Prairie grain production has intensified to a far greater degree than most of us could have imagined.
The fertilizer applied per acre is much greater than five or 10 years ago, the amount spent on top seed varieties is higher, much more of that seed is treated, multiple in-crop herbicide applications are more likely and a lot more foliar fungicide is used.
Economics, rainfall and technology are the main drivers.
Economics: You can spend money to make money when crops have positive margins. The grain sector of Western Canada has been enjoying its most profitable era ever.
Read Also
Farm groups are too amiable with the federal government
Farm groups and commodity groups in Canada often strike a conciliatory tone, rather than aggressively criticizing the government.
Rainfall: Rainfall patterns have been favourable in most recent years for many of the traditionally dry regions. As well, changes in farming practices have helped conserve moisture and grow a crop even when rainfall was sparse.
Technology: High clearance sprayers are the busiest piece of equipment on the farm. Many new fungicides have been registered. Variable rate applications are becoming more feasible. Seeding technology continues to advance with many of the top equipment manufacturers located right here.
I had the opportunity in 1986 to spend a short time in Europe looking at agricultural practices. At the time, it was amazing to see 100 bushel per acre wheat and farmers who made four or five passes over their crop between seeding and harvest. Many had set up tramlines in the fields for guidance.
It was a far cry from standard dry land practices back here, where a single pass of herbicide between seeding and combining was the established norm and virtually no one was using fungicide.
Of course, Europe has a lot more rainfall, and they were getting much more government support. They also operated much smaller farms. It was easy to dismiss their intensive farming as impractical on the Canadian prairies.
In retrospect, the European experience was a road map for the direction we would eventually follow.
Some producers long for those simpler days, and there are some who still farm with minimal inputs. To them, low inputs mean low risk. However, the overriding trend has been to invest more in the hope of higher profits.
The anti-GMO crusaders point to the increasing use of pesticides and link it to the use of genetically modified crops. Yes, we are using more herbicide, but if it were not for GM canola, we’d be using much higher levels of products that are less desirable.
Intensification does have its drawbacks. It can seem that the entire growing season is spent in the sprayer cab. There’s always a new disease or pest to worry about, and the amount you can spend per acre on inputs is disconcerting.
It’s also increasingly difficult to determine what practices and products are worth the investment. The retailers selling inputs are often the main source of application advice and have an obvious conflict of interest.
What will happen if we get into a prolonged period of low grain prices?
It’s certainly easier to justify a fungicide application on $10 canola than it is at $7, and the rate of return certainly changes how much nitrogen you want to apply. However, the pressure to grow big crops becomes even greater when prices are lower.
Intensification is here to stay.
