack the plant, the plant can divert resources to tackle biotic stress without compromising yields.”

In general, experts agree healthy plants will be hardier plants. However, that does not mean healthy plants are immune to disease.

“Higher fertility leads to more vegetative growth, and lush canopies create a microclimate conducive for higher disease severity,” says Mike Harding, crop assurance lead for Alberta Agriculture and Irrigation. “In many cases the conditions for maximum plant growth are also the conditions for maximum disease potential.”

Chris Manchur, agronomy specialist with the Canola Council of Canada, adds, “We all know sclerotinia risk is higher in high-fertility environments.”

Jason Voogt says crop resilience to disease or insect pressure has “more to do with genetics.” The owner and lead agronomist with Field 2 Field Agronomy at Miami, Man. gives an example: “We had 200-bu./ac. oat crops in 2024. I would say those oats didn’t lack anything, yet we would have had major losses to crown rust had we not sprayed a fungicide this year.”

Ross McKenzie, retired agronomy research scientist with Alberta Agriculture, agrees nutrition is one path but not the only path to hardier plants. “A number of good agronomic factors, including soil fertility and fertilizer management, increase crop health, improve yield potential and help to reduce the impacts of diseases and/or insect pressure,” he says. “Probably the most notable is earlier seeding and slightly higher seeding rates.”

Lyle Cowell, Nutrien senior agronomist based at Tisdale, Sask., can cite many studies showing how specific nutrient deficiencies can increase specific diseases in specific crops. For example, “early examples showed that phosphorus deficiency leads to increased seedling rot due to pythium,” he says, citing a 1935 journal article by T.C. Vanterpool in the Canadian Journal of Research.

However, adding a nutrient to a crop that is not deficient will not “cure” a disease, he says. “For example it has often been suggested that copper will reduce ergot in wheat, but this is only true if the wheat is deficient in copper.”

If farms put the primary focus on higher nitrogen rates, that extra nitrogen — when other nutrients are out of balance — can actually rob yields. Is this true?

“I do not believe this for canola,” says Mario Tenuta, research chair in 4R Nutrient Stewardship at the University of Manitoba. He does believe it for other crops, giving two examples: wheat can lodge with excess nitrogen, and potatoes can have excess vine growth — two things that could, in theory, increase disease.

“I don’t believe this, except in the extreme, like where nitrogen levels become so high that they are toxic,” says Harding. “Studies I’m familiar with show that excess nitrogen is not advantageous or detrimental to yield. I do believe that excess nitrogen is a waste of money, so it will rob profit, but not yield. It is also possible that the lack of other nutrients may rob yield, but excess nitrogen will not.”

Others, including Cindy Grant, were believers. A retired research scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada at Brandon, Man., Grant says yield can decrease if growers add excess nitrogen without a balanced supply of other nutrients.

“Years ago, when I was a student and before it was widely recognized that our soils would be deficient in sulphur for canola, my husband-to-be had severe sulphur deficiency on his canola field,” Grant says. “It ended up getting every disease you could think of because the deficiency weakened it. I had one trial where every treatment that I used to improve nitrogen efficiency decreased canola yield because of an nitrogen:sulphur imbalance.”

Plants with correct nutrition have higher sugars (brix) and more secondary metabolites — compounds plants use to defend themselves. Is this true?

This one left most of our experts scratching, especially with regard to brix — a measure of plant sugars often used to assess grape sugar content when making wine. Higher brix means potentially higher alcohol content in the wine.

Cowell says brix is becoming a bit of a hot topic. “I have oddly been asked about brix many times this winter,” he says, “and my reply has been the same. If you grow wine and want to harvest for best sugar content, then brix is a tool to use. Otherwise, where is the data?”

Tenuta has a similar thought: “If brix was so useful, we’d be all be using it like a soil test.” He did, however, agree that good plant nutrition can lead to secondary metabolites useful in plant defence.

Xiaopeng Gao, associate professor of soil fertility and agronomy at the University of Manitoba, says “proper nutrient supply can improve plants’ photosynthesis efficiency, producing more sugars and secondary metabolites such as flavonoids, alkaloids and phenols. These compounds can help plants against attacks from pathogens and pests. Additionally, some compounds such as flavonoids can improve plants’ antioxidant properties, and therefore increase tolerance to abiotic stresses such as heat and drought.”

Soolanayakanahally agrees. “Higher secondary metabolites can impart better defence against pest and disease.”

There are 16 essential elements, each with a specific mode of action. We need to pay closer attention to micros. Is this true?

The experts generally agreed with this.

“I believe there is a growing need to pay attention to micros across Prairies,” Gao says. His reasons: one, canola, soybeans and corn have high requirements for micros and their acres, in total, are increasing. Two, fewer mixed farms mean lower use of livestock manure. And three, we are paying more attention to the importance of micros (for examples, iron and zinc) for human health.

Cowell says pay closer attention to micronutrients only if you need them. “The idea that micronutrient deficiencies are ‘hidden’ is a fallacy — these deficiencies tend to lead to yields falling off a cliff,” he says. He sees zinc applied to soils with no need for extra zinc and while he has seen boron deficiencies, it was “only on terrible soils that no one should farm.” Cowell’s conclusion: “Beyond that, this becomes a wasteland of marketing and improper sales.”

MORE ON MICROS: Soil fertility, revisited

Harding says manganese and zinc are “often heralded as having disease-reducing properties.” He also says boron availability is connected with clubroot infection in canola, and chloride deficiency can “predispose some crops to certain infections or physiological issues” — but again, only if they’re short.

Harding puts this whole conversation in perspective: while macronutrient and micronutrient fertility is a “critical agronomic principle necessary to allow the crop to reach its genetic potential, it is probably only occasionally a significant modulator of disease,” he says. “It is never as impactful as primary disease management principles like genetic resistance, crop rotation, clean seed and fungicides.”

The take-away

How do farmers use this information?

We interviewed a venture capital investor recently who encourages Canadian agriculture to at least pay attention to those voices at the fringe of common practice. Those may be the people who bring forth revolutionary ideas to make farming more efficient, more productive and more profitable.

In many cases, though, farms can advance all three of these by exploring the practices we already know.

Whether leaning into what we know or exploring the new and untested, it helps to have help. Get sound advice from an experienced agronomist. And listen to that little voice in your ahead that wonders, ‘Can this be right?’

“As we’ve gone down this road, the No. 1 skeptic has been my dad,” Matthews says.

What the family discovered together is that “the old days of strictly managing nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are gone,” Matthews says. And from that point, their work with Cook has shown “plants in balance will have lower pest management costs.”

While we do not have much crop data to support this claim on the Prairies, the logic in those two broad statements is sound — as our experts have shown. How farmers achieve that “balance” is still open to debate. But if we are to make the efficiency gains we need to make, these are discoveries worth making.

The post FEED ME: Can well-fed plants fend off diseases and insects? appeared first on Grainews.