The demise of the federal government’s tree program in 2013 has been linked to a decline in the number of shelterbelts
Producers who see shelterbelts as simply an obstacle to farm equipment or a waste of agricultural land need to think again, says a researcher.
Potential benefits range from reducing the odour from feedlots and boosting the pollination of crops by hosting beneficial insects, to earning revenue through the carbon offset market, said Ike Edeogu, manager of crops and environmental stewardship at the Olds College Centre for Innovation in Alberta.
There needs to be more communication with farmers to expand their understanding of the advantages that shelterbelts can offer to their operations, he said.
Read Also
Canada’s plant hardiness zones receive update
The latest update to Canada’s plant hardiness zones and plant hardiness maps was released this summer.
“Hey, you know what? The sky’s the limit with this.”
One of his personal goals is to establish a research program on shelterbelts at the college that could help producers by potentially serving as a resource centre for Alberta. He emphasized it’s currently only at the idea stage and no decisions have been made on whether to create such an initiative.
The federal government cancelled the Prairie Shelterbelt Program in 2013, stating that changes in farming practices had made shelterbelts redundant. The program had provided hundreds of millions of free seedlings since 1901 to farmers and rural landowners, helping to make rows of trees and shrubs bordering fields and farmsteads a common sight in Western Canada.
There is no doubt the number of shelterbelts has declined since the end of the program, said tree expert Toso Bozic, chief executive officer of an Alberta consulting and advisory company called the ATTS Group.
Producers have been turning shelterbelts into cropland to take advantage of rising crop prices, he told a recent webinar hosted by Lacombe County north of Red Deer, Alta. They also see shelterbelts as an unnecessary obstacle due to the increasing size of farm machinery, which is a view he disputed due to the rising sophistication of equipment guidance systems.
Farmers need to start thinking beyond their great-grandparents’ idea of shelterbelts as simple windbreaks that were planted to help prevent soil from blowing away following the dust storms of the 1930s, said Edeogu. For example, shelterbelts can help reduce the odour and dust from feedlots, he said.
They can deflect winds containing the smell into the upper atmosphere away from nearby residences or communities, he said. They can also help absorb things such as ammonia from manure that tends to be part of the odour, with the foliage helping to trap dust, he added.
A guide on shelterbelts for livestock farms created by the Alberta government in 2014 recommended a minimum of three to six rows of trees depending on municipal zoning. It said shelterbelts around farmsteads can help improve feed conversion efficiency of livestock, protecting the animals from winter winds and providing shade in the summer.
As someone who is a former technology development engineer for the provincial agriculture ministry, Edeogu described shelterbelts as a simple, nature-based technology. Benefits range from minimizing drifting snow and overland flooding across rural roads, helping protect local infrastructure, to potentially providing income from carbon offset markets, he said.
He pointed to Carbon Farmer, which was profiled on CBC TV’s Dragon Den show in 2012. The organic farm near Manning, Alta., offers a range of services that includes providing carbon offsets to individuals as well as companies, along with planting trees as part of habitat restoration.
Although it started by planting trees on the farm, it has also planted them at sites ranging from Alberta to Ontario. Edeogu said the same thing could be done for shelterbelts, creating revenue for producers by tapping into the deepening societal need to support the environment and promote carbon sequestration.
It means thinking beyond traditional shelterbelts to the idea of creating eco-buffers, he said. Such zones on farms could provide a corridor for wildlife such as beneficial insects while containing a range of plants such as fruit trees to create additional value for producers, he added.
The removal of shelterbelts and hedgerows is potentially affecting the pollination of forage crops by harming wild bees and other beneficial insects, said Gail MacInnis, research scientist in pollination at Northwestern Polytechnic’s National Bee Diagnostic Centre near Beaverlodge, Alta. The discovery that leafcutter bees can boost the pollination of alfalfa helped bring the industry to where it is today, she said during an earlier interview.
Bozic said the loss of shelterbelts and trees has “a huge impact on the soil and watershed, especially on the water.”
The problem needs to be considered in light of climate change and how some studies predict areas such as Edmonton could have weather similar to that of Drumheller by 2040, he said.
Eliminating trees results in an increase in windspeed over the land, causing soil to dry out more quickly, he said. About half the weight of a typical tree consists of water, he added.
Open fields and pastures cannot hold water as well as forests, said Bozic. Besides absorbing and slowing the release of rainfall into soil, which helps minimize erosion, trees help recharge aquifers and maintain soil moisture relied on by crops, he said.
“And I met probably 3,000 to 5,000 farmers in Alberta and they always told me the moment they clear the forest and trees, their water table dropped off and they start having the overland flooding and erosion issues, so just keep that in mind.”
