At issue is on-farm use of drones for the application of pesticides. Drones with the capability to apply pesticides are now being actively marketed to farmers. Innovative producers are excited. They believe drone application is a great new technology that could add value to their businesses. However, they are frustrated that regulations have not kept up to the technology and that pesticide manufacturers are hesitant to endorse the use of their products via drones. These farmers also worry about resistance from environmentalists and the public.

This issue became clear to me this past fall at the Agri-Trade show in Red Deer, Alberta. I spoke with three of the at least four exhibitors there marketing drones capable of applying pesticides. All made compelling cases why farmers should consider using a drone instead of their current options, i.e. a ground sprayer or hiring a licensed aerial applicator.

Each also told me they knew of farmers already using drones to apply fungicides and herbicides to cropland and pastures. But what the three vendors did not mention, until I questioned them, was the regulatory restrictions on using their drones for pesticide applications. This is when the conversations really became interesting.

But before I expand on that, this trade show was not the only place where farmer interest in drones is being expressed. Social media has reports of Canadian farmers already using drones. For example, a retailer of agricultural drones recently posted the following on Facebook: “… We also recognize that these won’t replace ground rigs completely yet. However, many of our customers are using these (drones) a couple of ways: smaller fields for fungicide application, ditch lines, headlands on calm days while the high clearance chews up the big acres.”

Then the post went on to add, “That said, we do have customers that opt for these overused pull types for their main sprayer. We have guys that have done 4,500+ acres in the past year with just one. With the bonus being they don’t leave tracks. But most importantly, they’re around $40,000, compared to $1,000,000 for a new high-clearance sprayer.”

On X (formally Twitter) there have also been posts by farmers about using drones for pesticide application. One poster recently wrote: “How far away until we start seeing high-clearance sprayers switched out for drones on farms in Western Canada,” to which one farmer replied: “I think it’s viable now. Just waiting for the rules to catch up,” and another: “We are being held back by gov’t regs more than tech… I expect to see them flying in my area in the next two to five years.”

Which brings me back to the real issue. Drones for use in the application of pesticides are being actively marketed to farmers eager to purchase and adopt this technology despite the fact there are only three pesticides currently registered for application by drones. All three are biological insecticides for mosquito control and are likely not the products being used by farmers who are already using drones.

Many farmers I spoke with thought that any pesticides labelled for aerial application can be used in a drone. Unfortunately, this is false but there is little incentive for salespeople to correct this misconception. In my experience, instead, it’s like there’s a buyer beware, “don’t tell if they don’t ask” sales tactic in use by drone vendors.

Worse yet, every player in this confusing situation seems to be pointing the finger at someone else for the label delays. It is a real catch-22.

So, who actually is responsible for reviewing, updating, harmonizing, and/or making regulatory changes that will enable farmers to operate drones? Here is what some invested parties have to say:

Farmers

First and foremost, a growing number of farmers are interested in using drones for pesticide application. Some already own drones and use them for field mapping, field scouting and personal fun. It’s natural to seek other applications for this technology on the farm.

Other farmers are intrigued by lower application costs. When a new drone equipped for pesticide application is four per cent of the price of a new high-clearance sprayer, farmers get interested fast.

For smaller-acreage farmers who cannot see ever being able to justify the cost of a high-clearance sprayer, a single drone might fulfill their needs.

Other attractions include eliminating wheel tracks and compaction and being able to navigate in the corners and small areas a lot more easily.

And then there’s maintenance. There’s a whole lot more that can go wrong on a million-dollar sprayer than on a drone. And, likely, the farmer can repair or replace faulty parts on a drone while the ground rig sits idle with a large tank full of product while the farmer waits for an expensive service call.

Some farmers aren’t prepared to wait for those changes and are using drones already.

Drone vendors

Drone vendors blame both government and industry for holding up official approvals for drone spraying and they seem to have no qualms about promoting the spray capability of their drones in order to build up farm pressure.

Even getting a fraction of farmers to buy spray-equipped drones would mean big new sales.

Drone suppliers focus on the much lower capital cost and the ability of a single drone to spray 25 to 40 acres an hour but there are other advantages as well. Less water is needed, the turnaround time for filling is quick, and there’s a safety benefit in having a maximum of 30 or 40 litres of product on board compared to a high clearance load of 800 to 1,600 gallons.

Besides, by changing the tank a drone can go from applying liquid pesticides to dry fertility products in minutes.

PMRA

Getting government regulatory approval for drone pesticide application is complex. All levels of government and a number of regulatory agencies evaluate, license, monitor, and ultimately enforce the Pest Control Act and its regulations.

Before any pesticide can be applied in Canada it must be approved by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), a division of Health Canada. According to a PMRA spokesperson “Health Canada’s primary objective in regulating pesticides is to help protect the health of Canadians and the environment. All pesticides must undergo a rigorous science-based review before being approved for sale in Canada. Depending on the type of active ingredient and the data on file, pesticides may require drone-specific data; there are several value, health (both occupational and dietary exposure), and environmental data requirements that need to be met before drones can be added to the respective product labels.”

“Pesticide application by drone is only permitted if stated on the registered pest control product label. The registered product will state ‘Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems‘ and/or ‘RPAS’ on its label if permitted.”

At this time there are only three pesticides in Canada that are labeled as such and can be legally applied by a drone. They are the mosquito larvicide products mentioned above, which received federal approval for drone application in 2022 but are still held back by provincial restrictions.

These are all restricted class microbial products for use in mosquito control, not the pesticides farmers are likely to be applying.

The biggest roadblock is not the technology, but the lack of pesticides labeled for RPAS application. And because of the testing protocol required for this label amendment, changes to labels will not happen overnight, or even in the next year for most pesticides.

Data needs to be generated, packaged and sent to PMRA, after which PMRA typically needs one to two years to review – and sometimes more.

And until then, there are penalties for spraying products by drone that aren’t labeled for that use.

When I asked PMRA, I was told it would be a violation of the Pest Control Products Act. “Depending on the specific non-compliance situation,” the spokesperson said, “Health Canada has at its disposal a suite of enforcement tools.” Those include product seizures, fines and more.

PMRA is aware of farmer interest in drones and is already working with a number of national and international organizations studying pesticide applications with drones including OECD Drone/UASS Subgroup, the North American Remotely Piloted Aerial Application Systems (RPAAS) Working Group, the Unmanned Aerial Pesticide Application Systems Task Force (UAPASTF) spray drift trials, and the Agriculture and AgriFood Canada (AAFC) crop residue trials working group.

PMRA also points out they have a program to issue research authorizations, which could include research with drones for specific pest control products.

PMRA stresses too that they are not involved in regulating the marketing or sales of drones and that it is up to pesticide manufacturers to initiate pesticide label amendments for drone application.

Pesticide manufacturers

CropLife Canada represents Canadian manufacturers, developers and distributors of pest control products. Its president and CEO Pierre Petelle says: “Our members are actively working with PMRA on the use of drones for applying pesticides. There is definitely a place for this technology.”

Petelle says CropLife is working with PMRA to determine what data is needed to be collected to evaluate drone application of pesticides, but until anyone knows how much drone testing (such as spray pattern, drift and droplet size) will be needed, it isn’t possible to even put an estimate on when the first pesticides may be labelled for drone application.

Nor could he provide a cost estimate, although he says a rough ballpark estimate would about $1 million to get a ground-sprayer product approved for aerial application, and it would require data from a couple of growing seasons.

Petelle adds though that the U.S. is also working toward utilizing drones for pesticide application and CropLife Canada is working with regulatory agencies there to try to share knowledge and harmonize regulations.

Petelle notes PMRA has a lot on its plate besides drones but feels it needs to prioritize drone evaluation since drones are already in commercial use applying agriculture pesticides in countries including China, Australia and Argentina. He reports watching a video of a swarm of drones, numbering 30 wide, spraying a commercial field crop.

Aerial applicators

Shara Tardif, executive director of the Canadian Association of Aerial Applicators, feels farm show sales promoting drones for pesticide application border on false advertising. Her organization has raised its concerns with companies marketing drones. She feels farmers need to be informed that there are no herbicides or fungicides currently labelled for drone application.

She feels farmers should also be warned if they do apply a pesticide off label, they can face fines of thousands of dollars.

That said, Tardif says: “drones are coming. They are already being used in the U.S. where regulations are different.”

Tardif added her organization is not opposed to farmers using drones provided the user has the relevant pesticide applicator licensing and proper Transport Canada licensing to fly the drone, and also providing they follow the label. In fact, she feels some licensed aerial applicators may even invest in drones to use for spot spraying or in areas where because of field size, powerlines or other obstacles, fixed wing aircraft are not suitable.

Transport Canada

Transport Canada is responsible for all types of aircraft, including drones with specific criteria that would have an impact on a farmer wanting to use a drone to apply pesticides. When asked about using drones for pesticide application, a Transport Canada spokesperson stated: “All drone pilots operating in Canada must follow the rules set out in Part IX of the Canadian Aviation Regulations and are strongly encouraged to consult Transport Canada’s drone safety resources to ensure their operations are safe and legal. Under Part IX, all drones weighing 250 g to 25 kg must be registered and pilots must obtain a certificate for basic or advanced operations.

Pilots who wish to fly their drone outside of the rules of Part IX for a specific purpose must apply for a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) with permission to operate a drone for specific purposes under special conditions.

A SFOC is also currently required for operating a drone out of the line of sight, for drones weighing over 25 kg, and for drones carrying dangerous or hazardous payloads, which pesticides are likely to be considered. It can take up to a month or more to submit and receive a SFOC, which could have a severe impact on pesticide spray timing.

Additionally, federal, provincial, or territorial rules may apply to the dispersal of pesticides from drones. More details are available by Googling “Information Note Regarding the Use of Drones when Applying Pesticides.”

Fines for breaking Transport Canada RPAS regulations range up to $25,000.

Equipment manufacturers

The companies that manufacture ground and high-clearance sprayers also have an interest in the viability of drones. Adoption of this technology by farmers could have an impact on their business. However, when questioned as to what they feel the impact might be if drones are approved for pesticide application, all the major equipment companies declined to comment for this article.

The public

The greatest unknown in the issue of pesticide application by drones may be how receptive the public will be to drones applying pesticides.

The bottom line

If you are a farmer considering the purchase of a drone for applying pesticides on your fields… Buyer Beware! Even though you can legally purchase a drone capable of applying pesticide, there are no labelled agriculture pesticides a drone can legally apply in Canada, even on your own property.

This is unlikely to change soon. Off-label drone application by farmers will not speed up the licensing process and it may lead to the seizure of the drone and hefty fines. Worse yet, an accident with an illegal, pesticide-carrying drone could set back the approval process.

On the other hand, farmers should be lobbying government and especially the manufacturers of pesticides, in an effort to make the necessary research, testing and evaluation a priority so agricultural pesticide labels can be amended for drone application. Farmers interested in drone pesticide application need to express that interest to government and industry.

– This article was originally published in the January 2024 issue of Country Guide.

The post Summer Series: Drone spraying appeared first on Country Guide.

For a number of years, I was a regional co-ordinator for the classroom agriculture program arranging speakers for grade four classes in central Alberta and I sought farmers and agricultural professionals to come in and talk about agriculture and food.

The experience really opened my eyes to the information gap. Easy questions came up, such as “Does chocolate milk come from brown cows?” but there were also complex questions about pesticide use and animal handling practices.

These questions became opportunities to explain why farmers do what we do, the care we take doing it, and why these practices are safe for the farmer, consumer and environment.

Conversations between the public and farmers are becoming increasingly important. While farmers are still among the most trusted professions, a recent Canadian Centre for Food Integrity survey found only 29 per cent of Canadians believe farmers are good stewards of the land. Such a low perception of environmental stewardship is bound to lead to more confrontation and increased regulation of our industry unless farmers take the initiative and address consumer concerns.

Unfortunately, when it comes to dealing with public perception about farming, farmers are often our own worst enemies. Instead of using an issue to enlighten the public, too often we simply ignore the contention or, worse yet, contribute to it.

The Federal Private Member’s Bill 234 is the perfect example of this.

This is not a column for or against Bill 234. Nor is it an argument for or against the removal of the carbon tax on the on-farm use of natural gas and propane for heating farm buildings or drying grain. And it is definitely not an argument about climate change in any way, shape or form.

What I do want to do in this column, though, is to challenge the argument from politicians and in farm circles that if farmers have to pay carbon tax on natural gas, it will have an impact on food prices.

That is the message consumers are hearing, and it may seem politically shrewd because of the importance of food and because food prices are high.

Yet it gives consumers the impression that the carbon tax is a primary cause of rising food prices and that rescinding even the amount of the tax farmers pay on natural gas for heating and grain drying will reduce food prices.

But will food prices actually drop if this tax is removed? Or is it simply a lot of political spin?

Or, let’s put it a more accurate way: Does this argument seek a short-term cut in production costs at the expense of long-term consumer perceptions on farmers, farming and food pricing?

Unfortunately, there is likely little truth to claim that the farm use of natural gas will reduce food prices. And it is this that should be a big part of what we talk about each and every time about natural gas and propane taxes.

Instead of telling consumers that food prices are somehow linked to the amount of tax that farmers pay, this is a great teaching moment for farmers to tell consumers that farmers do not set the price of food, that we are not price setters but price takers, and that the carbon tax cannot be passed on from the farmer to the consumer but has to be totally absorbed by the farm operation.

Otherwise, if this carbon tax carve-out is adopted and the price of food does not drop, consumers will perceive farmers as pocketing money that should be passed on in the form of lower food prices.

It will be like what happens when the price of oil drops but the price of the gas at the pump stays high. Farmers will be seen as gouging consumers.

Message 1: Farms are not responsible for high food prices

In my opinion, here are the messages that farmers should be presenting to consumers each time Bill 234 comes up.

First is that farmers are not responsible for high food prices. In 2023 the National Farmers Union compared the farm-gate price of wheat and corn with the retail costs of bread made from that wheat and of corn flakes made from the corn. The results show a complete decoupling of farm-gate crop prices and the cost of the food products derived from those commodities.

The increased price of food isn’t a result of farmer profiteering. Instead, higher costs rise throughout the food chain, including manufacturing costs and retail pricing. A dominant factor is the lack of competition throughout the food chain. For example, five companies now control 75 per cent of the retail food market in Canada. Just two companies supply 80 percent of the bread in Canada and one of those companies is also one of the “big five” retailers.

This lack of competition beyond the farm gate allows manufacturing, processing and retail food costs to be passed on to the consumer whereas individual farmers do not have the ability to set prices for their production of the grains grown for the breads and cereals.

Grains grown in Canada are sold on a world price basis. Prices offered to farmers do not reflect the cost of production, but rather the worldwide supply of grains. Yes, there may be short-term regional differences in prices due to local supply and demand constraints, but these quickly work themselves out given the lack of grain-buying competition. The grain market that farmers sell into is dominated by just a few global grain companies.

No question, the carbon tax will add to the cost of production for farmers who use natural gas to heat barns and greenhouses and who use it for grain drying, so the most important point to make with consumers is that farmers are price takers, not price setters. High food prices are the result of pricing decisions made beyond the farm gate.

Message 2: The real significance of the carbon tax

The second perception that farmers need to challenge is the impact that a carbon tax will actually have on food prices.

For example, a bushel of wheat yields about 45 loaves of bread. Currently a farmer earns about $9 for that bushel of wheat. So, the farm share of that loaf of bread is about 20 cents. The cost of natural gas used to dry the wheat used in one loaf of bread is a fraction of a cent, and the tax on that fraction of a cent makes the impact on the price of a loaf of bread negligible.

Furthermore, not every bushel of wheat grown on the Prairies that is used for bread-making is dried with natural gas. In fact, the majority of grain grown in Western Canada is not artificially dried. Alberta Financial Services Corporation asks farmers each fall to indicate how much of their grain is dried with added heat. The total is less than 10 per cent for most crops grown. For wheat last year it was 40 per cent.

Nor can we be certain from AFSC data how much energy was actually used to dry wheat since there is no tracking of how much drying was required. Drying wheat from 16 per cent to 14 requires a lot less energy than drying from 20 per cent.

Regardless, even if farmers could somehow recoup their fuel costs for drying grain, the added drying cost would have been too small when calculated to the price of a single loaf of bread.

This is not to say that the tax will not be a real cost for farmers. We only know, though, that it is a cost that the farm operation will not be able to recover from the consumer. To get the full story, read the “Shocking Truth” below.

The shocking truth of food prices

If we really want to shock consumers, let’s point out Canadians spend a mere 11 per cent of their income on food, and according to a 2022 Dalhousie University study, that means Canada is among the five best countries in the world for food affordability.

Yes, there are clear challenges. The report adds: “Those with the highest incomes spent 5.2 per cent on food, while those living with the lowest incomes spent up to 23 per cent of their income on food. That means those with the lowest income most significantly felt the burden of increased food costs.”

But as the report also noted, “farmers and farm workers receive a small portion of the proceeds. In Canada, agricultural sector wages are below the average, with weekly earnings about 21 per cent less than other sectors. In 2021, U.S. farmers and farm workers received only 7.4 cents of every dollar spent on food. In 2013, they received 10.2 cents.”

Other studies find similar results. “Farmers are NOT the reason for food price inflation” is the conclusion of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan study Farmers and Food Prices released December 5, 2023, which reports “in spite of increased food prices, retail sales data revealed Canadians spent less on food last year than in 2022; down from $261.24 per capita/month in August 2022 to $252.89 per capita in August 2023,either by reducing the quantity or quality or changes in shopping habits.”

So, are high food prices really the problem when Canada’s average spending on food as a percentage of household income is among the lowest in the world and consumer spending on food is actually down over the past year in spite of high food prices.

We should all consider this. Despite farm commodity prices falling significantly over the past year, the 2024 Food Price Forecast put out by the universities of Dalhousie, Guelph and Saskatchewan is predicting food prices to rise in 2024, with bakery goods climbing 5 to 7 per cent, dairy 1 to 3 per cent, and meat and vegetables 5 to 7 per cent.

The post Farmers are losing the perception battle on food prices appeared first on Country Guide.

For 106 years my family has farmed the same land. That’s a lot longer than most of the local businesses that we purchase our inputs from and where we sell the commodities we produce.

While major urban centres have grown outward, paving over some of the best farmland, roughly 10 per cent of our farm remains in native trees and wetlands for environmental and wildlife preservation.

We minimize the use of tillage to prevent erosion, and we use a single-pass, zero-tillage seeding operation to preserve moisture, reduce fuel usage and minimize the risk of fertilizer losses to the environment. We use new, safer chemistries for weed and disease control and we adopt costly new technologies such as GPS mapping, autosteer and automatic boom control.

Canadian farmers continue to produce more, year over year. And, over time, we sell at prices that don’t keep up to the rate of inflation, so Canadians spend less of their earnings on food than nearly anywhere else in the world.

Yet somehow governments that say they’re worried about the environment still approve urban sprawl. Well-fed urbanites (who often apply much higher rates of fertilizers and pesticides to their yards, parks and golf courses than any farmer uses) fault farmers for use of chemicals. Corporate entities, for a variety of reasons, question the sustainability of agriculture and farming.

I don’t get it!

So, I went looking for answers. If you Google “What is sustainable agriculture” you get 954 million hits. It seems everyone has an opinion on what farmers are doing wrong. They also know why modern farming practices are unsustainable, and what farmers should be doing to grow their food.

On some sites, sustainability means using the latest technology, like planting GMO crops to reduce reliance on pesticides, while the next opinion unequivocally says GMO usage is unsustainable and should be banned. Some want total, chemical-free food production, even if it means tillage for weed control, while the next site concludes soil erosion from tillage is the most unsustainable practice.

Some sites say farms must go back to a regenerative animal-based agriculture while the next say animals should not be raised for food. And on it goes.

I came across a report entitled “Sustainability is the future of farming” by the multinational, professional services and accounting firm KPMG. Surely, they could help me understand how to farm sustainably so I spoke with David Guthrie, partner and national sector leader, agribusiness.

“Sustainability means something different to everyone,” Guthrie told me. He says there are three criteria: environmental stewardship, economic profitability and social responsibility.

Sustainability happens when all three criteria are considered, and best practices are used for maximum benefit of each.

What are we chasing?

“Sustainable farming practices offer opportunities for increased profits and efficiencies to the farm. There can be time savings for farmers, which is a benefit,” Guthrie says.

Guthrie also suggests that a focus on sustainability that leads to significant innovations could be cost-shared between farmers, governments and investors. As examples, he points to development of new trade deals by governments which could increase farm profitability. He pointed to the role investors have played and are playing to bring autonomous equipment and AI to the farm, like robotic milking systems and self-driving equipment. He explained any new technology costs a lot and farmers and investors need each other to develop and bring to market the equipment needed for sustainability.

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs had a somewhat similar definition of sustainability. In the publication Introduction to Sustainable Agriculture it states: “Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment and the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.”

Given such definitions, it sounds like sustainability should be the goal of every farm operation. After all, farmers know the importance of profitability. Most already practice environmental stewardship. Farmers realize mining the soil or allowing erosion to go unchecked will eventually reduce profitability.

However, it is the third component, social responsibility, which is questioned by many farmers.

Social responsibility and “social licence” can have different meanings depending on who is presenting the argument. The OMAFRA fact sheet includes indicators such as “support for other local business and families within the community, a stable or increasing rural community population, and a return of post-secondary school graduates to the community after graduation to family farms or associated businesses.”

The conundrum is, while farmers are still the most trusted participants in the food value chain, the push for sustainability is primarily being directed at them. Farmers are being called upon to rebuild the trust in the entire food system. They’re being told they must grow foods in ways that meet consumer demands and they must adopt traceability all the way back to the field.

These are very different definitions of social responsibility but they all reflect society’s changing views of farmers, foods and food production. While it is easy to ignore them, it’s also foolhardy. After all, “Ultimately, consumers will drive the sustainability requirements from farmers,” says Guthrie.

Sustainability needs to be farmer-driven

If sustainability is driven by farmers striving to increase the efficiencies of their farm operation by following good stewardship practices and consumers’ concerns, the goal is great.

Driven by farmers, this kind of sustainability will lead to efficiencies and increased profitability.

However, I question if today’s focus on sustainability is coming from farmers or being forced on farmers. Too often, instead of farmers receiving economic benefits, they bear additional costs. Too often, it is third parties who profit from new farm policies and practices that promise sustainability.

Instead of farmers receiving a premium for their adherence to sustainable practices, they pay a price for providing transparency. There really isn’t a partnership between government, industry, consumers and farmers to create sustainability. Instead, there are three disparate groups all pushing farmers to take action, not for the benefit of farmers but rather for their own benefit.

A major concern of governments today is climate change. Agriculture is seen by many governments as a major contributor to greenhouse gas production as well as a potential mitigator if farming practices are changed. We will see more and more climate change initiatives addressed in terms of farm sustainability.

While governments were once highly involved in working directly with farmers through extension offices which provided valuable information and education that could lead to sustainable practices, today governments have replaced extension work with a carrot and stick approach. Financial incentives or imposition of regulations are the tools that governments rely on. Education and extension directed at farmers has been left to private, for-profit businesses to deliver.

Profitability is the primary driver of most businesses. So, when business and industry push farmers to adopt more sustainable practices, is it really the profitability of farms they are concerned about, or is it their own bottom line?

No question, if farmers do well, the businesses that serve them do better too. However, it is not an equal partnership. Consider the companies now offering data management services to farmers. Or the push by all kinds of companies for traceability. Will consumers pay more to trace the food right back to a specific farm? Or is this a market strategy for the benefit of business all along the value chain?

Society today is demanding many things with respect to foods. Transparency lets consumers know where their food comes from, but is its real value that it lets the food industry differentiate products and seek premiums from the consumer?

Unfortunately, rarely will this premium trickle down to commodity-producing farmers. Even if it does initially, the premium will shrink when more producers adopt the production criteria.

Nor can we forget the wide range of demands society has about the food qualities and farming practices it feels are sustainable. Animal rights, anti-GMO, chemical-free are all examples of trying to change farming practices under the guise of farm sustainability. Is it even possible for a farmer to develop a sustainability plan when the demands are so diverse?

The risks are real

Here is what farmers face. In 2020, the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity did a consumer survey. It found the biggest concern Canadians (57 per cent) have about their food is the cost. Plus 45 per cent were concerned with food safety.

Almost 37 per cent said more farm regulations are needed, with 58 per cent wanting more rules on pesticides and chemicals, 38 per cent on GMOs, and 29 per cent on environmental standards.

We may be following the EU, whose Farm to Fork Strategy is seeking a 50 per cent reduction in the use of pesticides and a reduction of commercial fertilizer use by 30 per cent, with at least 25 per cent of farmland producing organic.

There is no question that good environmental practices are beneficial to everyone including farmers.

In short, farm sustainability must be driven, directed and led by farmers for the benefit of all parties, especially farmers.

Until we get there, every farmer must follow the sustainability discussions that are happening like the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops (CRSC) and the proposal for the development of codes of practice for responsible grain production. It’s our future. 

The post Sustainability must be farmer-driven appeared first on Country Guide.

Discussions on paying oil premiums have been around for years, culminating about a decade ago when a major push by farmers and farm organizations for the introduction of oil premiums was shot down by grain companies, citing additional administration, segregation requirements and testing costs. They also argued that export markets would be lost as foreign buyers would switch to alternative oilseeds such as soybean or palm, as canola would become more expensive. There was also resistance by some farmers who worried that if oil premiums were introduced, they would be offset by deductions for low oil content. That could result in a zero-sum game with all costs of such a pricing model being passed on through lower cash prices. And some argued that oil content is primarily driven by environment and climate, so the system would not be fair to all farmers.

However, oilseed markets around the world have changed and these arguments no longer carry the weight they did 10 years ago. Here are reasons why component pricing of oilseeds should be introduced in Canada now.

• Read more: Don’t be a silly one, scout for verticillium

We stand alone

Canada is the only country in which premiums are not paid for high oil content in canola, according to Lyle Weber of Weber Commodities. He reports he has clients in Australia that have earned $30-40 per tonne — as much as $1.00 per bushel — in premiums for delivery of high-oil content canola.

Buyers in both Australia and the U.K. have paid premiums for high oil in canola since the 1980s. In the U.K., the current oil content standard is 40 per cent (at 8.5 per cent moisture) with a 1.5 per cent premium/deduction for each plus or minus one per cent deviation.

In Western Australia, the base oil content is 42 per cent (at six per cent moisture) with a 1.5 per cent premium/deduction for each one percentage above or below 42 per cent. In Eastern Australia, the oil standard is 40 per cent with the same 1.5 per cent premium/discount at the same moisture level. So a farmer in Eastern Australia with 46 per cent oil content would be paid a nine per cent (six per cent x 1.5 per cent) bonus, a significant benefit.

Crushers in Europe, South Africa and the U.S. offer various premium/discount programs for oil content in canola. Payments for high oil content of other oilseeds have been implemented as well. The National Sunflower Association in the U.S. even has an online oil premium calculator. Growers can enter their contract price, market area and oil content and calculate their actual returns.

Various U.S. soybean crushers offer component pricing. Some contracts have a base level as low as 19.6 per cent oil content and premiums for each 0.1 per cent above that standard.

The market has changed

The export market for Canadian canola is rapidly being replaced by domestic crush. About 50 per cent is exported now but by 2025 Canada is expected to have increased the domestic crush capacity to 18 million tonnes. If we reach the forecast 25 million tonnes of production by 2025, almost three-quarters of Canadian canola will be crushed domestically. The primary value of canola is in the oil, so why are we still selling it as simply a commodity instead of on the component for which it is sought? It makes sense for both farmers and crushers to be paid on that basis.

It is important to note that the premiums for oil content in Australia are for national crush only, not for exported seeds. Canada could implement a similar system, and most canola would be eligible for oil premiums. Given that most would be for the domestic market, we would not have to worry about a lower price due to the introduction of oil content pricing.

Farmers pay for more oil

Varietal selection plays a big role in high oil content. Recognizing this, for several years a Manitoba canola buyer was offering premiums for specific varieties known to have a higher-than-average oil content — in effect paying for it without testing or verification. Growers who grew those varieties on contract were guaranteed a premium, just like farmers who grow specialty oil canola qualify for higher prices. The sale of the company ended that premium program.

When asked about oil content premiums, a spokesperson for the Canadian Grain Commission said there was a lot of discussion a few years ago, but it was determined that premiums would put some producers at a disadvantage. Conversely, it was decided to increase the minimum requirements for oil content for canola variety registration. “Over the course of a couple of years, the oil content minimum requirement was increased by one per cent. This measure pushed the oil content higher for the entire western Canadian crop.”

A great example of the difference in oil content and returns by variety comes from a sunflower oilseed comparison by Texas A&M University in 2011. Eleven varieties were grown in a trial that looked at yield and oil content. Among them, oil content varied from 42.1 to 48.7 per cent. Based only on yield, the projected cash returns varied from $240 to $365 per acre, averaging $304 (all figures U.S.). But when the sunflower oil premiums/discounts were included, the return to the farmer ranged from $250 to $410 per acre with a trial average of $348.

This trial reflects the value that farmers are leaving on the table without component pricing. Instead of being paid for growing higher oil content, farmers bear the cost of research and development of new varieties of seed with higher oil through ever-increasing seed costs.

The final point regarding premiums on varieties is that they may lead to faster and greater increases in oil content. In the U.S. in the mid-1970s, a premium was offered to safflower growers for oil content over 34 per cent. Over the next 30 years, because of farmer selection of high-oil content varieties and research aimed at enhancing this trait, the average oil content has gone up by 15 points to 48-50 per cent. Compare those results to India, where no premium was offered to growers for high-oil safflower. Oil content there only rose from an average of 32 per cent to the 38-39 per cent level.

Higher N, lower oil?

Farmers should be paid for the added costs they incur for producing a premium product. Lyle Weber points out that there is a real cost of monitoring bins and turning them more frequently, as is required for higher-oil content canola. “There is a huge difference in handling and storing 50 per cent oil canola and 42 per cent canola and farmers are not being paid for this.” He cites the increasing frequency of grain dryer fires and heating in bins.

Farmers most opposed to component pricing of canola claim that oil is a function of weather rather than agronomic practices. Without a doubt, hot and dry conditions reduce oil content, as we saw in 2020 and 2021. However, drought and heat also reduced yields, thereby supporting prices. While farmers would see deductions for low oil content, higher commodity prices would likely compensate.

I have already pointed out that variety selection is a major determinant, but other management strategies influence oil content. The Canola Council of Canada even produced a fact sheet on management strategies farmers can practise to increase it. And recent research in Germany has revealed a relationship between the rate of nitrogen fertilizer and oil content, and it is not what most would suspect. Research by Brennan and Bollard in Australia found the same relationship. So as N rates increase, oil content decreases. While farmers continue to try to maximize yields through high fertilization, they may actually be reducing their component with the highest value.

This is especially important today, given record-high prices for fertilizer and public negativity toward its excessive use. If we had a premium system that encouraged oil production instead of canola production, we might save on fertilizer and be able to present a case of greater sustainability to the public.

Biofuel boost

Perhaps the biggest reason for pushing for payment of component pricing of oilseeds will be the potential for a skyrocketing demand for biofuel, a demand that will have to filled by oilseeds that provide the most oil per unit economically.

Lyle Weber feels the aviation industry will create a demand for biofuel that will outstrip the ethanol demand that drove prices up for cereals. He points out that to meet environmental standards, 97 per cent of all gasoline now sold in the U.S. contains ethanol. But as of 2019 only 0.88 per cent of aviation fuel comes from sustainable sources. To meet 2030 standards, three billion gallons of aviation biofuels will be required annually. If relying on soybeans, aviation fuel would require roughly 60 per cent of all the soybeans grown in the U.S. This is simply not feasible, so there’s immense opportunity for growth of high-oil content oilseeds.

Why little grower support?

I canvassed representatives of the grain commission, the Canola Council, the Canola Growers and the three provincial canola associations for their views on component pricing. Only Ward Toma of the Alberta Canola Producers Commission said their organization supports premium payments for high-oil content canola. “That (payment of oil premiums) has been the position of Alberta Canola for many years,” he said.

Today we purchase glyphosate with either 360 or 540 grams per litre of active ingredient. I doubt there is a farmer who would pay the same price for the 360 formulation, knowing that it takes roughly a third more to be equivalent to the 540. Farmers compare prices for fertilizer on equivalent formulations, not just on dollars per tonne of product. They willingly pay more for higher-quality parts that they know will last longer. So why are farmers opposed to seeking a higher price in selling a premium-oil content canola? Every other business in a free-market economy tries to maximize returns based on quality, why shouldn’t farmers do the same?

In the early 1990s most of the canola we grew on our farm in central Alberta was trucked south to Canbra Foods in Lethbridge. The only reason we trucked the canola 450 km south was because the Canbra crush plant paid a premium for high oil content, which resulted in prices higher than we could get anywhere else, even after trucking costs.

So 30 years ago, the technology to pay an oil premium was already in use in southern Alberta. Agronomists were already identifying high-oil varieties, allowing us to choose one which would return premium. But when Canbra was sold and the oil premium ended, we lost a premium market and never shipped canola south again.

In a 2007 Western Producer news story, then vice-president of the Canola Council of Canada, Dave Hickling, stated “The feasibility of a commercial payment system for oil is being seriously considered … It (oil content premium) may now be getting closer to reality.”

Far from getting closer to reality, oil premiums have fallen off the radar of most farmers and farm organizations. The fact is that farmers are not being paid full value for their canola. It’s time this discussion is opened again, or Canadian farmers will be left in the dust as others around the world sell oilseeds priced for the component the buyers really need — the oil.

The post It’s time to be paid for oil content in canola appeared first on Country Guide.

TELUS has entered the agricultural industry in a big way. Yes, TELUS, the outfit that many farmers view as just a phone company, is now a major player in Canadian and global agriculture and is looking to expand its presence even more. I had an interesting conversation with Bob Petrovic, Global Lead for Enterprise Solutions, Agribusiness, TELUS Agriculture and he was quick to describe TELUS Agriculture as “a global provider of digital technologies and data insights for the agriculture and food industry.”

According to Petrovic, TELUS Agriculture is the newest business unit of TELUS. It was officially launched just over a year ago, and it is one division of a TELUS family that also includes TELUS Communications, TELUS International and TELUS Health.

“TELUS Agriculture is an amalgam of acquisitions we have made in the last three years that represent solutions we are offering to various participants in the overall food value chain,” Petrovic explained, adding that TELUS Agriculture is bringing those disparate heritage brands together under a single brand, and as a single face to customers globally. “The intention is to bring the best of those capabilities together in a single portfolio. And to drive interesting and substantial change in our industry by bringing those capabilities and organizations into one.”

Acquisitions

While it may shock many farmers that TELUS is now an agricultural service provider for solutions other than telephones, a bigger surprise is that some farmers may already be using TELUS Agriculture services and not even know it.

The acquisitions that Petrovic referred to include companies as these:

• Decisive Farming: an industry leader in precision agronomy and farm management.
• Farm at hand: a user-friendly farm management, field management, crop planning and sales management platform allowing farmers to plan, work and track production and processes.
• Agrian: a unified farm management platform focusing on precision, agronomy, sustainability, analytics, and compliance.
• HERDTRAX: Online Cattle record management
• Feedlot Health management services: individual feedlot and calf data collection focusing on health and productivity.
• TKXS: specialized software, program management and data solutions geared to deliver critical information to Agri-Businesses
• Muddy Boots: software applications which shares data from the farm right up the food chain to the consumer to ensure that sustainability, quality, and compliance conditions are met.
• AGIntegrated: a platform that enables agribusinesses to connect, organize, translate, validate, and integrate raw farm data.
• Ignition by TELUS: Supply chain management solutions purpose-built for food distributors and processors.
• EXCEEDRA: platform for food industry retailers wanting to improve marketing, retail execution; and supply chain management.
• Conservis: a technology company which created a platform that enables disparate farm data from different sources to be organized and streamlined into a single interface which can be used in multiple applications. 

(It is important to note the Conservis acquisition was a joint venture with Rabobank, which itself had been a partner with Conservis in developing the platform since 2018. Rabobank is a global leader in the financial sector providing wholesale and retail banking services, leasing, and real estate services specializing in the food and agribusiness sector in 38 countries.)

Petrovic explained the reason for these acquisitions was TELUS was looking for new growth opportunities because he feels opportunities for growth in the communications sector in Canada are limited. Instead of buying movie studios or TV stations like their competitors, TELUS looked for an industry in which they could leverage their core competencies, which are data management and systems integration. “We looked for an industry that was data rich and information poor,” Petrovic said. Agriculture was that industry.

Petrovic feels the TELUS venture into agriculture is like the one they made into the health industry 15 years ago. “It (the health sector) was a very fragmented industry with a lot of technology in spots and not a lot in others, and data did not flow well across, so it led to a lot of expense and complexity with not good outcomes. So, we jumped into health because we figured it was an industry that we could connect better through secure data exchange.”

According to Petrovic: “When you look at the world supply-demand for a growing population, we need to get a lot more efficient, not only in how we produce food but how we deliver food to end use consumers.”

Benefits to farmers

So how is this data consolidation a benefit to farmers?

Petrovic stated the goal of TELUS Agriculture is “at the end of the day we want to make the art of farming more streamlined, and we want to make the business of farming more effective.”

TELUS Agriculture will focus on two things at the farm level. First is streamlining and simplicity. It wants to offer applications that do not take a lot of training.

The second is productivity. TELUS wants to enable farmers to do things with a single click instead of making a lot of phone calls. Said Petrovic “We want to deliver the benefits of technology to farming that so many other industries have been able to realize. We want to give growers the ability to better interact with their buyers so that a grower can make better decisions that will ultimately drive a return on investment.”

When asked for a specific example of how TELUS Agriculture would assist a farmer, Petrovic provided a scenario that many farmers would have heard before with respect to crop planning. He said that farmers know what they did last year and how it turned out, but if advisors are pitching something different, TELUS Agriculture could create some scenarios that compare the outcomes for yield and profitability.

TELUS Agriculture enables working with a partner or advisor on a plan to execute. And it moves away from notebooks and white boards to benchmarks and data to give better insights for guiding decisions.

Petrovic also pointed out that TELUS Agriculture provides farmers with a better opportunity to share their data so everybody can do a better job at the end of the day.

But then Petrovic added a line that farmers don’t often hear from advisors, agronomists and others involved in crop planning decisions. “And perhaps change the focus of farmers to one of returns rather than the traditional focus on yields and production.” 

Data ownership

The elephant in the room when it comes to any discussion of farm data is who will own and control the data. Petrovic was very clear: “Farmers will always own the data. Farmers own the data for their farm and that data is in their control.”

That, he said, includes “encryption, storage of data, tools for identification of rights and privileges as to who is allowed to access the data in future as data moves along with commodities; making sure growers are really in charge as how data is shared.”

Petrovic noted that TELUS Agriculture has the benefit of the 15 years of experience that TELUS Health gained in developing data privacy and data security.

His comments echo a statement from the TELUS Agriculture news release from July 19, 2021, when TELUS and Rabobank started down this joint venture path: “Rabobank and TELUS Agriculture remain committed to Conservis’ strict data privacy standards. Farmers on the Conservis platform own their data and will continue to control when business partners, including Rabobank and TELUS Agriculture, receive information.”

However, when it comes to compiled information from multiple TELUS Agriculture customers, the picture became somewhat murky. When questioned if TELUS Agriculture would ever sell compiled information, Petrovic replied that TELUS is somewhat already in business of selling information. He noted TKXS out of Raleigh is already using compiled information to produce market research reports and to design different products for customers. He also pointed to the creation of benchmarks that individuals can use to compare how they are doing compared to other similar farm operations.

When pressed about selling production information to buyers that farmers sell their crops or livestock to, Petrovic replied, “A big part of the strategy is really about unlocking a lot of data so it becomes actionable information for different folks in the value chain. So I would say providing insights to buyers, to various folks in the value chain on things like how much canola might have been grown, how much different types of canola might have been grown would certainly be a valuable data set to various folks making decisions in contracts and in buying. But at this point we are not (selling this information). But I cannot comment on that specific use case.”

How it adds up

So does TELUS Agriculture bring a new, valuable service to Canadian farmers?

There is no question TELUS is a leading technology company, or that they have acquired well-known and successful heritage ag technology companies. Will TELUS Agriculture grow the existing technology and services for the benefit of farmers. Or, will they view the farming industry as a cash cow to grow TELUS? 

The worst case is if the primary focus of TELUS Agriculture becomes buyers, retailers and consumers of food, at the expense of farmers. Time will tell.

Until then, farmers will be partnered with TELUS Agriculture if you deal with any of the heritage brands listed above, and likely other ag technology companies that will eventually be merged into the company. If not involved with any of these companies at this time, you can become a client of TELUS Agriculture through direct to grower solutions or through ag retailers that have partnered in providing services. Prices for service vary depending on the service sought.

Clients of TELUS Agriculture will be a part of a global network already operating right across Canada, in the U.S., U.K., Australia and New Zealand. TELUS Agriculture is already looking to expand across Europe and in Latin America.

Does it mean those colourful Decisive half-ton trucks you see on rural roads may someday be repainted to read TELUS Agriculture as heritage brand names are gradually replaced? You’ll be the judge of that.

The post TELUS targets the farm appeared first on Country Guide.

Early planning has also prompted me to put more thought into herbicide rotations and the risks of herbicide resistance in my fields. I searched for products I haven’t used regularly in the past but that control the spectrum of weeds that are usually problematic on my farm.

I discovered that searching for alternative herbicides in different groups for specific weed issues is a big job.

Let me give you a detailed example. Wild oats are a common weed problem for me, as for most Prairie growers. Opening my 2021 Alberta Crop Protection Guide (Blue Book) to the herbicide selector chart for controlling wild oats in spring wheat revealed 56 herbicide brand names. So, really, with so much choice, how much of a problem could it possibly be to rotate herbicides in wheat to reduce the risk of resistance?

Well, first take out of that list the seven pre-plant, burn-off herbicides which do not control wild oats in-crop. You are now down to 49 herbicides. But that’s still lots to choose from, right?

In terms of brands, yes, but in terms of different modes of action, no!

I compiled a chart that details all 49 wild oat brand names registered for use in spring wheat and organized them by chemical group and active ingredients. To my surprise, I found that of those 49 brands there were only 10 different active ingredients, and those actives were in just four different chemical groups. To make matters worse, one of those actives could only be used in Clearfield wheat, one was only found in a single Group 8 product, and one was in a single Group 3, 8 herbicide. And neither of these last two herbicides can be applied post-emergence.

49 brands; two groups

So in reality, if you are searching for a post-emergence wild oat herbicide for use in all spring wheat varieties, you only have a choice of seven different actives, comprised of three Group 1 and four Group 2 chemistries. That is not a lot of rotational choice!

That list of seven actives expands into 49 herbicides because companies package the same herbicide actives under different brand names. Companies also pre-mix or co-pack a variety of broadleaf actives with the wild oat active under new names.

These are great marketing tools, but they don’t provide more actual wild oat control options or a wild oat herbicide resistance reduction.

Of course, many herbicide products are labelled with multiple group numbers, and “multi-mode control” has become the buzzphrase in herbicide marketing over the last few years. So, if I am buying a Groups 1, 2, 4 herbicide that controls wild oats and other weeds, am I getting multi-mode control?

I posed this question to Chris Willenborg, a weed scientist at the University of Saskatchewan. He told me it depends on how the multi-mode control is effective.

“Effective is the key word,” Willenborg said. “If only one active ingredient is providing effective control of a weed in a herbicide mix, then it is only the group to which that active belongs which is controlling that weed.”

In other words, a herbicide may be labelled with multiple group numbers but if all of the graminicide action is from chemistry in just one group, then you are not getting multi-mode control of grassy weeds with that product.

This problem becomes even more pronounced when you start looking for a herbicide tank-mix partner to control the broadleaf spectrum in your spring wheat. For example, cleavers are a problem on my farm so from the broadleaf selector chart I selected three of the wild oat co-packs which have a broadleaf component effective against cleavers.

All co-packs were labelled as multiple-group herbicides. Brand A was labelled Group 1, 4; Brand B was labelled Group 2, 4; Brand C was labelled Group 2, 4, 6.

In fact, Brand C was formulated with two Group 4 actives. However, after further study, I found that the component controlling cleavers in all three brands was the same Group 2 active. While it certainly appeared from the label that these are different multi-mode herbicides, in truth they all used the same active to control cleavers.

Two actives but same group

This brings me to the third revelation. Herbicide manufacturers are now combining same-group actives under new brand names. While a cursory glance at a product showing two actives gives the impression of multi-mode action, if those two actives are in the same group, what is the real benefit in terms of both efficacy and resistance reduction?

Even more worrisome is that at least a couple of brands now available are pre-packs of reduced rates of same-groups as in existing products. In other words, instead of applying full rates of Brand D or Brand E, you can now purchase Brand F, which is a co-pack of a reduced active rate of D and a reduced active rate of E.

I asked Willenborg about tank mixes with reduced rates of same-group products and he explained they might provide control if there is a synergism resulting from such a tank mix, or from a new adjuvant. But he warned that if herbicide resistance is a concern, a tank mix of same-group products will not significantly delay resistance even if they are from different chemical families within a group.

More information needed

No longer is it enough to know the herbicide group. If they are to make informed decisions about herbicide rotations, farmers or their trusted crop advisors need to be aware of the actual actives, and what weeds are controlled by each active component.

Furthermore, more information is needed about the efficacy of co-packs of same-group actives and the impact of reduced rates of actives in such co-packs. Is there a synergistic effect, and is efficacy improved or not? If not, are we increasing the risk of herbicide resistance by co-packing reduced rates of same-group actives?

The real question is if there is third-party testing being done or underway that can provide real data as to the impact of same-active co-packs and rate reductions. Unfortunately, this information is not in the Blue Book or readily available, even though farmers need it.

I hope this information will make fellow farmers aware of how few herbicide options we actually have and the importance of preventing the loss of use of any herbicide active or group due to resistance. At least, maybe the accompanying chart will assist growers in selecting a wild oat herbicide this spring.

The post Lack of choice in herbicide options appeared first on Country Guide.

If you ask a random group of people what farming is, and what role farmers play in society, you will get a wide range of answers. Unsurprisingly, though, the list will likely be topped by the idea that the primary role of a farmer is to produce food.

If you ask farmers why they farm, in addition to “feeding the world,” they will tell you of their love of the land, and how they are stewards of the soil. They will define farming by independence, hard work and self-sufficiency. Some will claim that farming is not only a job, but also a way of life. Others will emphatically argue that modern farming is no longer a lifestyle, it is a business.

At some point, most will say that there is also pride in being a farmer, the sort of almost patriotic passion that Paul Harvey’s speech “So God Made a Farmer” verbalizes.

But are these romantic notions? Do the images that farmers and society have of the industry truly reflective of modern farming? Are broad acre farmers really feeding the world, or are we just supplying commodities to be processed into foodstuffs? Are we truly stewards of the land when we knock down every tree and drain every pothole so that large modern equipment is not impeded in our quest to maximize commodity production?

Are we really self-sufficient, independent caretakers of the world? It sure doesn’t feel like it when I look at my budgets for fuel, fertilizer and equipment replacement this spring.

Are the common definitions of farming obsolete? In fact, it makes me wonder: do the ways we think about agriculture and farming limit our future opportunities and business potential? 

These questions arose as I listened to a group of farmers complaining about a solar energy project. They claimed the solar panels were a blight on the landscape and that placing them on dry prairie rangeland would threaten world food security. The conversation went on about the foolishness of solar energy in the first place.

And then it hit me. The one thing that all farmers — livestock, grain, vegetable, fibre producers, etc. — have in common is that farmers are harvesters of solar energy. Every crop we grow or pasture we graze converts solar energy into food and fuel for society’s needs. Farmers are more dependent on renewable solar energy than anyone. Farmers, in fact, are renewable energy harvesters.

It has only been in the past century that modern agriculture has become addicted to fossil fuels to power equipment and provide many of the fertilizers and inputs that we farmers rely on today. Before then, farmers grew their own fuels to feed the beasts of burden used on farm operations. In much of the world this is still the case on small-hold farms.

Then, a cheap fossil fuel-based economy provided farmers with equipment, fuels, fertilizers, etc., which allowed farm operations to expand and produce more. In fact, modern farming is so productive that we easily feed the world — or at least everyone in the world that can afford food. We are so productive that the cost of food has continually dropped. Commodity prices over the last century have not even kept up with inflation. Successful farm businesses have not been built on high commodity prices, but on increasing production to overcome rising costs and inflation.

Perhaps the best indicator of farm productivity is our market. No longer are we just feeding the world. Farmers are now harvesting solar energy to fuel the world too. In 2021, the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan’s “Biofuels Factsheet” Pub. No. CSS08-09 documented how, in the 2019-20 crop season, 35 per cent of the corn grown by U.S. farmers — a whopping 4.9 billion bushels — went for ethanol in the 201 ethanol refineries in operation in the U.S. Another 91 biodiesel plants are a major market for soybeans, canola, corn oil and livestock fats and grease.

The biofuels market has become critical to supporting the prices of all agricultural commodities. A 2006-08 study of the impact of biofuels on corn prices revealed that biofuels had raised corn prices by 20 to 50 per cent, wheat prices by one to two per cent and vegetable prices by 10 per cent.

However, that market is not without problems, and there are more clouds on the horizon. First and foremost, biofuels continue to be subsidized by governments through tax incentives and credits. And demand is ensured by mandated biofuel content standards.

More troubling is much of the corn grown for ethanol production in the U.S. Midwest is grown under irrigation. In Nebraska, for example, 780 gallons of water are required for every gallon of ethanol produced. Midwest aquifers and western rivers are being rapidly drawn down, especially by agriculture, while both rural and urban demand for water is increasing.

Current fertilization practices needed for high-production agriculture are also having an environmental impact. Fertilizer runoff is resulting in an average of 5,408 more square miles of the Gulf of Mexico being classified as hypoxic every year, resulting in injury and death of fish in this area due to algae bloom fed by the flood of ag-based nutrients.

But even more worrisome, from a farmer’s perspective, is the movement away from fossil fuels due to climate change concerns. Future electrification of motor vehicles could have a significant impact on the biofuel market for farm commodities.

The bottom line is that farmers today are once again growing their own fuels. Instead of harvesting oats to feed the horses, we are now growing corn and vegetable oils to refine into fuels to be burned in internal combustion engines. We have reached a new equilibrium of food/fuel production on farms — as long as the trends in the demand for biofuels and environmental impacts of biofuels are ignored.

But if farmers truly are business oriented, they need to be looking now at alternative crops as humanity’s demands change with respect to fossil fuel use and farming practices.

Instead of farmers locking ourselves into the belief that farmers feed the world, let’s be honest about what farmers actually are: renewable solar harvesters. Let’s at least consider the possibility that many farm areas could switch from the growing of crops for biofuel energy to directly capturing the energy from the sun with solar panels.

Last September Bill Nussey published a thoughtful article comparing the benefits of corn-grown ethanol with solar panels. He calculated an acre of Iowa corn yields 551 gallons of ethanol. However, that same acre of Iowa land covered with solar panels would produce 198,870 kilowatt hours annually.

Based on average mileage for a gas-powered car, and for an electrical vehicle, Nussey claims the energy yield from the solar panel would propel an electric car 70 times further than the acre of corn-based ethanol.

In 2012, the USDA Agricultural Research Service compared the efficiency of solar panels with photosynthesis. The bottom line is that modern solar panels can convert about 10 per cent of the solar energy they receive into useable chemical energy whereas crop photosynthesis only converts one per cent. Today, new solar panel designs can reach up to 20 per cent efficiency.

The major drawback to solar energy capture is that plants store the energy they produce in seeds and plant matter. Solar panels do not store energy so some type of energy storage system must be developed for the energy that is produced but not immediately needed.

Many who are opposed to solar energy will also point to the high cost of solar panels. Yet they ignore the costs of labour, farm equipment, crop inputs, water, transportation, and processing needed to grow, harvest and convert that plant into a food or fuel that people can use. 

The hardest part to argue against development of a solar farm is that companies are now willingly paying more to farmers interested in leasing their land for a solar production than farmers receive in crop land rental.

Without question, not all farmland is suitable or should even be considered for solar panels. But at the same time, if you consider that growing any crop is in fact harvesting solar energy, is it not appropriate to consider solar energy production as a potential “new crop” for your farm? If you live in an area of poor soils or an area that is consistently short of rainfall, could a solar farm be a way to preserve your farm and community?

History tells us that the introduction of the tractor was resisted by many farmers who continued to use horses for many years after tractors were introduced. Ignoring the potential of solar generation on farms may be just as detrimental to today’s farm businesses as ignoring tractors was when our ancestors had to decide whether to get on board with a changing world or stick with the old ways of thinking.

Society is demanding a transition from fossil fuels. As business leaders, farmers need to look for opportunities in change rather than just resist it.

Redefining what farmers do is the first step in not only finding new opportunities but telling society and governments that farmers are already doing what they are demanding. Farmers are the original renewable energy producers!

The post Is farming on the cusp of being redefined? appeared first on Country Guide.

Contrast this with the current process for buying pesticides. You may or may not deal with a trained agronomist to determine the best one to use. When you pick it up at the warehouse the only application direction is what’s included on a generic label that, while detailed, is not specific to you, your farm or possibly even to the crop you intend to use it on.

While this may not be as much of a concern for older chemistries you have used for years, the market is becoming much more complex with new chemistries, new tank-mix combinations, new prepacks of existing products and newly named generics offered as alternatives to name brands. 

The complexity is illustrated by the fact that the Alberta Crop Protection Guide is now well over 600 pages. It’s probably the best source of pesticide information in Alberta, yet I wonder how many farmers have perused more than the information on the few pesticides they use. Can you really choose the best one if you don’t know all the options for controlling the pest? Relying on experience is not always the answer.

As a case in point, I used a popular name-brand grassy weed herbicide for many years because it allowed me to tank mix a specific broadleaf product. However, I was enticed by the lower price of a generic version which promised to do everything the name brand did. So I tank-mixed the generic with the name brand, only to find out the adjuvant in the generic formulation was not compatible. The result? No control of wild oats. Yes, it was my oversight, but the role of the retailer and manufacturer in telling me the generic was exactly the same as the name brand played a role in my crop loss and future weed problems.

[READ MORE] CropLife Canada on pesticide labels

As a second point, growers are acutely aware of herbicide resistance. They know repeated use of the same group will result in weed resistance, so they try to prevent it by rotating chemistries. Industry is also responding by offering products with multiple chemical groups as a resistance-management tool. But is it a synergistic effect of that prepackage, or are farmers simply getting a product which controls a broader spectrum of weeds?

If you have used a Group 2 product on a specific weed and want to rotate to a different group for control, is a product with multi-mode action with both Group 2 and 4 actives a rotational option? Or could it be that it is just the Group 2 component of the prepackage that’s still controlling that weed? Are you still risking resistance because you are never actually rotating from Group 2 control?

As another example, in 2020 our area had abnormally high rainfall which led to poor weed control and new weed problems. In an attempt to control these concerns in 2021, I sought an agronomist’s advice on the best pesticides for the expected change in the weed spectrum. He suggested products which I had never used in both my wheat and barley. One was a prepackage for both grassy and broadleaf weeds. The other could be tank mixed with a grassy weed killer. He calculated my pesticide requirements, and I purchased the products early in 2021 to ensure I would have them on hand when needed.

On delivery, I found I had forgotten which product was intended for the barley and which was for wheat, as both could be used on either crop. The boxes were identical in design and colour and the product names were of little help as I had no experience with either.

By going through my purchase notes I was able to sort out which was which. The real issue came when I plowed through the label for application instructions and found both required adjuvants. Their need had not been mentioned by the retailer, so I did not have them on hand. The label was unclear if the adjuvant with the grassy tank-mix partner was sufficient or compatible with the broadleaf partner. To clarify required contacting the chemical company rep.

After getting my questions answered, I asked if he was busy with farmers calling seeking application information. He said about half his calls every year are from farmers seeking advice at time of application. His response intrigued me enough to call a rep from a different company, who also said application time is his busiest of the year for calls because the labels can be confusing.

The biggest environmental threat from pesticides is not their intentional misuse, but rather farmers misunderstanding or making application mistakes due to a lack of or confusing information.

Pesticides under fire

The public worry about residues in food. They are concerned about harming non-target flora and fauna. They worry about the long-term effects on the environment. They question the approval process. Most troublesome is that many question a farmer’s need and use of pesticides in the first place.

As a result, farmers around the world are under increased scrutiny. In Canada we have already lost the use of several pesticides. Last May, Health Canada announced that the last date for sale of chlorpyrifos would be December 10, 2021, and the last day for use would be December 10, 2023. In the same month as that announcement, new restrictions were placed on the use of clothianidin and thiamethoxam.

Glyphosate has reportedly had restrictions placed on its use in 42 countries. Restrictions range for banning it for cosmetic uses in some countries to a full ban, which Germany and Mexico are trying to implement by 2024.

Public pressures prompted a 1998 study by 10 agricultural scientists and legal experts who presented a position paper to the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) looking at the feasibility of transforming pesticide use to a prescription-type system.

Their thinking is that the public is more accepting of the medical system where low-risk products can be self-prescribed, but high-risk drugs must be prescribed by licensed professionals. The study concluded that adopting a medical-type system for prescribing pesticides may ease public concern about their environmental risk and safety. It may even prevent the loss of some high-risk pesticides. However, it would require establishment of a new level of qualified personnel, which could add significant costs. The authors said these costs would need to be further evaluated before such a practice would be implemented.

Yet that may be the direction we are headed. Quebec has already introduced a pesticide-prescription program whereby farmers are unable to purchase or apply pesticides identified as high risk. Criteria for labelling as high risk include toxicity to humans, pollinators, birds and fish, as well as the persistence and mobility of the product in the environment.

Quebec farmers who want to use a pesticide identified as high risk must hold a “farmer’s certificate for pesticide application.” They must then contact an agronomist and provide detailed plans of how, when, why and where they want to use it. If the agronomist feels the request is justified, they will sign an agronomic justification for its use. This is required for purchase of the pesticide and must be kept by the farmer for five years.

But is this prescription process necessary? Farmers do not apply pesticides that are not needed, because they cost a lot of money and time to apply. For the same reasons, they don’t intentionally apply pesticides that don’t work under specific conditions. They don’t intentionally apply pesticides that put their health or the environment at risk, because their livelihood depends on both.

Instead of a prescription process, more onus should be placed on manufacturers and retailers to ensure farmers understand the pesticide and how to apply it to maximize safety and efficiency.

Farmers are likely the best judges of pest problems in each of their fields. They make multiple passes across them every year and likely have a better understanding of problems than could be achieved by a once-over scouting by a pesticide salesperson. Farmers can voluntarily share this information with agronomists and pesticide retailers who can then assist with identifying best practices and solutions.

A delivery checklist

Here is where our current system could be improved. For each pesticide sold, a checklist should be included, detailing all pertinent application information for the field and crop. For example, the checklist would include the herbicide(s) by name, field to be used in, rates of application, timing, water volume, tank-mix partner, adjuvant requirements, rainfastness, temperature considerations, following crop restrictions, grazing restrictions, days to harvest, entry restrictions, weed pressure, etc. 

Just like the label on drugs at the pharmacy, a pesticide checklist would provide all the pertinent information for its safe and effective use. Not only would farmers benefit from clear and precise instructions, manufacturers would have fewer questions from frustrated farmers. Retailers would have fewer complaints about product failures.

All this information is already available. Manufacturers and retailers simply need to co-ordinate this information online so that the retailer can quickly pull the relevant information for each product and crop together, and then tailor it for the farmer and field. This tailor-made checklist would then be attached to the pesticide package so it is readily available at time of use.

A pesticide checklist is the simplest, easiest and cost-effective way to make the use of pesticides safer for farmers, the environment and consumers. All parties would be assured that the right pesticide is being applied to the right field appropriately.

Farmers do not need a pesticide prescription process with all the associated bureaucracy and cost to ensure human and environmental safety. But they do need easily accessible, detailed and concise information. Instead of ignoring the calls by the public for more regulation of pesticide use and then complaining and resisting those regulations when governments impose them, it’s time for farmers to take a proactive approach and tell the public, governments and industry that this is the information we need from retailers and manufacturers to make better and safer use of the pesticides we need to keep putting food on consumers’ plates.

The post A better prescription for pesticides appeared first on Country Guide.

Unfortunately, I don’t know of anyone who is asking it.

Even the Alberta government, whose change in coal policy could result in a massive amount of metallurgical coal being mined from the eastern slopes of the Rockies and destined for export from the West Coast is not asking how rail shipments of this much coal may have an impact on the movement of grains and oilseeds and any other products and goods moved by rail through the Rockies.

The worst part is that when I asked the Alberta government, CN rail and CP rail, they seemed surprised, and then avoided answering the question.

This question stems from the rescinding of the 1976 Alberta Eastern Slopes Coal Policy by the current Alberta government last May. The policy change was done without public consultation and the change effectively opened about 1.4 million hectares of the eastern slopes to coal exploration and mining. It has an impact on not only mountainous areas, but protected wilderness areas and grazing lease lands.

The change ignited the ire not only of environmentalists, but ranchers in the area, and farmers and the public downstream of the mines who depend on rivers flowing out of the eastern slopes for their irrigation and water supplies. When the scope of the policy change became apparent last December there was a huge public outcry, but the government announced the old coal policy would be reinstated. 

In fact, prior to the new policy, a number of exploration permits had already been granted, primarily to Australian coal mining companies seeking high-quality metallurgical coal for export to Asia for use in the production of steel. In a February 8 news conference, Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage noted exploration projects were underway for the Aries, Blackstone, Cabin Ridge, Chinook, Elan South and Isolation South proposed mines. The project area for these six mines covers 65,000 ha at the headwaters of the Oldman, Crowsnest and Clearwater Rivers.

According to the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, as of February 12, 2021, the Alberta government had leased 194,281 ha of lands for coal exploration since rescinding the coal policy last May. The society claims the government’s policy change did not cancel these leases, but merely paused them to allow for public consultations.

As well, two eastern slope mines have already proceeded from exploration to the review process required before beginning operation. The Tent Mountain mine operated from the 1940s until 1983. Its ownership is seeking to reopen and expand this mine to another 750 ha near Coleman, Alta. If approved, it would produce coal for the next 14 years.

The government is also reviewing the Grassy Mountain mine proposal for a new open pit mine in southwestern Alberta which is projected to produce 4.5 million tonnes of processed coal per year for the next 25 years.

If just the Tent Mountain and Grassy Mountain projects were to proceed and if mine output met expectations, these mines would produce about 7.75 million tonnes of coal per year, all destined for the West Coast, all to be moved by rail through the Rockies. At 90 tonnes per car that would be over 86,000 additional rail cars a year of coal to be moved through the mountains, roughly two trains per day 365 days a year. And we know winter rail movement is often delayed or diminished due to cold, snow, avalanches or track issues.

Grain producers remember what happened a few years ago when there was a big push to move more oil by rail. Rail service for grain movement declined. And most of the increased movement of oil by rail was south rather than west so there were not near the constraints that the Rockies impose on rail capacity. 

Do we even have the rail capacity to increase coal shipments?

Our rail carriers already move a lot of coal. According to the Coal Association of Canada, our railroads currently move over 30 million tonnes of coal annually, 80 per cent of that through B.C. Therefore, the Tent and Grassy Mountain mines alone would increase the amount of coal moved through the Rockies by roughly 25 per cent. So, I asked CN and CP what percentage of rail capacity is currently being used given the limited track and locomotive power through the Rockies. And how many additional tonnes of coal could be moved to the West Coast without having an impact on movement of other goods.

Here are the replies I received:

Mathieu Gaudreault, senior advisor in media relations at CN, responded: “At CN, we are proud of the accomplishments of our dedicated team of railroaders as their work ensures that our network is running safely and that we keep meeting our customers’ needs.

“In order to stay ahead of the demand, CN has invested over $10 billion since 2018, in tracks, locomotives and railcars, including the purchase of over 2,500 new high-capacity grain hopper cars. These investments benefit our grain customers as well as customers from the other sectors we serve. It is important to remember that the record grain shipments of the last twelve months have come at the same time as CN is shipping very high volumes of many other commodities such as lumber, potash, propane and consumer goods.

“CN works continuously at refining its assessment of anticipated volumes to be moved based on overall crop production and insights gained from maintaining open lines of communications and consultations with stakeholders in the grain supply chain as well as various industry associations and elected officials. Those open lines of communications are key to our success as they allow us to extract accurate and timely forecasts on volumes and industry patterns that are essential to our service planning processes.”

Andy Cummings, manager of media relations with CP rail wrote: “CP is well positioned to continue to move Canadian grain, with more than 4,000 new hopper cars added to its fleet via purchase or lease. Details on CP’s grain-handling are here. As you’ll note, CP is 14 per cent ahead of last year’s volumes crop-year to date.”

Both companies totally avoided my question as to the impact a large increase in coal shipments would have and if they had the rail capacity through the mountains for a significant increase in coal production. When pushed for further clarification, I was told this was the only comment they were prepared to make with respect to my questions.

Has the Alberta government consulted with the railroads to ensure there is capacity to move the coal from proposed mines before issuing leases?

I can understand the railroads’ reluctance, as private companies, to reveal their capacity to move additional coal through the mountains but surely the Alberta government would have consulted with the railroads before leasing large sections of the eastern slopes to coal mining companies. After all, those leases only generate $3.50/ha a year over the 15-year term of a lease and once in production the government only earns one per cent of the revenue of coal produced. Therefore, you would assume the government would look at the impact increased coal shipping by rail would have on all other commodities and goods moved by rail.

When I asked Jerry Bellikka, chief of staff for Alberta’s Minister of Energy, if the government had consulted with the railroads to ensure rail capacity before issuing coal leases he responded:

“The Government of Alberta is not involved in the process of shipping coal by rail. This is the sole responsibility of private industry. Coal companies that export their product are responsible for ensuring any necessary infrastructure and rail agreements are in place. Typically, proponents would ensure these arrangements are made, as necessary, as they plan a coal mining project. It’s also important to note that the rail industry is regulated by the federal government.”

Rail shipping is vital to the Canadian economy and especially important to Prairie farmers. According to Stats Canada, 538,000 carloads of agricultural products were moved by rail in 2019. Yet, by tonnage, coal is second only to iron ore in terms of commodities moved by rail in Canada. Yet Alberta is pushing hard to increase coal production without any consideration of the ability of rail to handle increased tonnage.

Complicating the matter even more is the decision by the U.S. to stop Keystone XL. With oil prices rebounding, will we see additional oil competing for rail service as well? 

And there are other western commodities, besides grain and oilseeds, which also compete for rail service. For example, potash accounts for the most tonnage of any commodity moved out of Saskatchewan with 41.5 per cent moving by rail to the West Coast.

We cannot wait until there are rail movement backlogs to ask whether or not we have the capability to increase coal mining and exports. Then it is too late. This question should have been asked even before new coal mines were considered much less land leased for them.

So I ask the question again:

Will the shipping of coal by rail to the West Coast displace the shipping of grains and oilseeds to West Coast ports? 

And more importantly: 

Who else in agriculture and the government is asking this question right now?

The track record

This would not be the first time increased costs resulting from business decisions by third parties would have a negative impact on western grain producers and society in general.

Perhaps the best example is the impact that consolidation of the elevator and rail systems had on farm costs of moving grain from farm gate to rail. The abandonment of branch lines, the demand by rail for large car spots, and the decision by grain companies to move to large inland terminals from a local elevator system all contributed to higher trucking costs for farmers.

Initially, cost savings by grain companies from reduced rail charges resulting from faster loading times were passed back to farmers in the form of trucking premiums but those have now all but disappeared.

But there is even a bigger external cost now being borne by governments. Deterioration of the highway system because so much more grain is being moved longer distances by truck instead of rail is becoming obvious. No one questioned what the highway costs would be for elevator consolidation. And there was no discussion as to who would pay for added highway maintenance and repair because of the changes brought on by the changes to the elevator and rail system.

We cannot make this same mistake again.

This article was originally published as ‘The coal question’ in the April 2021 issue of Country Guide West.

The post Rolling coal on the rails appeared first on Country Guide.

Unfortunately, fires while harvesting are not uncommon. This past fall, the fire departments in the County of Forty Mile in southeastern Alberta responded to seven combine fires in a single 10-day stretch.

“And those were just the fires we attended to,” says regional fire chief Dustin McGarry. He attributes the large numbers of fires to an unusually high fuel load (some of the best crops the area has ever seen), high daily temperatures and low humidity. McGarry says conditions were so dangerous, farmers were advised to stop every hour to check for hotspots on all equipment and to clean any buildup of straw and dust.

It was even recommended that farmers set up a truck carrying at least 150 gallons of water, a pump and a fire nozzle and have it follow the combine around the field to put out spot fires as they appeared.

McGarry says a lot of farmers complied with these recommendations.

You might think that older, poorly maintained combines would be most prone to fires. In fact, four of the seven combine fires in the County of Forty Mile were in newer machines: 2015 and later.

McGarry points out newer combines have a lot more electrics and electronics that are susceptible to the infiltration of fine dust. They have more hydraulic lines too, and plastics have replaced many panels which used to be metal.

Plus, new engines and exhaust systems run hotter to mitigate pollution.

Carle.org, which includes the Carle Illinois College of Medicine, the world’s first engineering-based medical school, released a “Field and Combine Fire” fact sheet. Among the points it makes are:

• Newer combines have a greater risk than older ones for fire. Newer combines have a much larger volume of synthetic materials such as shields, panels and fuel tanks that will burn once the fire is ignited.
• As combines have gotten bigger in general, with larger processing areas and storage capacity, the operator is less likely to be able to see the engine area.
• A fire can start 15 to 30 minutes before you ever notice it in the field, so be alert.

These factors increase the possibility of fire and of more intense fires. So, if a new combine is not the answer to reducing combine fire risk, what is?

Now is the time

Why are we even talking about combine fires when harvest is finished, and we are in the middle of winter? The University of Minnesota extension service says there are two keys to protecting your harvest operations from fire: prevention and preparation. Both need to start now. Waiting for next harvest season is too late.

Major combine maintenance is best done in the off-season instead of rushing a repair job in the middle of harvest. Replace worn belts and bearings before they fail completely and possibly cause a fire. Check electrical wiring for wear. Check hoses and fittings for any indications of wear or leaks. Consider booking a combine inspection through your local dealer if you are not mechanically inclined enough to do your own complete inspection in the off-season.

Fire extinguishers are essential on combines and need to be checked and recharged on a regular basis. Make sure they are large enough for fighting a combine fire.

Also, if you do not have a portable tank, pump and fire nozzle system which can be moved from field to field as you harvest, now is the time to consider options such as a tank in the back of a service truck, a tank mounted on a trailer, or a firefighting system adapted to a high clearance sprayer. No matter the system you choose, you also need to have the manpower to be able to move the water to the scene of the fire, and they also need to know how to operate the equipment when they get there.

Fire insurance

An insurance update may be the most important action you take this winter.

Does your insurance cover the losses you would incur if you had a catastrophic fire?

Does it cover the replacement cost of your combine if destroyed? Does it cover crop loss from a fire?

Does it cover a neighbour’s equipment or a rental combine if you have help finishing up your harvest?

If you lose the use of your combine, does your insurance pay for the full cost of a rental combine to allow you to continue harvesting? (Many insurance policies have a maximum daily rental rate for a certain number of days.)

Does your insurance cover your GPS guidance system? (In many policies a moveable GPS system must be covered by its own policy and is not included in the combine or tractor policy.)

Does your insurance cover fire department charges for responding to a fire on your farm?

What, if any, are requirements for fire protection for your insurance to be valid (number and size of extinguishers, for example)?

Do you know the claim process should you have a fire?

What happens to your coverage after a fire?

This past fall an Alberta farmer who did not want to be identified had two fires just days apart on a brand new combine. Insurance covered the repairs after the first fire with no question. But he ran into problems after the second fire with the insurance company questioning his fire prevention practices and his not having a water truck out in the field at the time of the second fire. Fighting with an insurance company after fighting a fire is not something you need.

Your fire response plan

How do you get help if you have a combine fire? Of course, the first action should be a call to 911. But who makes that call? Does everyone on your harvest crew carry a cell phone? Does everyone involved in harvest know what they should do if smoke or fire is spotted? Does everyone know the legal land location for the field you are working in so they can provide accurate directions to responders? Are your fields identifiable by signage and are access approaches marked so responders can find the way into a field?

Assuming that everyone is as knowledgeable as you about fire response is not enough. You need a clearly defined fire response plan.

Neighbourhood assistance is often the best option for fighting a fire, given that the response time by a fire department to a combine fire in a rural area is likely to be considerable. Do you have a way to contact neighbours who can provide firefighting assistance? While watching for smoke might have worked a generation ago when farms were much smaller, today your nearest neighbour may be harvesting miles away from you. Consider setting up a community alert system whereby a text or message can be instantly sent out to all neighbours alerting them that you need immediate assistance. Talk to neighbours this winter about joining something like a WhatsApp group for emergency contact.

Down Under

If you are worried about Canada’s combine fire risk, consider Australia. According to Australia farmers organization NSW Farmers, seven per cent of Austalian combines catch fire in an average year, and 10 per cent will cause significant machinery and crop damage, plus the risk of personal injury.

The risk of combine fires is so high Australia has a Harvest Code of Practice (opens as a PDF) to help prevent combine fires. This code of practice grew out of the Rural Fires Act of 1997 which mandated farmers have a duty to prevent fires from starting and spreading. Included in the code of practice is:

• Stop harvest when the local actual (not forecast) Grassland Fire Danger Index exceeds 35.
• Before harvest, establish a minimum four-metre fire break around the boundary of crops or paddocks to be reaped.
• Keep crop residues on machines to a minimum, particularly engines, exhausts or brakes.
• Regularly maintain machinery before and during harvest, particularly wearing parts and bearing.
• Carry the prescribed equipment — such as water, extinguisher and a shovel — and have immediate access to a UHF CB radio or mobile phone.
• Keep a farm firefighting unit in the paddock being harvested.

Now, Australian researchers are looking to adapt technology employed in motor sports and car racing that protects drivers from fires following a crash. Things that are being looked at include: heat shield paints, fire-retardant coatings, exhaust jackets and insulative ceramic skins on exhausts which insulate as well as reduce dust adhesion.

As well, work is being done on automated fire extinguishing systems.

Back in North America, Carle says “As a general rule of thumb, a fire doubles in size every 30 seconds. So, if you have a fire that’s three feet by three feet, it can consume an entire acre in less than 10 minutes. In drought conditions, like we’ve seen recently, it could spread even faster.”

Australia has seen grassland fires consume 85 acres within half an hour of starting, and 500 acres in an hour.

With your current equipment and preparedness, how fast can you fight back?

The Grain Harvesting Guide

The South Australian Country Fire Service and the South Australian Farmers Federation have created a harvest guide which Australian farmers use to determine when harvest operations should be suspended because the risk of fire is too high. Their approach correlates relative humidity and temperature to find the allowable maximum wind speed based on a grassland fire index of 35, the rating at which Australia says farmers should cease harvest operations.

Canadian farmers should consider stopping harvesting for a few hours when the combination of high temperatures, low humidity and wind makes the risk of fires extreme. We can use the same harvest guide as Australia to determine when the risk of fire is just too high to continue harvest operations. Copy the following chart below and put it in the combines now so it is there to reference during next year’s harvest.

Using the grain harvesting guide — an example:

Step 1.
You will need to measure the current temperature, humidity and wind speed on your property. For wind speeds, you should average this reading out over 10 minutes. For humidity, round the number down.

Step 2.
Using the measurements you’ve just taken, find the maximum recommended wind speed in the table on the next page. For example, a temperature of 40 C and 15 per cent relative humidity equals 26 kph.

Step 3.
Compare this result with the wind speed you recorded. If the wind speed you’ve recorded is equal to or greater than the number in the table, it is recommended you do not harvest. Re-assess weather conditions later.

In the example below, if the wind speed on your property is 26 kph or more, you should not harvest.

Is the wind speed you recorded equal to or greater than the wind speed shown above? If yes, it is recommended you do not harvest. Check weather conditions later.

The post Steps you can take now to prevent combine fires later appeared first on Country Guide.