While wetlands sequester carbon, they also naturally release greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere. That means the impact of wetland drainage on net GHG emissions was previously difficult to determine.

Our new study, however, has found that widespread wetland drainage on Prairie farmland releases 2.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂-eq) per year. That’s equal to more than five per cent of Prairie agricultural emissions from the industry as a whole. CO₂-eq is a metric used to to compare emissions from different greenhouse gases by converting amounts of those gases to the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.

Our research team included Darrin Qualman from the National Farmers Union, Sydney Jensen, a then-graduate student at the University of Regina, as well as Murray Hidlebaugh and Scott Beaton, independent farmers in the Canadian Prairies.

Some tout wetland drainage as providing numerous benefits to agriculture. In addition to increasing arable land area, proponents argue that “proper drainage management … reduces the carbon footprint by cutting down equipment operation time, fuel and emissions, reduces the impacts of extreme weather events, and decreases overland flooding and nutrient washouts.”

This assertion of the environmental benefits associated with wetland drainage is not supported by science. Our work highlights a large increase in the carbon footprint associated with wetland drainage rather than a reduction, while other work documents impacts on streamflows and nutrient export, and the loss of ducks and other birds.

The impacts of draining wetlands

To quantify the net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with wetland drainage, our approach was to quantify GHG sources when wetlands are intact, and compare them with sources after drainage takes place to understand the net effect of wetland removal on emissions. The annual rate of wetland loss from existing data (10,820 hectares per year) was used to quantify associated carbon emissions for the region.

Intact wetlands emit GHGs such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, so their removal eliminates these natural emissions from the landscape. The presence of wetlands in fields can also require repeated machinery passes and lead to double fertilization around wetland margins, both of which contribute to GHG emissions.

When wetlands are drained, carbon-rich sediments are exposed to the air, allowing rapid decomposition and the release of carbon dioxide. Drainage also expands cropland area, leading to additional GHG emissions from farming activities on the newly cultivated land. It often requires the removal of rings of willow trees surrounding wetlands, with the resulting debris typically burned or composted, producing further emissions.

Our results show that the amount of carbon dioxide released from exposed soil from drained wetlands far exceeded any other source. This was much larger than emissions when wetlands were intact, including natural wetland emissions and emissions from multiple passes with machinery. Additional emissions from farming the former wetland and the removal of vegetation also made a small contribution to the overall balance.

Overall, we estimate that wetland drainage contributes to an annual increase in emissions of at least 2.1 million tonnes CO₂-eq (recognizing that stored carbon will be released over a multi-year period). It is worth noting that this includes natural emissions from intact wetlands, but emissions that are not human-caused are not typically targeted in an effort to achieve GHG reductions.

For example, reducing methane emissions from livestock is a strategy to reduce agricultural GHG emissions, but emissions from wild animals are not considered or incorporated in the same way. Our estimate swells to 3.4 million tonnes of CO₂-eq per year when we exclude natural wetland GHG emissions; this represents an increase of approximately eight per cent above currently quantified GHG emissions from the agricultural industry in the Prairie provinces.

Canada’s GHG Inventory

Canada uses a National Inventory Report to quantify GHG emissions from different jurisdictions and industries, but emissions associated with wetland drainage are not currently included. Emissions of 3.4 million tonnes of CO₂-eq from a single year of wetland drainage are substantial and exceed several emission sources currently described in the report.

For example, emissions from wetland destruction are greater than agricultural emissions from gasoline combustion in trucks or from poultry and swine manure in the Prairie provinces. Including emissions from wetland drainage in the National Inventory Report would provide a more accurate accounting of total agricultural emissions and better position the country to meet its climate commitments.

Prairie farmers play a key stewardship role in this landscape — preserving wetlands on their land provides a public good. Retaining wetlands would create many additional benefits: maintaining wildlife habitats, groundwater recharge, nutrient retention, as well as drought and flood mitigation. These wetland services help address global and regional crises related to biodiversity loss, climate change, lake eutrophication and flooding.

Research shows there is public willingness to pay to restore wetlands in the Prairie provinces. There is additionally a need to reduce conflict and increase collaboration in conversations on agricultural water management in the Canadian Prairies and develop policies that incentivize and enable landowners to consider the environmental benefits of wetlands in their decision making. By better understanding the costs of GHG emissions resulting from wetland drainage, we can better preserve wetlands in the Canadian Prairies.

—Kerri Finlay is a professor in the University of Regina’s biology department, Colin Whitfiled is an associate professor in the University of Saskatchewan’s School of Environment and Sustainability and Lauren Bortolotti is an adjust professor in the University of Saskatchewan’s School of Environment and Sustainability.

The post OPINION: Draining wetlands produces substantial emissions in the Canadian Prairies appeared first on Grainews.

Namely, cattle and horses. She jokes her parents would ship her over to a nearby farm that had livestock and horses so she could get her fill.

Little did she know that years later, everything would come full circle and she would raise cattle on that land with her husband, Gerald. He grew up on a mixed farm operation in the Maple Creek area.

Gerald and Patti today own Windy Ridge Ranching Co. Ltd. Their management and commitment to developing a sustainable ranching operation earned them recognition in 2022 as the Saskatchewan regional nominees for the The Environmental Stewardship Award (TESA), sponsored by Canadian Cattle Association.

Windy Ridge Ranching is a cow-calf operation that consists of about 8,000 acres of native grassland as well as seeded perennial pasture on the northern slopes of Coteau Hills.

After a 10-year stint on a smaller farm near Rosemary in southern Alberta, the Anhorns received a phone call asking if they would like to purchase the very land that Patti had spent many days on in her youth. They jumped on it, and 22 years later have built a ranch that puts sustainability first.

[RELATED] Canadian Cattlemen: Spruce Ranching Co-operative banks on sustainability

They credit their success to the work and dedication the family has put into the operation over the years, including the contribution of their children Carter and Nicole.

“You don’t realize how much they did until they leave; they’re a big part of it,” Gerald said.

Their son Carter is a geological engineer and lives in Saskatoon with his girlfriend Mary. Their daughter Nicole, husband Austin and their daughter Hadley operate a grain farm nearby. Nicole also has a degree and works for an agricultural company.

Taking care of the grass

Today the Windy Ridge Ranching operation involves about 400 head of almost completely Black Angus cows, with still a hint of Hereford influence. During the grazing season they also grass about 200 head of yearlings, including replacement heifers. They background some calves as well. Their land base includes 4,200 acres of native grassland and 4,000 acres of seeded perennial forages.

“Grass is your most valuable resource and must be managed carefully,” says Gerald.

When the Anhorns bought the property 22 years ago, most was native grass, and it immediately became their priority to protect that valuable resource.

Patti says they added some marginal farmland which they converted back to perennial cover. This allowed them to defer grazing on the native grass until later in the year.

They also made sure to stick to an aggressive rotation strategy, which improved the quality of all the grass.

“It improved the health of it by moving the cattle in and out of pastures quickly,” says Gerald, noting it is important for pastures to have time to rest. “It’s been well-proven pastures that get hit hard have a tough time coming back, especially in a drought year.”

Because of these grazing management strategies, the Anhorns have not had to shrink their herd size during dry seasons. Those healthy and productive pastures have allowed them to keep cattle out longer, which in turn helps with winter feeding. They produce most of their own feed, whether it is greenfeed or hay. Since hay has been pretty scarce in recent years, being able to keep cattle on pasture has helped them weather that storm.

By protecting the pastures, the Anhorns have created more than a healthy, sustainable source of food for the cattle. They have also created a habitat for important native plant species and 18 known vertebrate animal species at risk.

Water sourcing

Water is a luxury in these parts, especially over the last three years, with drought-like conditions presenting a challenge for ranchers in the area. It receives about 12 to 14 inches of precipitation in an average year. The Anhorns must rely on runoff, manufactured dams, drilled wells and natural springs for their water supply.

One of the advantages of the rotational grazing system is that it allows for a healthy grass stand, which helps to collect snow and provides shade to the soil. The ground cover keeps the soil from freeze-drying and losing moisture over the winter.

[RELATED] Grain bins make for a good well house for livestock watering

The Anhorns have also been creative, using the Farm and Ranch Water Infrastructure Program (FRWIP) and working with the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority to carry out several projects that helped their water situation.

These projects included digging five dugouts in addition to the original water sources on the property. These dugouts were fenced with solar-powered pumping systems to fill off-site water troughs.

They’ve worked to drought-proof some of the native grass pasture with a shallow pipeline from a new well that carries water to more remote areas helping to improve livestock distribution. The remote sites are monitored with a camera, allowing the Anhorns to observe their operation without leaving home, saving fuel and time.

The next generation

For the Anhorns, sustainability goes beyond the pasture.

In recent years, they’ve thinking about the importance of educating the public about the efforts farmers and ranchers undertake every day to make their operations environmentally sustainable. They also feel more must be done to encourage the next generation to take up cattle production.

“We see people leaving the business, and not many young people want to take over, especially in cow-calf; we’ve got to try to promote that,” says Patti.

She adds consumers have to know that they’re trying to play an essential part in maintaining natural areas for habitat and that they look after their animals.

The Anhorns credit conferences, workshops and seminars for increasing their ranching and management knowledge, particularly in areas of native range management, rotational grazing, environmental stewardship and livestock nutrition.

Patti says it’s worth it, even if you only pick up one new thing during a day-long seminar. “Pick up those things and carry them, follow through with them and see where you go.”

They also have formed partnerships with several organizations to build on their environmental practices, including Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, South Saskatchewan River Watershed Stewards, Ducks Unlimited and the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Foundation.

Again, putting these measures into practice has made a difference. “It’s rewarding to see the improvements you can make by doing those small things. I mean, it’s work, but it’s worth it,” says Patti, noting that along with benefiting the environment it has also improved the bottom line of the ranching business.

While it was an honour to be named a regional TESA winner, the Anhorns say the biggest compliment they ever received was from the previous property owner not long before he passed. “I just want you to know that there has never been a day that I regretted selling my place to you,” he said.

If there is a life lesson that has guided the Anhorns through all the ups and downs over the years, it comes down to “If you thoroughly enjoy what you do, you will find a way to make things happen,” says Patti. ”We’ve learned we must continue to adapt, think progressively, and find ways to improve the productivity of what you have.”

– Article courtesy of the Canadian Cattle Association.

The post Grass management factors into environmental award appeared first on Grainews.

The agency’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) will spend US$38 million to help farmers in 11 states plant crops at a time fields are often left fallow, which can bolster soil health, limit soil erosion and capture and store carbon.

The investment, made through a partnership with the United Soybean Board, National Corn Growers Association, National Pork Board and others, is the latest farm-level effort by the Biden administration meant to address climate change.

Cover crop plantings have been rapidly expanding in recent years as some large agricultural companies launched carbon farming programs that pay farmers to adopt more environmentally friendly practices.

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the Environmental Quality Incentives Program’s Cover Crop Initiative, at the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual convention in Atlanta.

The most recent USDA Census of Agriculture showed 15.4 million acres of cover crops were planted in 2017, a fraction of overall acreage devoted to agriculture.

Rob Myers, director for the Center for Regenerative Agriculture at the University of Missouri, estimates plantings were as high as 22 million acres in 2021.

Farmers and ranchers in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and South Dakota will be eligible for incentives under the program, which USDA aims to expand in coming years.

— Reporting for Reuters by Karl Plume in Chicago; additional reporting by Leah Douglas in Washington.

The post U.S. aims to double cover crop planting to address climate change appeared first on Grainews.

Carbon is a basic element in the chemistry of life. The entire branch of organic chemistry is really the chemistry of carbon. One way to think about carbon is that it forms the mesh that holds life together. When we have a small mesh with a few carbon atoms, we are dealing with gases like methane and carbon dioxide.

As we add carbon molecules to the chain, we move into liquids like hydrocarbons and eventually into solids like coal and diamonds. The bonds between the carbon molecules contain energy that is released when the carbon is burned. This energy heats our homes, propels our tractors and provides a myriad of other modern miracles.

The form of carbon is really important when we consider the risk/reward equation. We need some of all forms of carbon (solid, liquid, gas) but too much of the gaseous forms released into the environment create a blanket-like insulating effect on the Earth and lead to global warming. The federal government’s carbon tax is really a tax on short-chain or gaseous forms of carbon. When we talk about a carbon credit, what is being paid for is the conversion of gaseous carbon into liquid or solid forms that can be stored.

Old vs. new carbon

The carbon cycle is front and centre in this debate. This is the process by which carbon is converted from a gas to a solid. It is important for us in agriculture to understand how this happens. Moving carbon into a gaseous form is basically as simple as burning it — heat is released as the bonds are broken between longer chains of carbon, for example in a lump of coal or piece of wood.

The inverse process is a bit more complex. Carbon dioxide and water are combined in plants using solar energy to produce carbohydrates. This releases oxygen to the atmosphere and removes carbon dioxide. This carbohydrate is largely in liquid form and is pumped through the plant to provide fuel for growth. It is also pumped into the soil to feed soil microbes, which perform a variety of functions, including bringing other nutrients to the plants.

As the plants grow roots and the soil microbes grow and die back, they produce organic matter or soil carbon, a stored form of carbon that we can get paid for. An additional complexity occurs when an animal comes along and eats the plant, consuming above-ground carbon. This stimulates the plant to activate some carbon to restart growth and pull more carbon out of the air and into the soil. This is also the point of the cycle where cows burp and create methane emissions which are a gaseous form of carbon.

If carbon dioxide (CO2) is like a sheet that is warming the earth, then methane is a flannel sheet. It is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 but it also has a much shorter lifespan in the atmosphere. This is important when we consider overall impacts. Forages that are left ungrazed will also oxidize, although it may take a long time. Grazing can accelerate plant growth, sequestering and storing carbon in the ground so that it becomes an “offset.”

The real issue we need to focus on is new versus old carbon. When a cow burps, she releases new carbon that will be sequestered or cycled again in short order. Climate change is really due to old carbon. Fossil fuels represent carbon that was sequestered thousands of years ago through the same mechanisms that exist today. When we dig these ancient forms of stored carbon up and convert them to gas, we are tilting the balance of the carbon cycle. Forage growth interacting with grazing animals can store carbon, just as they have for millions of years. The problem is that current plants and animals can’t sequester as much carbon as is being added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

An emerging movement is beginning to recognize both current practices in farm management and the importance of grasslands and forages in this carbon cycle. Rangelands and forages can provide many benefits beyond carbon, such as wildlife habitat, biodiversity preservation, water filtration and other valuable ecosystem services. This is extremely important to remember when we concern ourselves with addressing the public and thinking beyond the simple carbon market approach. Many of the details of these new programs are still in development but they basically cover two basic options.

Acreage-based option

A straight acreage-based payment is simple to figure out, but the impact is much more difficult to measure. There are some new programs under development that are looking at this type of approach for grasslands and are likely to pay for “avoided conversion.” In other words, producers are being paid to leave the carbon in the ground that has been stored there over years, decades, centuries or eons. This is a huge shift in approach and long overdue, but it is not as simple as it may sound. Generally, these are long-term agreements — in some cases 100 years or more. They may require concessionizing your land, for example through a conservation easement. (To concessionize means to manage so to create a recurring cash flow from the asset.)

There is tremendous potential in this approaches for recognizing the role of forages and potentially for the recognition and conservation of our native grasslands. The challenge here is that in many ways we are paying the current owners for work that was done long before their tenure.

Protocol-based option

This is similar to acreage-based but makes payments based on approved protocols. For grain farmers, this may include minimum tillage or precision-farming fertility practices. For forages, this could include things like adaptive multi-paddock grazing (AMP). The sheer creativity of producers could be a challenge for this approach. For example, at what point does normal grazing management become AMP grazing and result in a positive carbon balance for the soil? Or does stockpiling forage for winter grazing count? There are a lot of management gradients that can create challenges in determining the volume and value of carbon that is being sequestered. While there is a reasonable expectation of some longer-term commitment to this process, it does have some advantages over straight acreage approaches in that it is generally easier to move into and out of these types of agreements and potentially adjust management significantly over time. As well, this second approach can be structured to pay for additionalities such as wildlife habitat and other environmental goods and services that are improved by management. Importantly, it also lets the farmer/rancher take advantage of increases in the price of carbon.

Where are we at?

Driven by their customers, big companies are looking to reduce their carbon footprints, and they are throwing massive amounts of investment into it. Protocol development will require this type of investment and it provides an opportunity for producers.

There are protocols developed and approved for grain-farming operations. While not required, producers generally need to sign up with an aggregator. The aggregator pools carbon credits from large acreages and then sells them to companies or others that want to offset their carbon emissions. They may also be responsible for verification of the credits. These payments have typically been small as many of the protocols only result in partial tonnes of credits on a per-acre basis. For example, if using minimum tillage results in a 0.10 tonne credit per acre and carbon is $20 per tonne, we are talking about $2 per acre. This has the potential to increase with the price of carbon.

For cattle operations, the available options are currently limited. Credits can be claimed on cropping acres, and there are some protocols for using animals with genetic markers for better feed efficiency or building a biodigester for manure, but these markets are currently not easily traded. At the time of writing, there are no protocols or options for payment of carbon credits on perennial forage or native ecosystems. There are programs such as ALUS (Alternate Land Use Services) and others that are paying for ecosystem goods and services which include a value for carbon sequestration, but stack additional benefits such as providing wildlife habitat, water filtration, pollinator habitat and biodiversity.

For both grain and cattle producers, payments may be tied to sustainability initiatives going forward. Conservation easements may be an option for some, and some of the overall value assigned to that easement may/should include the value of carbon sequestered. However, these are often technical and commit to extremely long periods and may also limit the future value of the real estate.

The take-home message

The real take-home message is to stay tuned. Many of the protocols and markets are developing and some mistakes will likely be made.

Most programs are something of a blend of protocol- and acreage-based approaches and for forages and grasslands in Canada, most of these are in their infancy. It is always important to read and understand any agreement you are entering into but given this context it is even more important than ever for these relatively new types of carbon agreements. We are told that the price of carbon is increasing to potentially north of $170 per ton by 2030 and with long-term agreements such as conservation easements, it is important to consider long-term implications. With any agreement, whether acreage- or protocol-based, it is also important to consider future implications on management as well as personal and financial considerations. In many cases, these are long-term considerations.

Carbon markets are more easily accessible for grain farms through aggregators and existing/approved protocols. However, current acreage payments tend to be quite low. They are likely poised to increase, based just on the projected price of carbon.

The revenue potential is poised to increase for carbon agreements, even fairly well-established ones such as minimum tillage. On the perennial crop side, there is evidence that well-managed grasslands can sequester in excess of one ton of carbon per acre and in some environments more than double that. At $170 per ton, that is a significant amount of money, so it is important to stay informed on what is happening in the carbon market. I would also encourage readers to ensure they look at and value factors beyond simple carbon when evaluating the path forward. This includes leveraging management practices that store more carbon but also contribute to other environmental goods and services. The issues and the real value of forages and grazing are beyond a simple plus or minus carbon balance. I expect that innovation and change will be extremely rapid as the cost of carbon continues to rise and these approaches become more mature.

The post Where are we at with carbon credits? appeared first on Grainews.

Dairy Farmers of Canada has had Grey, Clark, Shih and Associates regularly study the effect of U.S. government policy on dairy farms in that country.

The latest version of the project was released at the Dairy Farmers of Canada policy conference held last week in Ottawa.

It showed U.S. dairy farmers benefit from the equivalent of US$12.06 per hundredweight or C$35.02 per hectolitre. That’s close to 70 per cent of what farmers are paid now for their milk.

Peter Clark, a long-time trade consultant and lawyer with the firm, said at the conference that the U.S. is gradually moving more of its programs toward risk management.

“The U.S. has become aware of the WTO inconsistency of many of their programs,” said Clark. “They’re shifting from direct and countercyclical payments and other issues to various types of insurance programs.”

Clark’s 500-page report is a detailed analysis of many programs, and notes a certain amount of the funds for those programs is allocated to the potential use of those programs by dairy farmers, not actual use.

The programs include: domestic support, export subsidies, conservation programs, crop and livestock gross margin, risk management programs, disaster relief assistance programs, loan programs, crop insurance, livestock support as well as renewable fuels incentives and subsidies and irrigation programs.

Nick Thurler, a Dairy Farmers of Ontario board member from eastern Ontario, said that he knows numerous dairy farmers across the border in New York.

“I know if I told them they got $12 per hundredweight subsidy, I know what the answer would be,” he said.

Clark said he’s heard from people who say they know U.S. farmers who get no direct subsidies, but he points out that the subsidies are mostly indirect and farmers in the western U.S. have much greater benefit due to irrigation.

Alfalfa and forages are the biggest users of irrigation water, mostly to feed dairy cattle — hence the massive amount of money that goes into irrigation systems, he said.

“We look at what is available” to dairy farmers, said Clark. That’s typical of trade evaluations done by other countries as well, he added.

Clark’s study also included the impact of nutrition programs in the U.S. on dairy products.

“Some argue it should be seen as welfare and we shouldn’t be allocating it in this analysis,” he said, but he includes it as the original program was created as a way to deal with excess agriculture production.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer’s lawyers, Clark noted, have reports that list 160 subsidies on Canadian steel.

“When it comes to trade, you have to be precise.”

— John Greig is a field editor for Glacier FarmMedia based at Ailsa Craig, Ont. Follow him at @jgreig on Twitter.

The post Report pegs U.S. dairy support levels appeared first on Grainews.

The weed is hard to kill and, if left unchecked, destroys as much as 91 per cent of corn on infested land, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It is spreading across Iowa, which accounts for nearly a fifth of U.S. corn production and in 2016 exported more than $1 billion of corn and soy.

The federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) pays farmers to remove land from production to improve water quality, prevent soil erosion and protect endangered species.

The weed, Palmer amaranth, has spread through seed sold to farmers in the conservation program, according to Iowa’s top weeds scientist, Bob Hartzler, and the conservation group Pheasants Forever.

“We are very confident that some of these seed mixes were contaminated,” Hartzler said.

Hartzler, an Iowa State University agronomy professor, said one seller was Allendan Seed Company, the state’s largest producer of local grass and wildflower seeds for conservation land.

In written responses to questions from Reuters, Allendan said it was “possible that pigweed seed… was present in some mixes.”

Palmer amaranth is a type of pigweed. Allendan did not confirm it had found the seed in any of its supplies. It said outside labs that the firm hires to test seed quality had been unable to distinguish Palmer amaranath from other pigweeds.

The company said it started using a new DNA test in February to check its seed for Palmer amaranth.

Many farmers joined the conservation program in the past year as prices for their crops tanked amid a global grains glut. The weed can be killed, but the cost of clearing it would be another hit to the cash-strapped farming community in the U.S., the world’s top corn supplier.

The program is managed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA), units of USDA. NRCS officials have acknowledged that contaminated seed mixes for conservation land have spread Palmer amaranth.

In Minnesota, authorities are also investigating whether the conservation program inadvertently introduced the weed to that state. North Dakota in November advised growers to scout their CRP acres for the weed.

Keith Smith, a corn and soybean farmer at Gladbrook, Iowa, about 110 km northeast of Des Moines, said he yanked Palmer amaranth out of land he set aside in the CRP after finding the weeds last year.

He doused them in diesel and torched them with old tires.

Smith now regrets joining the program.

“I thought I’d help out the Earth,” he said.

One plant, half a million seeds

The NRCS and FSA denied responsibility for the infestation because they do not supply or test the seed that farmers use to turn cropland into a refuge for wildlife. Landowners are responsible for finding their own seed.

None of the companies or organizations involved in the program should be blamed, said Jimmy Bramblett, the NRCS’s deputy chief of science and technology.

“It’s just something that happened,” he said.

The NRCS is nonetheless considering giving financial assistance to Iowa farmers to help control the weed and is working with the farming community and other government agencies to control it, Bramblett said.

Palmer amaranth, which is native to the southwestern U.S., grows up to two inches a day and can reach a height of 10 feet. It produces up to 500,000 seeds the size of a pepper grain, which travel easily on the wind, in manure or stuck to farm equipment and vehicles.

Midwest farmers now face increased costs for the herbicide and labour to eradicate the weed.

Fighting Palmer amaranth has doubled or tripled annual herbicide and labour costs to US$60-$80 (C$80-$107) per acre for cotton farmers in Georgia, said Stanley Culpepper, a weed science professor for the University of Georgia.

Iowa farmers currently spend US$35-$40 per acre on herbicides, Iowa State University research shows. If Palmer amaranth is firmly established, costs could increase by up to 50 per cent, Hartzler said.

Corn and soybeans can compete better with weeds than cotton plants, so the expense of controlling it could be less than on cotton farms.

Detective work

Palmer amaranth first arrived in Iowa in 2013 but exploded across the state last year, spreading from five to 48 of the state’s 99 counties, according to Iowa State University.

In at least 35 of those counties, the weed was found on land in the conservation program.

The rapid rise in the incidence of the weed came after landowners in Iowa signed more contracts to put fields into the program than any other state — 108,799 out of the 637,164 total U.S. conservation program contracts, according to USDA.

An Iowa landowner contacted Iowa State’s Hartzler after Palmer amaranth infested 70 acres of farmland he planted with the conservation seed mix.

“The Palmer amaranth was uniformly distributed across those 70 acres, so that was a good sign that it came in the seed,” Hartzler said.

Hartzler said he and his intern found the tiny black Palmer amaranth seeds in samples they took from seed bags the landowner purchased from Allendan.

He then grew some of the seeds in a greenhouse, he said, and they produced Palmer amaranth.

–– Reporting for Reuters by Renita D. Young and Tom Polansek.

The post Palmer amaranth threatening U.S. corn fields appeared first on Grainews.

The project revolves around ‘The Smith purchase’ — a half section of land that DUC bought in 1994, which happens to be right across the road from some of Bos’s pastures. Once DUC staff saw how Bos was managing his own grazing system, and the excellent forage he was producing for his cattle, they asked if he would work with them and apply the same system of high stock-density grazing, using his cattle, on the DUC property.

“We have not previously had the opportunity to work with a producer who manages grazing the way Gerald does,” says DUC biologist Robin Hamilton. “This half section has not been grazed since 2010. Before that it was divided into two quarter sections, with one grazed one year and one grazed the next next year. We weren’t getting the results we wanted from that system.”

The Smith land, which was first seeded to grass in 1996, has a mix of warm- and cool-season grasses. “From a conservation perspective we want to have as much grass cover as possible throughout the season and have as much plant diversity as possible,” says Hamilton, noting the goal is to emulate the effects of buffalo grazing and wildfires that would have been the natural grassland management system that existed on the Prairies before the land was cultivated.

Ideal nesting habitat

Maintaining healthy grass stands provides vertical and horizontal concealment for nesting waterfowl that are quite at home with grazing cows. Nesting birds don’t see grazers as predators. The cows graze without disturbing bird nests. For waterfowl to start a nest they ideally need duff or residue on the ground to a depth of around six to eight centimetres, which is also optimal to provide the organic matter necessary to maintain soil health and keep growing grass healthy.

Under previous management of the Smith pasture, the duff built up to the point where grass seedlings could not germinate through it, and weed species were beginning to dominate the pasture.

Bos has introduced his grazing system of small paddocks to the Smith pasture. Paddocks are grazed for a short time at fairly high stock densities, followed by a long rest period to allow for grass regrowth. Bos has used this system for more than a decade on his own pastures with super results.

After the first year of using the system on the Smith pasture, Bos says he likes the way the cows — 300 cow-calf pairs and 125 yearlings — have grazed the unfamiliar paddocks. Bos told producers during a 2016 DUC summer field tour that he was pleased to see no bare ground in the grazed paddocks.

“The goal is to have no bare ground and to have lots of plant density,” says Bos. “The cattle had grazed half to two-thirds of the plants and they’ve touched every part of the field. The system leaves good residual litter on the ground, which keeps the soil cool and moist and provides food for the soil biology to stimulate rapid re-growth.

“The cattle have had a bite from just about every plant because in a short graze period they don’t have time to be selective, so they get what they can.” The cattle also provide beneficial animal impact — hoof action on the soil — and the nutrients from the manure are maintained on the land.”

Bos says working with the DUC land fits nicely into his own pasture rotation. It has provided him with some extra pasture, and most importantly, allows his own pastures to have a longer rest period, which increases productivity and ultimately, profitability. “It gives us more management options,” he says. “It’s certainly has been a successful partnership from our point of view.”

““We don’t often get an opportunity to have 450 head of cattle come in and simulate what we want to do,” says DUC’s Robin Hamilton. “This grazing management system is a new concept for us and we are confident that the response will be great.”

The post Cows and ducks work well together appeared first on Grainews.

The state’s first ever mandatory cutbacks in water use were imposed by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown as the state entered its fourth year of devastating drought last spring, leading to a savings of 1.19 million acre-feet of water — about the amount used annually by the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego combined.

“Californians rose to the occasion, reducing irrigation, fixing leaks, taking shorter showers, and saving our precious water resources in all sorts of ways,” said Felicia Marcus, chair of the State Water Resources Control Board, which developed the regulations and is responsible for enforcing them.

Under the rules, California residents and businesses were required to cut back their usage by up to 36 per cent over 2013, in a range determined by a combination of geography and past conservation efforts. All told, they conserved by 24 percent, close to the 25 per cent goal set by Brown in an emergency order issued by Brown last April.

Regulators are weighing whether to lift or adjust the cutbacks following a wet winter that has left the northern part of the state with a plentiful water supply.

The State Water Resources Control Board is set to reconsider the orders at a series of meetings later this month, as consumers and water utilities chafe under the continued burden.

“We need to adjust to reflect the reality we’re in, while still being mindful of the fact that we don’t know what next year is going to bring,” Marcus said Monday.

One water district, responding to consumers who are irate that they must continue to conserve even as their local reservoir is reaching flood-control levels, has on its own told residents that they will no longer require cutbacks.

“It’s very hard to maintain your credibility when residents can see the lake spilling for flood control purposes,” yet stringent cutbacks are still being enforced, said Keith Durkin, assistant general manager of the San Juan Water District, which serves the community of Granite Bay and other suburbs east of Sacramento with water from Folsom Lake.

— Sharon Bernstein is a California political correspondent for Reuters in Sacramento.

The post California rules led to near 25 per cent cut in water use appeared first on Grainews.

I use my city friends as archetypes in this column. They don’t mind. I don’t ask them. But I know they’d say, “Toban, you can make us look as ridiculous and as one-sided as you like.” Thanks, guys. I hear their perspectives on matters most farmers have hard, opposing attitudes toward. Corn prices isn’t one of them. But water is.

Water issues

Water: It’s full of pesticides, phosphorous, and pure evil, and it drains into Lake Winnipeg, threatening freshwater plants and animals. I don’t know enough about the issue to comment, other than to say, city friends, relax about the pure evil business. A: I doubt pure evil exists in water, and B: us farmers aren’t bad people.

Here’s what I knew about water before returning to the farm: The right-hand tap is cold, and the left-hand hot. It comes from underground pipes, aquifers, wells, and water-treatment facilities; more a mashup of all the water-related keywords I know. Some municipalities still put fluoride in it, and that’s controversial. It’s necessary for plants to grow, and not everyone has access to potable reserves of it, which is terrible. I also knew that our farm gets water from a well. Oh yeah, and I knew about pH. We had a hot tub in our backyard in Winnipeg.

What I’ve learned since then can be summed up in one word: drainage. It begins with mapping out a watershed, an area the entirety of which drains to the same place. Then the plan: each ditch and culvert will have to guide water spilling of fields, yards, and roads to that place, easing it around or under provincial highways, homes, and the gravel roads us farmers use every day.

At the farm level, or, rather, the rural municipality level, drainage is rubber-meets-the-road politics. And it matters. The Prairies have received more than average amounts of precipitation the last couple of years. And the provincial governments in charge have scrambled for ways to make the headlines read something positive; something re-electable. Winnipeg can open its floodway to divert water away from the city’s residential areas. And, last year, Brandon was forced to build dykes as floodwaters threatened the city.

Water has to go somewhere, I’ve learned. Our farm has invested in surface drainage. Companies using GPS mapping technology — old news, I know — have cut and trenched veins and ditches into our fields, the benefits of which have long paid for the work.

Politicians and others quick to point a finger will say surface drainage work on fields increases the amount of pesticide and phosphorous runoff that will, in some cases, find its way to aquifers and Lake Winnipeg. The crowd goes quiet. “No, not Lake Winnipeg!” My advice: learn to recognize political gesturing. And there are alternatives to surface drainage.

Most plants cannot grow sitting in a pool of water. They need to breathe. And here it is, a buried lead: “why do you think they put holes in flower pots?”

On a recent trip to Ontario, a specialist talking about the benefits of tile drainage asked me this, rhetorically, thank goodness. I would have said something, but it wouldn’t have been correct. There’s this thing called tile drainage. It’s relatively new to Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Implementing it. Calling someone to come install it on your field is a risk, and probably a break from tradition. Full disclosure: I don’t deal with change well, either. But on a real basic level, it’s nifty technology.

Work with me. You’ve got a watershed, complete with ditches, culverts, and veiny fields. But instead of veiny fields you’ve got drainage pipe buried under your topsoil, deeper than the reach of your cultivator. Your roots will be able to breath, your topsoil won’t runoff after a downpour, and all the water flowing out the exit pipe into a municipally-planned ditch will have been ground filtered.

There are parts of southern Ontario where nearly three quarters of all agricultural land is tile drained. It’s what farmers do there. Land can sell for between 15 and $20,000 per acre, so the up-front investment in drainage tile is “a no-brainer,” said one producer.

A couple of years ago I chatted with a machinery representative about trends and changes to tractors and implements. He said change needs to roll out slowly. We have accepted auto-steer, but we’re not yet ready to embrace robotics, even though that technology may increase productivity and efficiency.

Tile drainage and drainage, in general, has made headlines over a large-scale push to preserve wetlands. I don’t hate wetlands. I don’t think progress means trampling over, or, in this case, draining, whatever stands between me and an extra dollar in my pocket. I think stewardship is important. But I think change is, too. And I don’t think those involved in surface or sub-surface drainage want to get rid of wetlands.

“If people are interested in being good stewards, then they should do everything in their power to promote tile drainage,” said the Ontario specialist.

I get it. It’s putting pipe into a field. It makes sense. My city friends would call this tampering. Fair enough. But tampering isn’t an argument anymore. We do it all the time, in every industry, in every part of the world, in almost every pocket of history. Tampering, as loosely defined as the term is used, is necessary.

We need to maximize our yields to meet food-production demands. Drainage is key to making this happen. It’s also a fascinating, basic phenomenon. Take a step back, and think about it.

The post Understanding farm water issues appeared first on Grainews.