The changes affect both the province’s crop insurance program and wildlife damage compensation, with updates designed to better reflect current farming realities across the province.

High participation

Risk management tools are more important than ever as producers contend with tighter margins and increasingly unpredictable weather, Kostyshyn said.

“Over 90 per cent of Manitoba’s annual crop acres are enrolled in ag insurance… The risk of loss of crops due to unpredictability is more important than ever.”

WHY IT MATTERS: Changes to agriculture insurance signal broader coverage and fewer blind spots.

Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation expects to provide $4.3 billion in coverage on 9.8 million crop acres in 2026 as weather extremes continue to affect regions throughout Manitoba in different ways, from flooding to droughts.

New forage pilot

Among the changes announced is a new pilot program aimed at encouraging sustainable forage production. The Forage Advantage Pilot Program, announced in November, will offer farmers a 15 per cent discount on forage establishment insurance premiums for growing perennial forage crops on designated land types.

The province is also expanding insurance coverage to include meadow fescue grown for seed, following years of discussions with commodity groups, Kostyshyn said.

Wildlife coverage expanded

Manitoba is also making a major update by expanding its wildlife damage compensation program to cover additional species and different kinds of losses.

“For 2026 crop year, farmers will be able to claim for crop damage due to blackbirds, raccoons, damage to livestock caused by vultures, eagles, hawks, ravens and other bird species,” Kostyshyn said.

KAP applauds changes

The updates to this year’s crop insurance and wildlife damage compensation programs reflect the growing risks farmers face, said Keystone Agricultural Producers (KAP) President Jill Verwey.

“Expanding coverage, updating values, and piloting incentives like the forage advantage program are positive steps.”

KAP will continue to work with the province to help inform and shape practical solutions for Manitoba farmers, Verwey added.

Manitoba Ag Days, marking its 49th anniversary, will be held from Jan. 20 to 22 in Brandon. The event is expected to attract producers, exhibitors, and agricultural businesses from throughout the Prairie region. For more coverage of the show, visit the Manitoba Co-operator’s Ag Days page.

The post Manitoba crop insurance expands wildlife coverage, offers pilot programs 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.

At a forage workshop hosted by the Canadian Forage and Grassland Association at the University of Manitoba in March, Manitoba Agriculture entomologist John Gavloski highlighted several key insect pests that can affect forage production and shared strategies for managing them.

Grasshoppers

Grasshoppers are a common pest in Prairie fields. Canada is home to 129 species of grasshoppers, but very few of those cause crop damage. There are only four or five grasshopper species that are considered to be pests, and of those, three are responsible for most of the damage.

“The top three grasshoppers in our survey this year are two-striped, which has been our dominant species in recent years, followed by either clear-winged or migratory,” Gavloski says.

All three have a similar life cycle. They all overwinter as eggs, laid in clusters of 20 to 30. The individual eggs resemble grains of brown rice.

“If you can dig those up easily, then you know you’ve got a decent grasshopper egg population,” Gavloski warns.

—> MORE ON FORAGES: Managing diseases in alfalfa

The ideal time for control is when the grasshoppers’ wing buds become visible. At this stage, the hatch is likely complete.

“Try to figure out what those newly hatched populations are like,” he says. “That will help you with your decision-making later on.”

Farmers can also lean on provincial grasshopper risk maps. Each of the Prairie provinces puts out a risk map in the fall based on samples taken, usually in August. The maps can help estimate the next season’s egg-laying potential.

While these maps can help, Gavloski warns they’re estimates and don’t guarantee outcomes for the following season. Weather conditions after the surveys have been done can affect populations. A warm fall with a late frost can mean there is more development within the egg, and the hatch could come sooner. And while the eggs are waterproof, heavy rains after the hatch, when the young grasshoppers are small, lack fat reserves and need to feed, can lower survival rates.

“They’re more vulnerable when they’re really tiny,” Gavloski says. “They get disease, they get bloated and they can drown.”

—> MORE ON GRASSHOPPERS: Reduced-area pest spraying can still hit moving targets

Economic thresholds: Estimating whether grasshopper numbers have reached the economic threshold can be challenging.

Gavloski estimates grasshopper populations by walking 50 metres along a field edge or ditch, selecting five random one-metre square areas and counting the grasshoppers that jump as he approaches. He then disturbs the plants to check for remaining insects.

These counts provide an estimate of the grasshopper population. The process doesn’t give very accurate results, but can probably let you know if you’re near the threshold.

“Usually, you can get a ballpark range,” Gavloski says. “If you think it was somewhere around 12 to 15, that is good. You don’t have to know that it was actually 13.”

For forage crops, the economic threshold for grasshopper control is generally considered to be eight to 12 grasshoppers per square metre.

Control methods: Gavloski recommends using what is called the Reduced Area and Agent Treatments (RAATS), which involve treating alternating swaths of land. This method works because grasshoppers move from untreated areas to treated areas. Research done in Wisconsin has shown RAATS can provide very good control while using half the insecticide.

—> MORE ON FORAGES: Grow forages, starve weeds

“The results of the research showed they were getting 94 per cent control when they sprayed the whole rangeland, but they were able to get 81 per cent control by only doing half of the rangeland,” Gavloski says.

Insecticides such as Coragen (chlorantraniliprole) are commonly used to control grasshoppers. Coragen is effective, with relatively low toxicity to pollinators. Generic insecticide versions have made treatments more affordable.

Cutworms

Cutworms are a diverse group of pests in Canada. Gavloski spoke about three different categories of cutworms: climbing, surface-feeding and subterranean.

Climbing cutworms climb plants at night to feed, then retreat underground or under debris during the day. Unlike other cutworms, they don’t cut plants but leave feeding damage on leaves, which can be misleading when scouting. The dingy cutworm is the most common climber in Manitoba. It can be identified by small leaf-like markings on its body. To find them, dig around damaged plants.

Surface-feeding cutworms crawl along the ground and cut plant stems, leaving severed plants behind. If you see cut plants, dig around to find the caterpillars nearby. The redbacked cutworm is a common surface-feeding species. It is recognizable by two red lines running down its back.

Subterranean cutworms live and feed underground, making them difficult to detect and control. The glassy cutworm is an example of a subterranean feeder. It prefers grasses over broadleaf crops and is commonly found in forage and cereal crops.

Gavloski also pointed out that some infestations can appear in patches. The patchiness can depend on egg-laying patterns the previous season, but it can also depend on topography. In more rolling landscapes, the warmer, southern side of the slopes tends to attract the bugs.

Economic thresholds: Gavloski didn’t speak to economic thresholds in his presentation. Manitoba Agriculture’s website says economic thresholds haven’t been well researched for cutworms, but included some anecdotal thresholds for various crops.

For alfalfa (the only forage crop listed), the website suggests four to five larvae per square foot (30 cm) as a threshold. Otherwise, farmers can just make a judgement based on the level of plant injury. Visible, widespread damage that threatens plant stands would obviously signal the need for control.

Control methods: Management strategies depend on the species. Coragen Max is the only insecticide registered for cutworms in forages — and while Gavloski says more options are needed, the pesticide is effective.

“It is a very good product for cutworms, at least the ones that surface feed; it’s got residual, and it is basically harmless to bees and many beneficial insects.”

Since cutworms are most active at night, insecticides should be applied late in the afternoon or evening.

Unfortunately, the effectiveness of insecticides to control subterranean species is “hit-and-miss,” Gavloski says. “Because they’re not coming above the ground to feed, they can be a real nuisance to manage with insecticides.”

Targeted spraying of affected areas can be used in situations where an infestation is not widespread.

“If the problem is small — say, 10 or 20 acres have a lot and the rest of the fields aren’t bad — you can patch-spray for cutworms.”

Cereal armyworm

The pest Gavloski refers to here shouldn’t be confused with the better-known bertha armyworm, which is mostly a concern for canola growers. As the name suggests, cereal armyworms are more likely to be found in forage grasses than alfalfa stands. It is also known as true armyworm or simply as “armyworm.”

Adults don’t overwinter in Canada but migrate from southern areas, often carried by wind currents in spring and summer, and while they have a particular affinity for timothy, most forage grasses are excellent hosts for armyworms.

“When the adults arrive, they’re looking for a lush, dense grassy stand to lay their eggs into,” Gavloski says. “So a perennial grass is just ideal … that’s where the eggs often end up.”

However, if they defoliate enough in an area, they will start moving into other areas (these movements are why they’re called armyworms), and, while their preference is to feed on grasses, they may feed on broadleaf plants in lieu of a grass crop if that’s what’s available.

Armyworm larvae have distinct stripes, with a V-shaped marking on their heads. The colours can vary, but those striped patterns are usually visible. The adult moths are light brown with white dots on their wings. Armyworm larvae feed primarily on grasses and are often found in forage stands, especially in early spring.

When scouting for armyworm larvae, check multiple areas of the field, as populations can vary within a single field. Shake plants and inspect the soil for larvae, paying close attention to plant debris, soil clumps and cracks.

“During the day, they’re trying to hide, so they’re underneath the debris and may go into the cracks in the soil,” Gavloski says. “So you have to look in the cracks, peel away the debris and do your counts.”

In cereal and grass crops, begin scouting in late June and examine at least five areas, focusing on patches of lodged plants and grassy weed infestations. Fields or sections with significant bird activity should also be monitored, as birds often feed on armyworms. Additionally, check the backs of larvae for parasite eggs, which can indicate natural control.

Economic thresholds: The threshold for control varies by crop. For forage grasses, it’s generally five larvae per square foot (929 cm²). However, as mentioned, they love timothy. Instead of feeding on the leaves before moving on to the heads like they do with other grasses, with timothy, they attack the heads first. As a result, they may require intervention even if the threshold isn’t met.

“Sometimes, it will pay to control them at levels below a threshold, depending on where they’re feeding and how much damage they’re doing,” Gavloski says.

Control methods: Insecticide applications should be timed for the evening or late afternoon, as armyworms primarily feed at night.

As with cutworms, chlorantraniliprole is the only active ingredient registered for armyworms. The products Coragen Max, Coragen (the pre-Max version) and a new generic version called Shenzi are available for farmers to use.

Alfalfa weevil

As the name suggests, the alfalfa weevil is a major economic pest for alfalfa crops, but will also feed on other legumes such as clover, making it a major concern for many farmers growing forages.

Adults overwinter under plant debris and soil in and around alfalfa fields and emerge in spring, feeding on alfalfa leaves. Round, elongated holes in the leaves are an indication of adult alfalfa weevils feeding.

When females are ready to lay eggs, they chew a hole in the stem and deposit from one to 40 eggs. When they hatch, the larvae will feed upon the stem before moving to fresh buds and leaves. After the larval stage, they make silky cocoons that, if the infestation is widespread, can be visible as a white haze over the field.

“People often first notice this driving by their field and see the crop is looking kind of frosted,” Gavloski says. “If you see this, you’ve probably got lots of feeding, and you probably should have been in there earlier.”

As a general guideline, he recommends scouting for the bugs in early June and continuing weekly checks.

“They should be hatching out by then,” Gavloski says. “You should be on top of things before it gets too bad.”

Economic thresholds: Alfalfa weevils cause significant damage, particularly to young alfalfa crops. The general action threshold for larvae varies based on crop height. For hay crops under 30 cm, the threshold is one larva per stem. For crops between 30 and 40 cm, it’s two larvae per stem. If three larvae per stem are found, control measures are generally needed.

Control methods: For hay crops, cutting the plants early is the main strategy used to control the insects because the larvae will starve or desiccate after cutting. Several insecticides are available for use, but many only provide partial suppression.

“Our insecticides don’t always work well for alfalfa weevil,” Gavloski says.

Natural predators, such as parasitoid wasps (bathyplectes and oomyzus), can help control alfalfa weevil populations. These predators can sometimes reduce the need for chemical control.

Lygus bugs

Gavloski also touched on lygus bugs. They are primarily a concern for alfalfa seed producers rather than forage growers. Lygus bugs are sap-feeding insects that use their beaks, like mosquitoes, to inject enzymes into plant tissues and suck up the sap. They target nitrogen-rich growth, damaging buds, seeds and flowers.

While there are suggested economic thresholds for control of the bugs in seed alfalfa, and insecticides are available, control is not recommended for alfalfa grown for hay.

The post What insect pests are bugging your forage crops? appeared first on Grainews.

However, as with any farming practice, the results can vary based on location, weather and management strategies.

The practice of using polycrops — also known as cover crops, forage mixtures or cocktail crops — is intended to increase the diversity of plant species in a pasture. Increased plant diversity can enhance soil health, increase water infiltration, reduce fertilizer needs and provide higher quality forages for cattle.

One of the objectives of the Living Lab Central Prairies has been growing polycrops on producer operations and evaluating both the long- and short-term impacts.

The Living Labs program allows producers such as Erika Stewart, John Griffin and Carmen Jackson to use polycrops on their operations, and they have encountered both successes and challenges with the practice. Their experiences, combined with insights from agricultural research, highlight the complexity of adopting polycrops and offer valuable lessons for others considering this practice.

Choosing the right crop to meet your goals

Carmen Jackson, who operates a farm southeast of Regina, takes a measured approach to polycrops. “You can’t just jump in without understanding the risks,” she advises. Carmen and her family manage 3,500 acres, including 900 acres of rented land, most of which is native grass, with a small portion (about 400 acres) seeded to forages for winter feeding.

When it comes to polycrops, Carmen emphasizes the importance of making small, deliberate steps when implementing new practices. “Even if things don’t go perfectly, you have to keep moving forward,” she says.

Carmen and her family have been using polycrops for the last five years. They started after attending a workshop in Manitoba and have been experimenting with them since. “The most important thing I have learned, and that we did wrong the first year, is you need to understand the context that you are using polycrops for,” she says. She has seeded polycrops in multiple locations on her farm but points out that there are different goals, and each goal requires different grazing strategies.

For example, on one pasture the goal was to increase pasture biomass. Carmen notes it was a saline, low-yielding piece of ground they were trying to improve. For that pasture they seeded a polycrop blend and then did some late fall grazing, turning a group of cows out to allow them to both trample and graze the forage. The residual forage left behind was targeting added organic matter with the long-term goal of improving soil conditions.

In another pasture, the goal was a high-quality feed on which to background their bulls. This piece was cross-fenced, and bulls were moved through paddocks in late summer. This year Carmen hopes to be able to graze in both summer and regrowth in the fall.

Carmen works with a professional agrologist to build forage blends that meet the needs of operation, and chooses different blends based on the goals for the pasture and if they intend to graze or make silage.

“It’s probably more advantageous to come up with something that you think will work on the soil you have.”

Carmen notes she is more comfortable using a premade blend on good land, but on land that requires soil improvements, she finds value in choosing crops tailored to their specific goals.

When choosing forage blends for silage Carmen points out,“first and foremost, we have to feed our cows, so tonnage is my No. 1 priority. I try to add in something to help with soil health, but it can’t take too much away from the total volume – it’s a bit of a dance, and you just need to adjust as you go.”

Economics, and knowing how her land performs, also play a role in what Carmen chooses for a forage blend. In some of the poorer soil areas, yield is limited, and she needs to be conscious of what she spends on a mixture to make economic sense. With this mindset she points out that even in the saline or other problem areas they may be able to spend a bit more on polycrops than a monoculture, as they don’t use any fertilizer and there may be long-term benefits.

Carmen acknowledges polycrops may not always deliver immediate or dramatic results. However, oil health benefits accumulate over time. “Sometimes, you just have to adjust it as you go,” she notes, indicating experimentation is part of the learning process.

Adaptation and pivoting

Erika Stewart and her family farm near Morse, Sask., about 60 km east of Swift Current, and have recently started integrating polycrops as co-operators in the Living Lab Central Prairies. Their farm consists of primarily native grass with some cultivated land they use to put up winter feed for cattle.

She notes the challenges that come with unpredictable weather, especially when drought conditions persist. “If moisture doesn’t come, it’s really hard to make cover crops work,” Erika says, noting the trial-and-error nature of polycrops management.

Erika is still working out how polycrops fit into the operation. In 2021, they experimented by growing small amounts of two different blends marketed by separate companies. In late May they seeded a combined 230 acres side by side and found that both did well despite drought conditions.

With that success, the next year they seeded 240 acres to a polycrop blend for silage. Once again it performed well. “We had gotten two-and-a-half, maybe three, inches of rain and had enough silage to make it through, so we were thrilled,” Erika says.

Unfortunately, they were not as successful the following year, despite similar rainfall. “We had planned to swath graze it that year, but it wasn’t even worth driving the swather over. Instead, we fenced it into four paddocks, and I think we got about a week’s worth of grazing off it.”

Despite trying a drought-tolerant blend last year, they had similar results, as well as issues with weeds. “Weeds weren’t an issue when things were growing, but now, after two years of crop failure, it is a big problem,” she says.

For Erika, nitrates have also been an issue. “The brassicas that we used to improve soil health were great, but due to drought, when we did our feed test, the nitrates came back super high.” They were still able to salvage the feed by allowing the pasture to rest, then grazing in a small paddock with gates open to a perennial pasture with water.

“That way the cows could go in and graze, but they didn’t stay in there since there was no water, and it forced them to come out and eat something else as well.”

Even with the issues in the past couple of years, Erika thinks polycrops could still play a role in their operation. “We added some winter triticale to last year’s blend, so hopefully we will see that pop up for some early spring grazing to allow us to rest our perennials longer.”

She also wants to try grazing the polycrops earlier in the season and using them as a high-quality forage during the breeding season.

Erika remains committed to experimenting with polycrops, adding that understanding the local conditions and being flexible with the approach is key. “You have to tweak things as you go,” she reflects, acknowledging the learning curve associated with integrating new practices into an operation. “Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s all part of the journey.”

Context and flexibility

John Griffin and his family have both irrigated and dryland near Central Butte and Bridgeford, Sask., northwest of Moose Jaw. Over the years they have transitioned from a purebred herd calving in winter to a commercial herd that calves in May. With the adjustment of their calving season, they have come to rely on swath grazing for winter feed. John has been experimenting with how to add polycrops into their system and has had both success and learning experiences.

Drought and grasshoppers resulted in complete crop failure the first year they tried polycrops, but being a part of the Living Lab Central Prairies gave John the opportunity to try seeding them again.

John has been experimenting with both a commercially available complex mixture as well as a simple mixture with peas and a cereal. He uses a hoe drill with a two-sided gravity wagon to seed both mixtures.

“The two sides work great,” John says. “I put the peas in one side and the oats or barley in the other side, then just hand dribble in the complex mix on top of the barley for those fields.” He points out that the box drill is nice, as the seed cups can open to allow bigger seeds like the peas to get through.

Last year both grew well, but he noticed in the complex mixture most of the biomass was coming from the peas and oats. Based on that, and the higher cost of the complex mixture, John plans to proceed with a simple cereal-pea mix in the future.

Like Erika, John wants to use polycrops as a high-quality forage during the breeding season to improve his conception rates. “We have very productive spring pastures because we get snowmelt, but then it dries up and turns brown, so we don’t have a high-quality feed when we need it in August when the bulls go out.” This past year he turned the cows and bulls out onto the polycrops to graze during the breeding season.

In addition, John points out, research staff through the living lab are taking measurements on soil health which may have long-term benefits for his pastures. “Maybe over time we will see benefits that I am not noticing yet, but, from a beef production standpoint, if I can get a few more cows bred at that time of year then they would be benefiting us.”

Talking to other producers who have used polycrops has been helpful but John notes taking your own climate into account is important. For example, he knows other farmers who have had a lot of success including turnips and other brassicas in their polycrop blends — but on their place, flea beetles decimate those plants before they can get going.

John has appreciated being a part of the Living Lab Central Prairies as it has given him an opportunity to test out research results on his own farm. While research provides valuable insights, it’s essential to understand the local context and conditions. What works well in one area may not necessarily be successful in another.

Starting small and choosing the right mix

Aklilu Alemu, a researcher with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and research lead for the Living Lab Central Prairies, recommends producers looking to integrate polycrops into their operations should “start small and simple until you’re familiar with the practice.”

Selecting the right mix of polycrops is important, especially when moisture is limited. “If the moisture is not coming, the cereal component of the polycrop mix can still provide some biomass,” Aklilu says. This strategy helps ensure, even in dry conditions, producers can still benefit from the polycrop’s contribution to soil health and grazing.

Aklilu notes “field conditions are highly variable, and what works in one place may not work in another.” This aligns with the experiences shared by producers like John Griffin, who found what works in research trials doesn’t always translate directly to real-world farm conditions.

Aklilu says there are three things producers should think about when implementing polycrops:

• Moisture is the number one factor that will influence success.
• Start simple, and start small.
• Start with at least 40 per cent cereal in your first year, that way if other crops fail you should still have some biomass to salvage.

Trial, error, adaptation

The experiences of producers such as Carmen, Erika and John illustrate the unpredictable nature of integrating polycrops into a beef operation. While some years may yield impressive results, others may bring challenges such as pests, poor weather or suboptimal crop growth. The key to success lies in adaptability, local knowledge and a willingness to experiment.

The post Lessons learned growing forage mixtures for beef production appeared first on Grainews.

Across the Prairies, some of the toughest farmland is getting a second look, not for what it can grow, but for what it can support. Instead of battling poor soil and disappointing yields, farmers are being offered real money to turn marginal acres into something more sustainable. Groups such as Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) and the Prairie Precision Sustainability Network (PPSN) are stepping up with incentives that make perennial forage a viable, profitable, alternative.

Seeding marginal cropland into perennial forage helps conserve soil health, reduce erosion, and improve water retention. It also provides habitat for wildlife, particularly waterfowl, and helps improve biodiversity. Additionally, it enhances carbon sequestration by stabilizing soil with deep-rooted plants, supporting long-term environmental sustainability. It’s easy to see the appeal for conservation groups.

These incentive programs for marginal acres are relatively new. DUC began offering compensation to farmers for seeding unproductive cropland to perennial forage in 2019. PPSN began offering farmers support to convert marginal acres to perennial forage in 2024.

But while the incentives are recent developments, the problem of what to do with less productive areas of a farm are as old as agriculture itself. Darren Bond, a farm management specialist with Manitoba Agriculture, says farmers can make better decisions by considering the specific restrictions posed by different field conditions — such as susceptibility to drought, excess moisture, or soil compaction — that impact crop yield.

“Better land has fewer restrictions, and more marginal land has more restrictions,” Bond says. “Those restrictions would be things like being more susceptible to excessive moisture, excessive dryness or excessive stoniness, things that limit yield potential.”

Unfortunately, there is no exact science to determine those marginal acres. Sometimes factors such as favourable weather conditions and low disease or insect pressure may temporarily mask a problem. A farmer might get an excellent crop two or three years in a row after a run of good growing conditions and may assume that trend will carry on. But over the long term, that same parcel of land could drop below the profitability line more often than not.

“With land that’s a little bit more marginal, the yield swings can be a little bit higher,” Bond says. “So it does make it a little bit more difficult to make that decision.”

Another factor impacting the decision-making on marginal land is the cost of production. For the past year or two, farmers have been feeling the pinch of tight margins. Input costs have come down a bit over the last several months, but crop prices are remaining stubbornly low. Bond says farmers should expect that climate to continue.

“With tighter margins, the land that doesn’t produce as much is going to feel that squeeze sooner, a lot sooner than your average land,” he adds.

READ MORE: Bless your mess: Crops may not be best for underproducing acres

Bond also points out that when calculating costs of production, it’s important to factor in the time the farmer puts into managing that parcel of land.

“Maybe producers’ time would be better spent seeding that down to perennial forage and managing their other acres more intensely,” he says.

It’s complicated, but the tools are there to track yield and understand costs of production. Bond points out that having a clear view of what that land can produce will create a foundation for looking at what else could be done with the land. If a parcel of land is consistently underperforming, regardless of incentive, switching to perennial forage could be the right decision. It’s just a matter of roughing out the yield potential and profitability of that scenario and comparing it against staying the course.

“At least put numbers to the decision and try to take out some of the variables,” Bond says. “It could be the incentive is what pushes the decision over the edge.”

Ducks Unlimited Canada Marginal Lands Program

That’s certainly what the folks at Ducks Unlimited are hoping for. And the incentives they’re paying are significant. Their per-acre payment differs from province to province. In Manitoba, they’re offering $200 per acre; in Saskatchewan, it’s $135 per acre; and in Alberta, the incentive is $150 per acre.

Daphne Appleyard, DUC’s marginal areas specialist for Manitoba, says the conservation organization is focusing its efforts on the Prairie Pothole Region, which, in Canada, stretches across southwestern Manitoba, southern Saskatchewan and into Alberta.

“The region contains important natural habitat, including wetlands and upland, which improve soil health, water quality and biodiversity,” Appleyard says. “Conserving natural areas has also been shown to increase crop yields due to increased pollination and provide resilience during extreme weather events.”

In a press release pitching the benefits of the Manitoba marginal areas program, DUC says most farmers in southwestern Manitoba have to contend with marginal acres.

“The numbers are higher than you might expect,” says Sam Robinson, a research scientist who studies sustainable agriculture for DUC. “Common causes of marginal acres are too much or too little water, extra salinity and soil compaction.

Using data from Manitoba Agriculture’s 2025 Cost of Production Guide, DUC estimates the cost of growing red hard spring wheat at $350 per acre. At $8 per bushel and a yield of 65 bushels per acre, the profit is roughly $170 per acre. But in areas with mild salinity, where yields drop to just 45 bushels per acre, profit is reduced to only $10 per acre after input costs. In extreme cases, the cost of production exceeds any potential profit

“A farmer seeding wheat or canola into extreme saline areas could lose up to $418 per acre,” Appleyard says. “Fortunately, seeding those marginal areas to forages is a proven way to fix saline and weed issues. Plus, the forages can be used for livestock feed or sold, which increases the profitability of that land.”

Robinson notes weed infestations can also turn productive farmland into marginal farmland.

“We’re seeing herbicide resistance in kochia across the Prairies,” he says. “Some farmers will even do a chemical fallow, tilling the soil and applying herbicides with strong residual effects. This costs more time and money. The better solution is to have permanent cover in place that will compete with the weeds.”

The Prairie Precision Sustainability Network

PPSN’s incentive program is the second stage in a two-phase study that looks at marginal agricultural areas across the Canadian Prairies. In phase one, farmers provided their precision yield data, which helped create a detailed map of marginal acres and identify areas where conversion to perennial forage could be most beneficial.

The first phase is continuing, and the second phase, which launched in 2024, is going back to those farmers and asking them to convert those less-than-productive acres into perennial forage.

The PPSN began as a collaboration between research teams at the University of Saskatchewan in 2022, but since then the Universities of Manitoba and Waterloo have joined the effort.

Heading up the PPSN research team is Paul Galpern, associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Calgary. He says convincing farms to sign on to the second phase isn’t a difficult pitch — particularly since they’ve all participated in the first phase. They already have data showing the land in question is losing the farmer money. It’s really just a matter of pointing that out and suggesting they take a break.

“Let’s see if we can plant that in perennial forages. Firstly, you’re going to stop losing money, but secondly, you’re going to have an opportunity for soil rehabilitation and carbon sequestration,” Galpern says. “Those long roots of those plants are going to store carbon under the soil. They’re also creating habitats that could be great for beneficial insects in their surrounding field. It’s a win-win.”

Farmers who sign on to phase two of the PPSN program stand to benefit from a variety of incentives designed to support their transition to perennial forage. First, participants will receive a one-time signing bonus for their involvement in the preliminary year of testing.

Once the conversion is complete, they’ll be eligible for a land use payment of $75 per acre each year for the first two years, with the potential for additional payments depending on available funding. PPSN will also fund the forage seed and provide advice on best management practices to ensure the success of their new perennial crops.

‘Stackable’ benefits

The good news for farmers is that the PPSN incentive program is ‘stackable,’ meaning that farmers can combine it with other programs such as the DUC program to maximize their incentives and financial support.

Galpern points out that PPSN has been partnering with DUC since phase one of its project — and says he will tell participating farmers to give DUC a call.

“We’re making a change here that is completely aligned with Ducks Unlimited’s marginal areas program,” he says. “And if you go over to them, they’ll provide additional support to help you make this transition.”

There are other programs that farmers can stack as well. For example, PPSN is working with a company called Carbon Asset Solutions. Under certain situations, they will also pay farmers for converting to perennial forage, but with more of an eye to carbon sequestration.

“They’ll measure how much carbon you’re storing in the soil in the section of your field that you’ve changed, and they’ll use carbon offset markets to pay you for that carbon,” Galpern says. “It’s a really exciting new opportunity.”

Farmers participating in PPSN’s Phase 2 will receive information about all the compatible programs that offer incentives. According to Bond, programs like these could really simplify the decision-making for farmers.

“Including an incentive can reduce some of the uncertainty,” he says. “Any payments just make it a little bit clearer as to what you can see for returns.”

The post Use these incentives to improve the profitability of low-yield acres appeared first on Grainews.

Although producers such as Dallas Leduc and Corey Loessin in Saskatchewan and Roger Chevraux in Alberta appreciate the fact they can now again use Syngenta and Adama products with lambda-cyhalothrin chemistry to control insect pests on cereal, pulse, corn and canola crops, they say it’s been a tense and somewhat expensive past couple of growing seasons without use of the effective and affordable insecticides.

“We got through the past couple years without any major wrecks,” says Roger Chevraux, who farms at Killam in central Alberta, east of Camrose. “We did have alternate products available, but the issue is when the registration of lambda-cy products changed we had very little notice. If we had had a serious outbreak of some pests it could have been a disaster.”

Corey Loessin, a grain, oilseed and pulse crop producer at Radisson, Sask., credited commodity organizations such as the Canada Grains Council and others for their efforts in encouraging PMRA to review current data that helped to reinstate lambda-cy registration for major crops.

And Dallas Leduc, who farms at Glentworth, says grasshoppers didn’t take a break during drought conditions in his part of southern Saskatchewan. Fortunately he was able to use another insecticide — Coragen, with the active ingredient chlorantraniliprole — which was effective but considerably more expensive than lambda-cy products.

As well, he did discover a cost-effective, made-in-Saskatchewan insecticide that also has become another tool in his crop protection toolbox.

The background

At issue for these and other Canadian farmers was a decision by Health Canada’s PMRA in mid-February 2023 to change the registration of insecticides containing lambda-cy chemistry, saying those products could no longer be used on major crops such as cereals, pulses and canola — if those crops were being used for livestock feed. Lambda-cy could still be used on crops to be processed for the human food market.

The ruling followed a routine review of pesticides in both the U.S. and Canada, which started some years before. PMRA made its determination due to concerns about insecticide residue levels found in livestock feed.

Ultimately the existing lambda-cy products, such as Matador 120 EC and Voliam Xpress from Syngenta, as well as Silencer and Zivata insecticides from Adama, remained available for food crops, with their labels adjusted accordingly.

But as the agriculture industry knows, crops seeded in April and May might very well be intended for human food products, a plan that could quickly change depending on growing season conditions, markets and crop quality at harvest. Any of the major crops could very well end up as part of some livestock ration.

Fast forward to earlier this month: after reviewing the most current research data regarding pesticide residues, PMRA reversed its decision and reinstated the use of pesticides containing lambda-cy chemistry on major crops used for both food and livestock feed.

The 2025 ruling does have a couple of limitations. Lambda-cy products can no longer be used on peach and apple crops. Lambda-cy can be used, but with reduced application, on turf grass — but it still cannot be used on any crops produced for livestock forage, whether that be grazing, greenfeed, hay or silage.

The 2023 scramble

“The PMRA ruling was made in mid-February of 2023, which didn’t leave chemical companies or farmers much time to line up alternate products for that season,” Chevraux recalls.

“And the ruling itself made zero sense. Why could the products be used on and be OK for food use but not for feed? It just didn’t add up.”

Chevraux, a past chairperson of Alberta Canola, says he doesn’t always need to use an insecticide — but in the spring of 2023 he did have a problem with cutworms on his farm.

“Fortunately we found another product that helped control cutworm, but it cost four times as much as the lambda-cy products,” he says. “We did have some flea beetles, but it wasn’t serious. We were just lucky there wasn’t an outbreak of grasshoppers or diamondback moths or some other pest that can blow in from the U.S.

“I get concerned any time we lose a tool from the toolbox, because in agriculture we need as many choices as possible in order to optimize production,” he says. “I believe PMRA needs to operate in a more timely manner. The agency needs more funding, and I don’t believe the agency has a good understanding of the agriculture industry, our modern production practices and some of the issues or challenges the industry faces in any given year.”

More responsive PMRA

Loessin says farmers in his area northwest of Saskatoon fortunately also didn’t have any major insect outbreaks during the 2023 and 2024 growing seasons, and they did have access to alternatives as needed.

“I’m glad that use of lambda-cy products on crops used for livestock feed has been reinstated,” says Loessin. “But in my view, it just corrects a mistake that shouldn’t have been made in the first place. It appears that PMRA was relying on old data when it made that ruling in 2023, even though there was new or more current data available.

“Commodity organizations actively encouraged PMRA to reconsider and review the new data which eventually led to the products being re-instated for use. The initial review started in 2017 and now it is 2025 — that’s a long review process.

“In general I believe PMRA needs to be more responsive. It took two years from 2023 until now to review the data and reinstate these insecticides. What if it had been the opposite issue — there was chemistry in use that was causing harm to human health or the environment? Would we have to wait two years for that product to be pulled from the market? I’m glad the lambda-cy products are back but I really think PMRA needs to be more nimble and more responsive in its review process.”

Good to have alternatives

Although Leduc says he was able to use alternate products to control insect pests — namely grasshoppers — on his southern Saskatchewan farm, he’s glad to see products containing lambda-cy can again be used on cereals, pulses and oilseeds for both food and feed markets.

“Coragen is a great product, but it is more expensive,” he says. “Depending on the pest and the year sometimes we have to treat whole fields or sometimes just the edges or the headlands. We went into the fall of 2024 with no subsurface moisture so I know that grasshoppers will be a problem again in 2025.”

One other grasshopper control option Leduc discovered over the past couple of years is Eco-Bran. Developed about 40 years ago by Peacock Industries of Saskatoon, it’s a bait made of wheat bran infused with carbaryl insecticide.

Leduc says his spot application system uses a hopper with a fan powered by a five-horsepower Honda engine, mounted in his pickup truck.

“We found that sometimes we just want to treat the ditches or the headlands, or just around the yard for grasshoppers,” he says. “And some of our land is up to 30 miles away. We can mount the blower in the back of the pickup truck, drive 30 minutes to the field, put the Eco-Bran in the hopper and blow the product out in the ditch or along the edge of the field and then drive home. It is a lot simpler than taking a sprayer that costs a few hundred thousand (dollars) and bouncing it along for 30 miles for a 20-minute spraying job.”

What’s more, “it works, too,” he says. “The grasshoppers eat that bran and they’re dead. It doesn’t eliminate them, but it does help to control them. It is environmentally friendly and an effective way to treat strips or patches.”

Eco-Bran comes in a 20-kg bag that retails for about $147.

A cautious approach

Manitoba Agriculture entomologist John Gavloski says the pesticide review process can sometimes result in restricted uses of popular pest management options — but it’s a safeguard against product uses where there’s evidence of potential harm to the environment or human health.

PMRA, he says, wants to make sure insecticides used at recommended label rates do not exceed maximum residue levels in our foods.

“The PMRA is taking a cautious approach when it comes to regulating the uses of lambda-cyhalothrin,” he says. “There was some concern that residuals in some foods were found to be above what is considered safe levels. Now PMRA has reviewed new information and determined that some restrictions on the use of seeds from some major field crops being used for livestock feed can be lifted.

“However, PMRA still has concerns about these crops being used as forages, so the restrictions for that end use is still in place.

“Overall it is good news for farmers, in that they can use these effective insecticides on major crops, such as canola and some cereal and pulse crops, without concerns around marketing grain from these crops.”

Gavloski notes lambda-cyhalothrin use also remains cancelled for sunflowers, which took up about 44,900 acres in his province in 2024, down 47 per cent from 2023.

“Unfortunately, there aren’t a lot of insecticide options that can be used to control lygus bug in sunflowers, but producers and the industry were able to obtain emergency registration of an alternate product that could be used,” he says — a reference to Carbine, a flonicamid product sold in Canada by FMC. That emergency registration is still in effect in Manitoba, and for confection sunflowers only, but is set to expire July 20.

“There are now efforts to obtain full registration for this product for use with sunflowers. On the positive side, this new product is very selective in controlling lygus bug and other sap-feeding pests and will not harm beneficial insects. So that is perhaps also a good outcome of this review process.”

System needs a review

Shannon Sereda, senior manager for government relations and policy with Alberta Grains, says Alberta farmers are no doubt pleased with the recent decision by PMRA — but it underscores a need to look at the whole process of how pesticides are reviewed.

“As everyone says, it is great to have another valuable tool back in the crop protection toolbox,” Sereda says. “This is what Alberta Grains was advocating for all along and it is the outcome we had hoped for.

“But it emphasizes the need for industry to work with PMRA on hopefully revising and modernizing the whole pesticide review process. The process takes years and to have restrictions like this imposed for two years creates a lot of confusion for producers.

“The decision which separates food from feed is a very complex issue for farmers. Often the decision regarding the end use of crops isn’t made until long after a pesticide has been applied. So we feel it is important in making future decisions that PMRA understands the complexity or the ramifications of their decisions and importance of timeliness. These are some of the concerns we as a sector will be looking at with the PMRA review process.”

The issue with lambda-cy also emphasizes a long-talked-about need for harmonizing the whole crop protection product registration process among like-minded jurisdictions and markets.

U.S. authorities, for example, had reviewed data and found lambda-cy products fell within food and feed safety guidelines, whereas PMRA had to conduct its own review and evaluation.

The issue with the part of the PMRA decision that restricts the use of lambda-cy on forage crops remains up in the air. However, one southern Alberta agronomist says it may not have a huge impact.

George Lubberts, owner of Complete Agronomic Services at Nobleford, north of Lethbridge, says irrigated cereal crops grown for pasture, greenfeed or silage usually aren’t treated with pesticides, although pests such as grasshoppers can be a concern for dryland farmers, especially in dry growing seasons.

“Among my clients, I believe the restrictions in pesticide use might be a concern for dairy producers looking to control alfalfa weevil in alfalfa crops, but there are other products available,” he says.

The post Lambda-cy back in the toolbox appeared first on Grainews.

The project’s origins can be traced to the extremely dry year of 2021, which left many producers in the province’s eastern Lakeland region in need of feed and water resources. Canola crops withered, yielding as little as 30 per cent of normal, and overgrazed pastures produced less in the following year.

Many livestock producers turned to novel feeds and grazing annuals in 2021 when drought withered pastures and normal forage sources failed to produce.

Winter cereals sown in fall have proven their value in providing early-season grazing in spring. But that comes with a catch: the crops move into reproductive stage relatively soon, so quality and production decline beyond July.

Early spring-seeded winter cereals remain in the vegetative stage throughout the summer and fall, improving biomass, maintaining nutritional quality and creating more chances for grazing, Alyssa Krawchuk of the Lakeland Agricultural Research Association (LARA) wrote in an email.

These grazing opportunities can begin in early June and extend into September.

Having more grazing periods in a growing season is just the start. An additional harvest opportunity and forage quality improvement were two more highlights of the early-seeding approach.

Early seeding also resulted in greater biomass production, which Krawchuk says could make or break an operation during dry or drought conditions when feed sources are scarce. Having that extra biomass can give perennial pastures the chance to rest and regenerate, reducing the need for producers to buy dry feed or rent other pastures.

“The year after a drought, this could be used as a method to defer grazing on drought-stressed pastures until later in the grazing season and provide more rest for these pastures throughout the summer.”

Early winter wheat seeding also seems to increase crude protein levels in feed compared to regularly-timed counterparts. The tactic can create more grazing days and reduce production costs while maintaining adequate feed quality and quantity.

“Furthermore, by seeding early, the winter cereals can take advantage of any early growing season moisture that might occur before regular seeding dates,” Krawchuk says.

“In addition, seeding cereals early in the spring allows for capture of early-season moisture through snow melt that may not be available in dry and drought conditions later in May when cereals are normally seeded.”

The research project took place at the LARA Fort Kent research site, southwest of Cold Lake in the Municipal District of Bonnyville. The “ultra-early” seeding date was April 29, 2022, in a soil temperature of 2 C. The regular seeding date was May 27, 2022, more or less within the normal seeding schedule for the region, in a 12 C soil temperature.

Wheat was harvested when each variety was an average of 30 centimetres high and cut to two inches. Regrowth was harvested throughout the summer and fall once it reached 30 cm.

Due to dry soil conditions at the time, varieties of winter cereals were seeded to a depth of 1.5 inches. Six treatments included two varieties of winter triticale (Metzger and Luoma) and two each of winter wheat (Pintale and Wildfire) and fall rye (Prima and Hazlet). Plots were 1.15 metres wide by 7.5 metres long with a minimum harvested area of six square metres.

There was little difference in first harvest timing between the two treatments. Both were between seven and eight weeks after planting. Early-seeded regrowth was harvested in three weeks. The third harvest occurred seven weeks later, with regular-seeded regrowth harvested seven weeks after the first harvest.

The early-seeded treatment produced more total yield than the regular-seeded treatment. Hazlet fall rye and Luoma winter triticale were the top-yielding varieties. The former produced about 0.67 tonnes per acre of dry matter forage yield whether seeded in the early and regular categories.

The lowest-yielding cereal was Metzger winter triticale with about 0.32 tonnes per acre of forage yield with the early-seeded treatment and just a little higher with the regularly timed seeding.

Although there was some difference in crude protein among varieties, the early-seeded cereals sported higher crude protein and the first harvest had higher crude protein than the subsequent harvest.

Wildfire winter wheat, for example, produced 28.25 per cent crude protein in the early-seeded set while the same variety scored 24.74 per cent with the regularly-seeded treatment.

The number of total digestible nutrients was much higher in the first harvest than those thereafter. However, they did not differ by variety or seeding date.

‘No. 1 question’

There are risks to planting cereals so early, but they may not be the ones producers first think of, Krawchuk says.

“Frost tends to be the No. 1 question when proposing early-seeded cereals to local producers. However, cereal crops have been shown to withstand temperatures as low as -8 C for a short period without detrimental impacts on growth and productivity.”

A bigger challenge when seeding winter cereals in low soil temperatures is the capacity of fields to hold the weight of seeding equipment.

“This is heavily dependent on soil type and moisture, which tends to be more of an issue the further north you go in Alberta where more clay type soils dominate.”

Although the 2022 project was intended to develop guidance for cereal producers in northeastern Alberta, LARA plans to take this show on the road.

With new funding from Results Driven Agriculture Research hopefully in hand, Krawchuk and her team plan to expand the trial to Oyen, Fairview and Fort Vermilion.

“We feel it is imperative to run this trial in different eco-regions of the province as varying agroclimatic conditions will have an impact on the biomass produced and the number of harvests achieved.”

The basic concept of the pending projects will remain the same — with some differences.

“The trial now includes three varieties of each winter wheat, winter triticale and fall rye and will be compared to an annual cereal commonly grown for feed. In addition, we will be working with economist Kathy Larson from the University of Saskatchewan to provide producers with a cost-benefit analysis for the project.”

The post Early-spring-seeded winter cereals can bring more, better forage appeared first on Grainews.

Forage and seed producers heard about the benefits of night spraying for red clover crops during the Saskatchewan Forage Seed Development Commission’s recent annual meeting. The SFSDC had conducted two on-farm experiments of night spraying in the province’s northeast in June 2021.

During the meeting, Graham Parsons, pollinator biosecurity specialist with the Saskatchewan agriculture department, identified the pollinators that benefit from nighttime pesticide application as farmers manage certain pests.

The lesser clover leaf weevil “is more active in the night, in the canopy and stuff, so the spray actually for that pest was more effective during the night time as well,” he told the meeting at White Fox, north of Nipawin.

“So it’s kind of a win-win both ways: better for the pollinators and better for spraying for the pest as well.”

READ MORE: When a crop pest isn’t a crop pest

Producers are seeking ways to control the lesser clover leaf weevil. Management practices range from spring burning to encouraging parasitoids, but chemical application of pesticides has been the most effective.

Northeastern growers are under more pressure from the weevil, which lays eggs from May and into June and July when the crop starts to flower, according to a University of Saskatchewan study.

The commission said day and night spraying was done in June 2021 before clover flowering. Traps were set to identify the beneficial pollinators present in the field 24 hours before and after the spraying applications.

“Success then would be measured as ‘no decrease’ in trap catches for the 24 hours post-spray in relation to pre-spray samples, night spray compared to UTC (unsprayed treatment control)… there is no indication that night spraying was more deleterious to commercial or natural pollinators than day spraying,” the report said.

Parsons identified an abundance of bees in the traps. Bees of any kind are the gold standard of pollinators, he said. As for other pollinators, some moths fly at night but most require light and heat they can only get during the day.

“If you can spray at night or early in the morning, just as the sun comes up, or in the evening as the sun’s going down or after it’s gone down, then all the pollinators, they’re home for the night so they’re not going to be exposed to anything when you’re spraying,” Parsons says.

Protective predators

Hoverflies as pollinators have the added benefit of predatory larvae that attack various in-crop pests. However, hoverflies, wasps and some moths and butterflies are not as effective as bees at pollinating. The high number of hoverflies makes up for their lack of performance individually, he adds.

As a field crop entomologist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Tyler Wist has been an ardent supporter of predatory bugs through his Field Heroes program.

Farmers get both good pollinators and pest management with hoverflies, he said.

“When they’re in there pollinating the crop, they say ‘Hey, there’s some aphids here. I’m gonna lay some eggs and then have these little slug-like offspring that go around and stab aphids to death from their mouth parts, and then suck them dry.’ So super cool that they’re both.”

Bee flies and blister beetles are also predatory. Their larvae feast on grasshopper eggs, Wist says, so supporting their growth is beneficial.

Blister beetle adults can potentially eat leaves, so they’re not as beneficial as some other insect helpers. When they do get into the flower canopy, they are good cross pollinators and their damage is minimal compared to other harmful bugs, Wist says.

If farmers want to attract more beneficial insects, including different bee species, supporting their habitat is just as important as proper pesticide management, he says.

“Wild bees will nest in wooded areas and down in the ground too, so undisturbed ground areas are important for some of those ground nesting wild bees.”

Parsons has focused his research on pollinator habitat.

In a canola field without any wetlands, woodlands or edges, there is no habitat for pollinators, no matter how many flowers and forages there are.

“Most of our pollinators are nesting in the ground, about 70 per cent of them,” Parsons says. “So if there’s no (nearby) area that’s uncultivated … there’s no area for those bees to be nesting.”

Without wetland habitat, including willows, wildflowers or weeds, there is no food or places for insects to overwinter. By leaving the natural environment or planting permanent wildflower patches, producers can see benefits for a long time, Parsons says.

Depending on the crop and type of insects farmers are trying to keep in their fields, spray application timing and type can differ from crop to crop, Wist says.

The post Night spraying for forage pest can spare pollinators appeared first on Grainews.

Jeff Schoenau, a soil science professor with the University of Saskatchewan, is among those fielding questions, although he says the amount of visible salinity in his province is “normal” for April.

“I think probably folks are more interested in salinity and addressing it in farm fields because the value of farmland has gone up, including rental rates, and so people want to more than ever improve the productivity of every acre that they’ve got.”

Marla Riekman, soil specialist with Manitoba Agriculture, has also heard inquiries and has repeatedly been called to speak about it.

“We’ve definitely had a fair bit of concern around it and a lot of questions around how to manage it, how to live with it and what we might be able to do to manage it,” she says.

Soil salinity is not about the salt, but rather about variability in the water table. Dissolved salts are brought up and then left higher in the soil profile as water levels rise and fall. Evaporation during dry periods leaves visible salt on the surface, and there is not enough rain to leach it back underground.

There’s no quick fix — but management is key.

READ MORE: Les Henry: The soil salinity story

Crop choice is one often-noted tactic. Seeding saline areas to salt-tolerant forages rather than high-profit, sensitive crops like soybeans is a popular choice. But high salinity is kind of like a mouse infestation: by the time you see it, you’re already fighting an uphill battle.

If the situation is bad enough to leave visible salt deposits on the surface, even a salt-tolerant forage will have a hard time getting established.

“We need to be thinking about trying to get the forage established in a year where the salts aren’t as bad, when you have a bit more moisture to seed into and get that little seedling germinated and growing,” Riekman says.

Choosing seed

A choice of salt-tolerant forage depends on the salinity level. For highly saline areas, Riekman recommended strongly tolerant crops such as alkaline grasses, Russian wild rye and AC Saltlander, a green wheatgrass marketed specifically for saline areas.

For lower-level saline soils, there are other options. Soil testing is recommended before making decisions.

“If you are looking at targeting or changing your management in a specific area, getting a soil test done in that area can give you an idea of how saline it is, and then you can start to match the salt tolerance level of the forage with the salt that exists in that patch or that area.”

Test comprehension

Soil tests produce a number based on electrical conductivity in a soil solution. The higher the number, the more salt.

There are two types of soil tests. Most producers use a commercially available, inexpensive and relatively quick one-to-one soil test. Paste soil tests are the other option. This method uses the same amount of soil in the solution as the one-to-one test, but just enough water to create a paste-like consistency.

Primarily a lab tool, that test is comparatively expensive and needs more time and space, making it unpopular for commercial application. It does have one advantage, Riekman notes: it indicates how much salt is in the soil around the root.

Results from a saturated paste test are approximately two times higher than one-to-one results, Riekman warns. Producers can therefore translate commercial test results into what a saturated paste test would offer.

“You take your one-to-one soil test number that you get from your commercial testing lab and multiply that by two in order to compare it to those research numbers,” Riekman says.

Knowing the difference is also key for choosing a salt-tolerant forage. AC Saltlander, for instance, is tolerant up to about 16 deciSiemens per metre (deciSiemen is a unit of electrical conductivity), but that number is drawn from paste test results. Producers would have to divide that by two to properly compare it to whatever number they received from their commercial soil test.

“When you are trying to target or determine what kind of salt-tolerant forage to plant in an area, it is good to do that rough calculation,” Riekman says.

Establishing salt-tolerant forages can take years — but patience can pay off, Schoenau says, pointing to his team’s research on salt-tolerant green wheatgrass in both saline and non-saline plots.

“Initially, the grass was a little bit slow to establish compared to where it was seeded in a non-saline area,” he says.

“But over a five-year period, the yields got better and better over the years until finally, in the last couple of years, the yield of that green wheatgrass actually was exceeding the yield we were seeing in the non-saline plots.”

The post Shop smart when selecting seed for salt tolerance appeared first on Grainews.

He’s got more than one variety growing — a grazing-oriented option and the typical silage corn — but the real experiment is happening beneath the canopy. This year, the corn shared space with forage soybean and hairy vetch.

The beans were “very impressive,” he said during a late-January tour to his farm south of Brandon, Man. “In the best spots of this field, where there was 10-foot-tall corn, the beans were probably chest height.”

The idea of adding legumes to intercrops for soil health purposes is well established. The hope is that the field will benefit from added nitrogen fixation, along with the purported other benefits of intercropping, such as erosion prevention, green cover and weed suppression.

From a feed standpoint, both soybeans and vetch are high in protein, offsetting the typical weakness in corn, which is famously high in energy but requires supplementation when fed.

In recent years research stations have explored intercropping in terms of corn grazing and improved soil health, and to gauge whether the practice could reduce time and cost associated with supplemental hay.

How it started

Forage soybeans are new to intercropping species lists in Manitoba.

The idea of a long-growing species, which would stay vegetative in a northern climate, was interesting to Joe Gardiner, co-founder of forage seed provider Covers and Co. The variety he chose, sourced out of South Carolina, was marketed for grazing and as a tool to improve soil health.

The ensuing trials showed promise. With soybeans added, Gardiner reported 40-50 pounds an acre of residual nitrogen in 30-inch corn rows. His own experiments on 60-inch rows showed even more, although the company’s current recommendation is to stick to narrower spacing to preserve biomass yield.

Forage soybeans were later integrated into plots at the Westman Agricultural Diversification Organization. The southwestern Manitoba research station, known for its intercrop innovation, had turned its attentions to forage corn mixes.

Forage soybeans joined tillage radish, Italian rye grass, crimson clover and hairy vetch in the lineup of corn companion crops. They were a stand-out success.

The species has also been put to work on Manitoba Beef and Forage Initiatives, an applied research farm north of Brandon, said Covers and Co. sales manager Owen Taylor.

“We recommend sowing at 20 pounds per acre, either day before, day after or the same day as the corn planter,” he said. “Most producers will just solid-seed the soybeans, a lot of them, when they put the fertilizer down. Some producers were able to bump the planter over and sow directly between the rows.”

Producers fertilize the corn at regular rates, he added.

The company also urges producers to seed rows north-south to maximize sunlight between the rows.

Corn grazing is untested ground. The company typically sees the mix put to silage, Taylor said, with cows turned out afterward to graze the residue in fall or early winter.

“Probably 60 to 70 per cent of the plant actually ends up in the pile and we’re seeing an increase of 1.5 to two per cent in protein on a feed test. And then what’s left of the beans, guys are grazing it after.”

Producers who corn graze can expect the same soil health, nutrition and water infiltration benefits of intercropping for silage, Taylor said, but it’s unknown how snow load and leaf drop will affect feed quality.

How it’s going

McRae opted for 30-inch corn rows, but backed off the population. His stand was targeted at 24,000 plants per acre, down from the 30,000 he’s done for regular corn grazing.

The soybeans were seeded the day after the corn at the rate recommended by Covers and Co. Hairy vetch was seeded at five pounds an acre.

“I’ve liked it so far,” McRae said of the soybeans. “The beans, I think, are adding a little bit of protein and other minerals to it.”

That’s hard to quantify, he admitted. Feed tests prior to turn out showed an increase in protein and the beans climbed high enough to clear the snowpack, but he doesn’t have a split field set up to directly compare a pure corn system to the intercrop.

“I haven’t really sat there all day and watched them graze through it, but judging by what’s left when they leave the field, they’re eating enough of it that I think they’re getting some benefit,” he said.

Between hairy vetch and soybeans, however, the soybeans are winning. Both the corn and soybeans are glyphosate-tolerant, making weed management easy, McRae noted. The vetch was stunted by the herbicide.

“I think that’s a little bit year-to-year dependent,” he said. “I was hoping the vetch would vine its way up the corn so we would be able to access it this time of year in the winter.”

There are few good herbicide options for a corn intercrop, other than glyphosate.

“It’s just so hard to put another species into it because all of the corn herbicide is meant to kill everything except corn,” McRae said, adding that there is also the challenge of herbicide residue.

He has had a good winter for the experiment so far, Taylor noted. Snowpack has been light, reducing hurdles for soybean uptake.

Covers and Co. does not have different recommendations for corn intercrop grazing versus intercropping for silage, he said.

The post Corn-soybean intercrop goes to a taste test appeared first on Grainews.