“It’s a critical time that we’re in, relevant to soil erosion, climate change, and everything that we’re doing with technology and innovation is to ensure that soil remains where it is,” said federal Agriculture Minister Heath MacDonald at the announcement on Thursday morning.

“(The Strategy) is going to put an element of integrity on any research that’s being done in the future and hopefully that research can coincide with what we’re seeing here today.”

MacDonald made the announcement alongside Senator Rob Black. Black led a Senate study of soil, published in the report “Critical Ground: Why Soil is Essential to Canada’s Economic, Environmental, Human, and Social Health,” which was published in 2024.

Black also championed Bill S-230, the National Strategy for Soil Health Act, which aims to protect, conserve, and enhance Canadian soils and closely follows the 25 recommendations laid out in Black’s report. That bill passed in the Senate on Thursday evening.

MacDonald said Bill S-230 will inform the strategy.

Government ready to move forward: Black

During Bill S-230’s third reading, Senator Rob Black told the Senate Chamber it was bolstering to know “the government not only supports the bill but is ready to move forward before it is legislated.”

Reading the AAFC’s intention to develop a national soil health strategy during the third reading showed the value of the Senate, he said.

“It also put (the government) on record, on notice that we’re watching,” Black said.

According to Black, work on the strategy to safeguard Canadian soil could begin as early as April and be completed and officially launched by December 2027.  

Collaboration with farmers, industry pledged

Black said that ideally the national strategy will avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. It will include educational support, financial support, peer-to-peer networks, and a position for a national soil health advocate.  He noted that Australia’s soil advocates have been very effective in promoting the adoption of soil health practices, but acknowledged that the position comes with a cost.

Collaboration will play a key role in developing the strategy, with input from the Soil Conservation Council of Canada (SCCC), farmers, the agriculture industry, Indigenous communities, provinces and territories, and related ministries.

Black pointed to the ongoing work by the SCCC to develop a soil strategy, which MacDonald assured the AAFC will take on board rather than “recreating the wheel.”

When asked if this was a foundational step to recognizing soil as a finite resource critical to food security and sovereignty, MacDonald said it was an opportunity to “put a lens on soil health in this country.”

He acknowledged that farmers are among the best land stewards and that the strategy will ensure the work of farmers, Black and the Soil Conservation Council of Canada inform policies going forward.

Healthy soils important for all Canadians: Kruszel

The in-depth research by Black and the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry into Canada’s soil has highlighted the significance of healthy soil and the threats it faces said Alan Kruszel, Soil Conservation Council of Canada’s eastern producer director.

“Healthy soils are so important for producers as well as for all Canadians. Healthy soils provide the majority of the food we eat,” said Kruszel. “Soils help to purify our water, to clean our air and provide habitats for all kinds of life.”

Kruszel said the agriculture sector provides one in nine jobs nationally. Investment in soil health is ongoing through research, farm organizations, input suppliers and other groups to support the adoption of sustainable on-farm practices.

“Our intention through the National Soil Health Strategy is to optimize those investments through collaborations,” Kruszel said. “And collectively working to identify gaps in research, measurement, education and extension, and of course, resources while establishing priority actions that we can all work on.”

-Updated March 27. Clarifies that the government’s commitment to the soil strategy is separate from the passing of Bill S-230. Adds further comments from Black.

The post Federal government commits to national soil strategy as Black’s soil protection bill passes Senate appeared first on Grainews.

But beyond the news about grain blockades lies a deeper, slower-moving crisis: the depletion of the very nutrients that make Ukraine’s fertile black soil so productive.

While the ongoing war has focused global attention on Ukraine’s food supply chains, far less is known about the sustainability of the agricultural systems that underpin them.

Ukraine’s soil may no longer be able to sustain the country’s role as one of the major food producers without urgent action. And this could have consequences that stretch far beyond its borders.

In our research, we have examined nutrient management in Ukrainian agriculture over the past 40 years and found a dramatic reversal of nutrient levels.

Pre-war: showing signs of strain

During the Soviet era, Ukraine’s farmland was excessively fertilized. Nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were applied at levels far beyond what crops could absorb. This led to pollution of the air and water.

But since independence in 1991, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. Fertilizer use, especially phosphorus and potassium, plummeted as imports fell, livestock numbers declined (reducing manure availability) and supply chains collapsed.

By 2021, just before the full-scale invasion, Ukrainian soil was already showing signs of strain. Farmers were adding much less phosphorus and potassium than the crops were taking up, around 40–50 per cent less phosphorus and 25 per cent less potassium, and the soil’s organic matter had dropped by almost nine per cent since independence.

In many regions, farmers applied too much nitrogen, but often too little phosphorus and potassium to maintain long-term fertility. Moreover, although livestock numbers have declined significantly over the past decades, our analysis shows that about 90 per cent of the manure still produced is wasted. This is equivalent to roughly US$2.2 billion (C$3.01 billion) in fertilizer value each year.

These nutrient imbalances are not just a national issue. They threaten Ukraine’s long-term agricultural productivity and, by extension, the global food supply that depends on it.

The war has sharply intensified the problem. Russia’s invasion has disrupted fertilizer supply chains and damaged storage facilities. Fertilizer prices have soared. Many farmers deliberately applied less fertilizer in 2022-2023 to reduce financial risks, knowing that their harvests could be destroyed, stolen or left unsold due to blocked export routes.

Our new research shows alarming trends across the country. In 2023, harvested crops took up to 30 per cent more nitrogen, 80 per cent more phosphorus and 70 per cent more potassium from the soil than they received through fertilization, soil microbes and from the air (including what comes down in rain and what settles onto the ground from the air).

If these trends continue, Ukraine’s famously fertile soil could face lasting degradation, threatening the country’s capacity to recover and supply global food markets once peace returns.

Rebuilding soil fertility

Some solutions exist and many are feasible even during wartime. Our research team has developed a plan for Ukrainian farmers that could quickly make a difference. These measures could substantially improve nutrient use efficiency and reduce wasted nutrients, keeping farms productive and profitable, while reducing soil degradation and environmental pollution.

• These proposed solutions include:
• Precision fertilization – applying fertilizers at the right time, place and amount to match crop needs efficiently
• Enhanced manure use – setting up local systems to collect surplus manure and redistribute it to other farms, reducing dependence on (imported) synthetic fertilizers
• Improved fertilizer use – applying enhanced-efficiency fertilizers that release nutrients slowly, reducing losses to air and water
• Planting legumes (such as peas or soybeans) – including these in crop rotations, improves soil health while adding nitrogen naturally

Some of these actions require investment, such as better facilities for storage, treatment and better application of manure to fields, but many can be rolled out, at least partially, without too much extra funding.

Ukraine’s recovery fund, backed by the World Bank to help Ukraine after the war ends, includes support for agriculture, and this could play a key role here.

Why it matters beyond Ukraine

Ukraine’s nutrient crisis is a warning for the world. Intensive, unbalanced farming, whether through overuse, under use or misuse of fertilizers, is unsustainable. Nutrient mismanagement contributes to both food insecurity and environmental pollution.

Our research is part of the forthcoming International Nitrogen Assessment, which highlights the need for effective global nitrogen management and showcases practical options to maximise the multiple benefits of better nitrogen use – improved food security, climate resilience, and water and air quality.

In the rush to ensure cheap food and stable exports, we must not overlook the foundations of long-term agricultural productivity: healthy, fertile soils.

Supporting Ukraine’s farmers offers a chance not only to rebuild a nation but also to change global agriculture to help create a more resilient, sustainable future.

—Mark Sutton is a honourary professor in the University of Edinburgh’s School of Geosciences. Sergiy Medinets is a biogeochemist at the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

The post Ukraine’s farms once fed billions but now its soil is starving appeared first on Grainews.

Called Crop Aid SS — short for “Saline Solution” — the product is designed to be sprayed directly on saline areas in the fall or early spring.

Darren Sander, Crop Aid’s owner and operations manager, said the product does not treat the soil directly. Instead, it’s formulated to treat water as it moves through the soil profile.

Sander said the product works by breaking the bond between water molecules and soil particles, reducing water’s surface tension. This allows water to move down through the soil more easily, carrying salt away from the root zone. Sander claims the treatment also limits the capillary action that can draw salt back up toward the soil surface.

“Everyone’s been trying to treat the soil, and it’s the water that’s the problem,” Sander said in an interview during the Langham, Sask., farm show held in mid-July.

Crop Aid SS is positioned as an alternative to traditional soil amendments such as gypsum or organic matter, which are often applied directly to the soil in an effort to address salinity. Sander said farmers using the product have seen some saline areas improve within one or two years, though more severe patches may require repeated treatments over several seasons.

The product is applied using standard sprayer equipment, and Crop Aid recommends targeting only the saline patches rather than full-field applications. According to Sander, typical treatment costs are less than $20 per acre.

He said the product’s effectiveness has been evaluated primarily through on-farm trials rather than third-party research. Participating farmers report positive results, but Sander acknowledged results can vary depending on factors such as water table depth and spot severity.

Crop Aid SS was launched alongside the company’s bio-stimulant product, Crop Aid Plus, which Sander said is designed to improve soil structure and reduce compaction across entire fields. Together, the two products are marketed as part of a “whole-field approach” to managing saline issues.

To date, Crop Aid SS has not been independently validated through formal research trials.

The post New soil treatment targets saline patches in fields appeared first on Grainews.

They discussed their recent policy papers on what Canadian agriculture needs for economic stability and productivity in a recent webinar.

Courtney Anderson, Dislène Sossou and Andu Berha highlighted the financial benefits and challenges of adopting soil conservation practices, the impact of climate change on agricultural production and how federal and provincial farm insurance programs are — or are not — mitigating these effects.

Impact of land values

Anderson took a high-level look at the economics of farmland use — including returns from farmland compared to land purchase and rental costs — and what rising farmland values means for the longevity of the sector.

Overall, Anderson reaffirmed that Canada’s farmland is currently in “long-term decline” from development and other pressures, that farmland rental rates have caught up to farmland value appreciation in most areas of the country, and the appreciation of the value of most farmland alone “does not provide a high-enough all-in discount rate of return for most investors.”

Farmland rentals, says Anderson, offer a strong potential additional return on investment to those owning farmland, but come at considerable risk and uncertainty for the renter. Speaking during the CAPI event, he says statistical data indicates rental costs siphon some 90 per cent of operator income, leaving only 10 per cent to cover all other production expenses. This, he says, indicates strong competition in farmland rental markets.

Given the competition for farmland, Anderson argues a better understanding of what future generations will require to invest in farming — whether through renting, purchasing or other methods of farm investment — is needed. He also points to policies from different regions across the country, which have restricted land ownership, as possible models by which farmland can be conserved in other areas.

What drives adoption of new practices

Sossou’s research focused on what drives the adoption of more environmentally minded production practices in vegetable systems, something she says is ever more important as consumer demand for domestically grown produce spurs growth in the vegetable sector.

Because vegetable production often necessitates the intensive use of inputs, tillage and other elements of production mechanization, says Sossou, soil health degradation is a growing concern. The adoption of soil conservation practices helps remediate these issues, while often reducing production costs for the farmer.

However, many vegetable farmers are still reluctant to adopt soil conservation practices due to financial constraints, implementation challenges, access to information, market access, non-targeted support and general negative perceptions of some practices.

These perceptions are not necessarily unwarranted, given that economic and environmental goals don’t always align on the farm. Sossou details how “there is a potential tension between economic sustainability (via succession planning) and environmental sustainability (via Environmental Farm Plans),” adding policymakers or advisors “need to balance both objectives when designing conservation programs.”

Policies promoting the adoption of soil conservation practices should also account for farmer crop specialization, including recognition of the soil nutrient requirements for the vegetable in question.

Additional recommendations to increase the adoption of effective soil conservation practices include expanding technical assistance and market access for vegetables demanding particularly high levels of soil nutrients, enhancing supply chain integration and connecting farmers with wholesalers or processors preferring vegetables grown with soil conservation practices, designing irrigation and incentives policies for a balanced land-use strategy and implementing policies to sustain an effective workforce for labour-intensive crops.

Different farms, different insurance programs

Berha’s work highlights how a one-size-fits-all approach to production insurance programs is increasingly costly, as well as ineffective at promoting change on the farm.

When the climate is good — that is, when poor and extreme weather has not been the norm — Berha says farmers tend to specialize in a few high-performance crops in pursuit of high returns. This occurs at the expense of greater crop diversity, which, while often being less profitable overall, helps protect farmers in the face of an unfavourable climate. Diversification only happens after the onset of poor conditions.

There is thus “a clear trade-off” between sustainability and productivity, says Berha. The imbalance in that trade-off is costing farmers and insurers a lot of money, with Canadian farm insurance payouts jumping from $1.9 billion in 2018 to nearly $5.7 billion five years later — a cost surge that has occurred alongside more extreme weather.

A means of reducing insurance costs involved is complementing current business risk management programs with “resilience built in.” This would include promoting climate-resilient crop choices and farming practices, as well as addressing different risks faced by farmers in different regions.

Berha identifies four additional means of improving insurance programing. This includes a guarantee of prompt payouts to meet cash flow needs, scaled coverage to better match losses — special mention is also given to the upward adjustment of coverage caps and top-ups to reflect greater risk during more extreme weather — simplified paperwork processes, and greater transparency through the publishing of an annual business risk management performance dashboard, which includes reporting payout times, approval rates and regional uptake.

The post Improving agriculture’s economic and environmental sustainability appeared first on Grainews.

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

When to soil sample

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

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

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

What are the options for sampling?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of sampling sites

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

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

Choosing depth increments

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

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

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

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

Sample analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This methodology was developed and first used commercially at Cornell in 2006, incorporating chemical, physical and biological properties to gauge soil health. Since then, this technique for measuring a comprehensive mix of indicators of soil health has been modified to fit locations around the world.

As the soil health lab manager at the Chinook Applied Research Association in Oyen, Alta., Zavala received the green light to modify Cornell’s technique for Alberta conditions, developing the Alberta Soil Health Benchmark.

“I learned from them everything I needed to put together here,” says Zavala.

Grading on the curve

The Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health technique and the Alberta Soil Health Benchmark analysis provide test results with handy scores that assess soil using a familiar format — a score from 1 to 100. As well, colour codes make it easy to spot where an intervention or practice change might have the biggest effect.

Zavala and her research team developed scores for each measure based on data collected from 2018 to 2023. During that period, 11 of the 12 applied research and forage associations across Alberta collected soil samples for this project.

Using these results, they calculated the mean and standard deviation based on a standard normal distribution for each test result. Then a scoring curve was developed for each indicator. These scoring curves enable the lab to provide test results that show where your soil fits relative to other soil in Alberta. After analyzing the data, Zavala developed separate scoring curves for coarse, medium and fine soil across the province.

As an example, through these tests, the average soil respiration rate in Alberta was found to be 1.22 mg CO₂ per gram of dry-weight soil. If your soil’s test result is 1.22, your score will be 50 out of 100, right in the middle. If your score is above average, you’ll get a score above 50.

Using these curves, each test result has been converted to a score from one to 100, with 100 being the best. Then each test result is colour-coded for convenience. From worst to best, the scores and colours are:

• under 20: red, very low
• 20-40: orange, low
• 40-60: yellow, medium
• 60-80: green, high
• >80: blue, very high

With the colour-coding system, users can quickly see their biggest soil problems and consider potential solutions. Measurements shown in red are constraints, areas where improvement may increase soil health and ultimately yield. Measures in green and blue are areas where growers can sleep easy at night.

A curve for every test

For most soil health indicators, more is better. A higher test result means a healthier soil and a better score. In these cases, curves are generally shaped like the curve in Figure 1.

For some indicators, such as the amount of manganese or iron in the soil, a lower test result is better. As you can see in Figure 2, curves for indicators where smaller results are better are drawn in the opposite direction, so lower test results bring higher scores.

Sometimes the best test result is in the middle. These cases are shown in Figure 3 as an optimum curve. Soil pH is an example of a measurement in this category. Test results that are very high or very low would return a low score. A score in the middle of these extremes would be in the green zone (high, meaning “good”).

The Alberta scoring curves will change over time. As more soil tests are done, the new data will be built into the scoring curves so farmers can have more accurate results.

Meanwhile in Saskatchewan

To the east, a team led by Kate Congreves, a professor in the department of plant science at the University of Saskatchewan, is working on a Saskatchewan Soil Health Assessment Protocol that includes scoring functions similar to those developed for the Alberta Soil Health Benchmark.

There are subtle differences in this protocol. Rather than creating scores based on smaller regions of the province, the Saskatchewan protocol is developing scoring curves by soil type: brown, dark brown and black. Saskatchewan researchers noted that soil class generally influenced most soil characteristics.

For example, the Saskatchewan report mentions soil organic carbon. Generally, a soil organic carbon of three per cent would be a “good” score in Saskatchewan. But in Saskatchewan’s black soil zone, soil organic carbon levels tend to be higher. In the black soil zone, a soil organic carbon of three per cent would rate as “poor,” with a score between 20 and 40 on the scale of one to 100.

And the rest of the country?

In the spring of 2024, the Canadian Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry released a report on soil, “Critical Ground: Why Soil is Essential to Canada’s Economic, Environmental, Human, and Social Health.”

This report includes 25 recommendations, the first of which is that soil be designated as a strategic national asset. Many other recommendations centre on encouraging soil stewardship, using tools like tax credits and carbon markets.

There are many ways to evaluate soil. This report recommends that the federal and provincial governments develop a consensus on how to measure, report and verify soil health.

Zavala would like to see comprehensive soil health testing in place across the country.

“If the government doesn’t see the importance of what we have done in Alberta and look in more detail at how beneficial this can be, we aren’t going to understand what’s happening in our soil,” she says.

“We need to see the soil in a different way.”

The post Benchmarking soil health in Alberta appeared first on Grainews.

“The first question I ask when I’m speaking to farmers is, ‘How many of you have done soil testing?’” says Yamily Zavala, soil health lab manager and soil health and crop management specialist at the Chinook Applied Research Association, Oyen, Alta.

Most farmers in the room raise their hands when she asks this, but when Zavala pushes them further, she finds that most have had an analysis of their soil’s chemical properties. These tests usually analyze micro- and macronutrients, pH, organic matter, electrical conductivity (to indicate salinity) and cation exchange capacity (to indicate the soil’s ability to hold nutrients).

This information is necessary to develop a fertility program, but, Zavala says, it’s far from the whole story.

“Soil is not just chemicals. Soil is not just minerals. Soil is holistic. It’s alive.”

The Chinook Applied Research Association’s Soil Health Lab has been testing soil from across Alberta using three categories of soil properties: chemical, physical and biological.

With more than 4,000 soil samples analyzed between 2018 and 2024, the association’s Alberta Soil Health Benchmark Report includes benchmarks and scoring systems that can provide Alberta growers with comprehensive reports on their soil health in an easy-to-use format.

What is “healthy”?

There isn’t one standard, simple definition of “healthy” soil. Most definitions mention the soil environment and how efficiently the soil cycles nutrients. Almost all definitions use “healthy soil” and “quality soil” interchangeably.

The concept of soil health goes beyond measuring the chemicals and nutrients in the soil and includes how the whole soil ecosystem is functioning.

One common indicator of soil health measures the amount of living microbes in soil. This is soil organic matter, the percentage of soil made up of plant and animal material. Soil organic matter is the basic building block of productive soils, holding the soil together and making soil’s biological functions possible.

We know that a higher percentage of soil organic matter is better. But how much is enough? What other components of soil affect soil organic matter?

What can we measure (besides soil organic matter) to get a good picture of trends, and analyze differences?

Three components of soil health

The theory behind the Alberta Soil Health Benchmark is that healthy soil has three general components. These are the chemical and fertility properties, the physical properties and the soil’s biological properties, such as soil organic matter.

The physical properties describe the inherent character of the soil. Indicators include soil texture, compaction, water infiltration, bulk density (an indicator of soil compaction) and soil wet aggregate stability.

Growers can change some of these physical properties over time through management changes. Other physical characteristics are permanent. Physical properties can constrain soil health and crop yield.

Improving the soil’s physical properties can also improve some of the chemical indicators, the soil organic matter, and other biological indicators. Zavala describes this as “building a really nice house for the biology.”

The third part of the Alberta Soil Health Benchmark evaluation is the biological component.

Zavala sees all three of these components as important and necessary for soil health, but she sees biology as “at the top.” Organic matter in the soil is what allows the soil to function as an ecosystem. The living organisms in the soil are dynamic, changing all the time.

When all three of these components are robust, Zavala says, “that’s what I call the healthy soil.”

Together, all three types of measures provide a snapshot of the health of the soil. With repeated, consistent tests, changes in these measurements will indicate where farm management is improving or depleting soil health.

Measuring biological health

Soil organic matter is a key indicator for measuring soil’s biological health. Soil organic matter is measured by drying the soil, weighing it and then heating it to a temperature that will burn off the organic matter. The remaining soil is re-weighed; the difference in weight is the organic matter. The measure is provided as a percentage of the total soil mass.

The soil organic matter includes many living organisms. Some of the smallest are bacteria and fungi. These produce their own secondary metabolites and digestive enzymes, they absorb pieces of plant residue, and they release nutrients that plants can use.

Among farmers and agronomists, nitrogen-fixing bacteria such as rhizobium are probably the most popular creatures in this category. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria convert atmospheric nitrogen to ammonia, a form of nitrogen that can be converted into plant-available nitrogen.

Protozoans in the soil are generally larger than bacteria and fungi and can move themselves through the thin film of water in the soil. They’re single-celled, but typically bigger than bacteria and fungi. They often consume bacteria, and sometimes fungi. This group of microbes (living organisms too small to see without a microscope) includes flagellates, amoeba and ciliates.

Nematodes are the largest microbes in our soil. They have multiple cells and can consume bacteria, fungi and protozoa. Most nematodes are beneficial to soil health, but some are agricultural pests that take nutrients from plants, such as cereal cyst nematodes. A diverse group of nematodes in the soil is thought to indicate a healthier soil.

Measuring soil organic matter measures the amount of life in the soil. Other tests examine what that life is actually doing under there.

Soil respiration is a measurement that captures a snapshot of the organisms’ metabolic activity. Soil respiration is measured by air-drying soil, rewetting it, putting it in an airtight container, and then measuring the amount of CO₂ produced by the rewetted soil. Results are provided as mg of CO₂ per gram of dry-weight soil.

When the microbes are more active, they release more CO₂. Some ways growers can increase soil respiration include adding more organic material to the soil, adding manure or cover crops, or diversifying crops. Too much tillage can lower the soil respiration rate.

Active carbon measures the share of soil organic matter that can serve as an immediate food source for living organisms — decomposed matter that plants can consume quickly. A high active carbon test result means the microbes have enough food and are producing matter useful to plants.

Active carbon is measured by adding purple potassium permanganate to the soil. Active carbon causes the purple solution to lose its colour. The amount of active carbon in the soil correlates to the amount of colour change. Active carbon is a useful early indicator of changes to soil health. This test will show the effects of a management change sooner than changes to soil organic matter measurements.

The post Measuring the components of healthy soil in Alberta appeared first on Grainews.

One of the first steps to improving water-holding capacity is understanding what factors control it. Jeff Schoenau, a University of Saskatchewan soil scientist, said two key soil properties play the biggest roles.

The basics

“Water holding capacity of the soil is very much influenced by two things: the organic matter content and the texture, which is the percentage of sand, silt and clay,” said Schoenau. “If a soil has more organic matter and it has more clay, that’s going to increase the available water-holding capacity.”

Clay content, while important, can’t be changed, he explained. A foot of moist clay soil will hold two inches of available water, whereas if it’s a foot of moist sandy soil, it will only hold an inch, or even less if it has a very high sand content.

But water-holding capacity isn’t the whole story. Moisture conservation isn’t just about keeping water in the soil; it’s also about getting water into the soil, or infiltration.

“Things that influence infiltration, like having a surface residue, help promote water entry,” said Schoenau. “We also think about evaporative losses. If we don’t have standing stubble there, that increases the wind speed at the soil surface, and that increases the evaporation.”

He noted that Prairie farmers’ long-standing conservation practices have already helped, contributing to increased water holding capacity, improved infiltration and good soil structure.

“You have a good distribution of pores holding water and some that also hold air to make sure that the soil isn’t flooded or saturated,” he said.

Matching problems to products

While Schoenau focused on the fundamentals, Karthikeyan Narayanan, technical director with Cropland Analytics, zeroed in on how to identify problems and match them with solutions. Cropland Analytics didn’t have a booth at Ag in Motion this year, but we caught up with him at the Annelida Soil Solutions booth, one of the firms his company partners with.

Cropland Analytics operates a fully outfitted, professional lab in Tofield, Alta., testing the biological, physical and chemical aspects of soil.

“The idea behind the lab is to identify the properties of the soil and to understand what’s inhibiting any of those water-holding capacities of the soil as a whole,” said Narayanan. “We do have products, and we do have solutions, but until we identify what the soil needs, it’s going to be very hard to promote one product.”

The business model for Cropland Analytics is based on partnerships with soil amendment companies. His main partners are Annelida and Johnson’s Regenerative.

“They have the solutions that align with what we find in our labs,” said Narayanan. “Ultimately, the farmer needs a solution, and that’s why we align with companies who can provide that solution.”

The partnerships represent a three-way street between Cropland, their partners and the farmer. And Narayanan insists the farmers are the big winners.

“With every test we’ve done and every recommendation we provided, our response rate is over 98 per cent. And that’s on-farm,” he said.

But while Cropland Analytics mainly recommends the products of their partners, an arm of their company is also developing products. Cropland Solutions focuses on developing products while keeping the lab independent to avoid conflicts of interest. The team is actively researching calcium-based products, addressing a common issue with gypsum: limited availability.

Narayanan pointed to one product they’ve designed that he says can boost calcium availability by 400–500 per cent. The product is applied directly in the furrow, targeting only the row rather than trying to amend the entire field. This approach keeps costs low — under $50 per acre. The product aims to improve the rhizosphere while enhancing water infiltration, root growth, phosphorus availability and overall biological activity. He says farmers are seeing immediate benefits, almost as if nitrogen had been added.

Farmers come first

But Narayanan said the main goal is not to sell products. It’s to help farmers. It’s a consultative process more than anything, and if one of his partners doesn’t have a solution, he’ll recommend a third party.

“If I don’t have a solution, but a competitor does, it’s always good if it benefits the farmer,” he said. “As long as they’re doing certain parts of the Annelida, Johnson’s, or Cropland program, it’s fine.”

Narayanan said that many of the water-holding issues he’s called to address fall into the same broad categories identified by Schoenau: soil texture and infiltration.

He noted that sandy soils benefit from organic matter to help retain moisture, while clay soils may hold water but not release it readily to plants. Infiltration problems, he said, can be worsened when fine-textured soils disperse during rainfall, leading to surface sealing, clogged pores and increased runoff.

“So, you have more water runoff from the field than infiltration through the field,” he said.

High tillage or elevated sodium levels can make this worse, though calcium amendments can improve soil structure and help water move into the profile.

While too much tillage harms infiltration, the opposite extreme — continuous no-till — can create its own problem: compaction. Without tillage to break it up, compacted layers can persist and build over time, restricting root growth and water movement. Narayanan said lowering tire pressures by six or seven pounds per square inch can cut that compaction by as much as 15 to 20 per cent.

In his view, farmer awareness and management practices are just as important as any product he or his partners sell.

“There’s no way we can keep amending the soil if the farmer is using bad practices in the field,” he said. “If you want to get out of the hole, you have to stop digging first.”

Cover cropping debate

When asked about other methods for improving water holding capacity, like cover cropping, Narayanan said that while cover cropping will, over time, improve water holding capacity, farmers who are concerned about the water holding capacity of their soils are likely in dry areas — and adding extra mouths to feed when water is scarce isn’t the best idea.

“It’s not growing the cover crop as a problem. It’s about the water,” said Narayanan. “If your water rainfall is low, then what’s going to happen is your cover crop is going to pull that moisture out. So, the following crop won’t have that subsoil moisture.”

Not so fast, said Karlah Rudolph, president of SaskSoil, a farmer-led group promoting soil health and conservation in Saskatchewan.

“I’m in southwestern Saskatchewan, and I do not find that there is an issue with having a cover, even though we’ve been in five years of drought,” she said.

Rudolph farms with her family in Gravelbourg and south of Gull Lake, Sask., combining annual crops with forage and pasture. Her soil science background helped her see the role of cover crops and living roots in protecting soil structure and improving infiltration.

Because of those dry conditions, Rudolph has been closely examining whether cover cropping can work in southwestern Saskatchewan and she planted some crops on her farm to get some answers.

On one of her fields, she’s planted a monocrop system of red lentils.

“There wasn’t a thing growing on it in the spring. It’s as naked as can be,” she said. “I’m observing some visible wind erosion. I’m not very happy about that, but there’s absolutely no competition for the water.”

On another field, she had a hard red spring wheat crop that was underseeded with a low rate of Italian ryegrass and a low rate of sainfoin.

“Sainfoin is a perennial, and it came up in the spring. The Italian ryegrass overwintered, so I had roots at two depths. I had fibrous roots from the Italian ryegrass closer to the surface, and then I had this deep taproot from the sainfoin that was going down at depth.

On the red lentil field, she found that the moisture was closer to the surface, about two inches down. But when she dug where the Italian ryegrass had been planted, the ryegrass had used the water at the surface, and the moisture had moved further down the soil profile. But not by much, she said maybe an inch, and it was much wetter than the moisture level on lentils.

“The snow catch offered by high residue and a high infiltration rate far outweighs the issue of weed competition when it comes to moisture conservation,” she said.

Measuring the moisture

At their Ag in Motion booth, SaskSoil displayed a simple infiltration test kit consisting of a six-inch tube, a bottle of water, a roll of plastic wrap, a wooden block and a stopwatch — it’s exactly the kind of practical, low-cost, MacGyvered innovation you’d expect to see from a farmer-led, DIY group like SaskSoil.

However, just across the lane, Kyle Henderson, business manager for Crop Intelligence, offered a more high-tech option for understanding what’s going on beneath the surface — one perhaps more suitable for those gadget-loving farmers.

“This moisture probe goes one meter into the ground,” said Henderson.

Installed right after seeding, the probe reads initial soil moisture from 100 cm up to 10 cm depth. Combined with rainfall data from a weather station, the system calculates “water-driven yield potential” — how many bushels a crop can produce per inch of available water.

Farmers can also monitor infiltration in real time.

“If you get an inch of rain, does it actually equate to an inch of soil moisture?” Henderson said.

The tool’s data can help identify whether a soil’s holding capacity is limiting yields and guide management decisions throughout the season.

Shared success

From cover-cropping, conservation tillage and residue management to targeted amendments and soil monitoring, improving water-holding capacity is a multi-pronged effort. And for Narayanan, it’s also about the bigger picture.

“At the end of the day, as long as the farmer wins, the entire industry wins,” he said. “We can’t be shortsighted in our approach.”

The post Farmers weigh strategies to boost soils’ water-holding capacity appeared first on Grainews.

Developed by Crop Growth Sciences, PhoSul combines natural rock phosphate with elemental sulphur but also adds amorphous silica.

“It’s a new take on an old idea,” said Darcy Lepine, president of Crop Growth Sciences.

The silica addition is the patented component of the product and plays a key role in freeing up phosphorus for plant use.

Lepine said traditional synthetic fertilizers such as MAP (monoammonium phosphate) rely on water solubility to make phosphorus available. However, that also makes them prone to rapid tie-up in the soil, typically within 30 days.

PhoSul, by contrast, is designed to mimic natural soil processes, relying on microbial activity to create sulfuric acid as it breaks down the sulphur component. This acid releases phosphorus from the rock phosphate.

What makes PhoSul different is the silica, which binds with calcium — a byproduct of the reaction — before it can re-bind with phosphorus. Lepine said this allows up to 90 per cent of the phosphorus to remain plant-available, despite being a non-water soluble product.

Because of its low salt index, PhoSul can be safely placed near seed, even sensitive crops such as canola. Lepine said the product works particularly well in high pH or sodic soils, where synthetic fertilizers often struggle.

The fertilizer also offers environmental benefits. According to Lepine, PhoSul requires five times less carbon dioxide to produce than MAP or DAP. Since it’s not water soluble, it’s less prone to runoff or loss into waterways.

PhoSul can replace all or part of a farmer’s typical phosphorus fertilizer blend and is designed to blend seamlessly with common products such as urea, MAP or MEZ. Lepine emphasized it’s not a silver bullet; rather, it’s a tool to improve soil biology and maintain fertility over time.

PhoSul is now available in Canada, after an initial launch in the U.S. in 2024.

The company has four years of research from Montana State University and about 20,000 acres under use so far this season.

The post New fertilizer product aims to reduce tie-up, improve soil health appeared first on Grainews.

It seems there is confusion between the terms “sustainable” and “regenerative” as applied to agriculture. Both are even perceived, in some instances, as forms of organic farming. I checked around and looked for definitions of both terms and found them both on the internet, at Wikipedia.

I will take some excerpts from each and let at least the perceived definitions provide you with some direction.

Sustainable agriculture

The term “sustainable agriculture” was defined in 1977 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as involving the following objectives:

• Satisfy human food and fibre needs

• Enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends

• Make the most efficient use of non-renewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls

• Sustain the economic viability of farm operations

• Enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole

The definitions and terms pertaining to “sustainability” go on and on. It’s confusing to each and all of us. I will try a few of my ideas later on in this article.

Regenerative agriculture

In the information that I was able to dig up on “regenerative agriculture” it was listed as a conservation and rehabilitation approach to food and farming systems. It focuses on topsoil regeneration, increasing biodiversity, et cetera, et cetera. Regenerative agriculture is not a specific practice. It includes recycling farm waste and certainly not selling off any bales of straw. Basically, a straw baler should be sidelined in favour of a straw chopper.

My personal definition would be as follows: putting back onto your cropland what you took away after 100 years of farming on the Prairies. That means never removing crop residues, and putting the phosphate, potash, sulphur and micronutrients that you removed back to comparable levels for your farming area. Your nitrogen inputs should match that which you take out with your crop target yield. That might be 40 bushels of wheat for southern Saskatchewan or 90 bushels of wheat for central Alberta, both contingent on soil moisture. Of course, you have to input all of the macro- and micronutrients needed by the wheat crop yield that you harvested.

—> READ MORE: Regenerative agriculture is difficult to define

“Soil health” is basically a nonsense term aiming to evoke empathy. We all know we can grow huge crops of tomatoes, peppers or cucumbers in Prairie greenhouses entirely with nutrient-balanced water. We can grow crops on pure sand if we have effective irrigation. In Washington state I have known of 40-ton crops of potatoes taken off irrigated and well-fertilized desert sand.

“Sustainability” is getting the target crop yield based on geographic area matched with your crop nutrient inputs.

I have seen cropland quarter-sections in central Alberta where the landowner had taken off endless hay crops without any inputs. Over 30 or so years, that landowner managed to drain the hay land of virtually all of its macronutrients, and the resulting hay did not even have the nutrient value of weathered wheat straw.

On the other hand, I have run into hog producers farming a section of land who have upgraded the cropland immensely. One landowner showed me a neighbouring section of land growing a barley crop that would be pressed to grow 40 bushels, replete with large clods of clay. His own land had a 90- to 100-bushel barley crop and soil that had become mellow over the years as a consequence of these manure inputs. He also was proud of the fact that his tractor drawpower needed was less in the days before zero till.

That’s what I call sustainable farming.

Think! Ten thousand years ago, the Canadian Prairies were covered with ice. In the ensuing years the Prairies grew grasses and forbs and developed under an irregular prairie fire regime that kept out the trees, primarily aspen (woody dandelions).

—> READ MORE: Searching for sustainability in agriculture

As North American animal grazers — bison (buffalo), deer, gophers, rabbits, ground squirrels — moved in, they were preyed upon by wolves, bears, foxes, coyotes, cougars and humans. The grazing animals dropped their manure and urine, as had the predators and humans. None of the gradual buildup of nutrients from soil breakdown and nitrogen fixation and aerial deposition was removed from these Prairie lands. It was all recycled.

Along came farming and export — and nutrients were removed, not replaced. Around 50 or so years ago we began that replacement, via concentrated crop nutrients.

Do not confuse sustainable or regenerative agriculture with organic farming. Farming of the Canadian Prairies 100 to 150 years ago was comparable to organic farming: plough the land, harvest the crop or livestock and sell them to urban centres. There were no macronutrients, and micronutrients were never considered. The land was tilled annually and, more often than not, fallowed for weed control and nutrient release from the soil. There were no pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides). Animals had various diseases infectious to humans such as tuberculosis and brucellosis, as well as fleas and ticks, and milk consumption was dodgy.

We have come a long way, but we can always get better. Do not worry about those poplars; they are not forest trees, just big woody invasive weeds.

One last thought: “Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important.” – T.S. Eliot, The Cocktail Party, 1949

The post ‘Sustainable’ versus ‘regenerative’ agriculture appeared first on Grainews.