Those farmers are tapping into the dozens of programs in Western Canada that pay producers for adopting beneficial management practices, says a farmer and consultant from southern Saskatchewan.

“(There are) tons of programming out there and real money,” said Shawn Catherwood, who farms about 120 kilometres south of Regina.

WHY IT MATTERS: Tens of millions of dollars, possibly hundreds of millions, are available to Canadian farmers who are willing to try a new practice.

Catherwood is the owner of Spur Line Crop Solutions, a consultancy that helps producers navigate the confusing world of rebate and incentive programs for sustainable farming practices and outcomes in Canada.

Before forming Spur Line he worked for PepsiCo as part of a team encouraging farmers to try regenerative agriculture practices.

At CropConnect, a grain industry conference held every February in Winnipeg, Catherwood shared examples of producers who are cashing large cheques from incentive programs.

For instance, a 5,000-acre farm in Saskatchewan with grain and livestock was paid:

• $68,700 from the On Farm Climate Action Fund (OFCAF) and other public programs.
• $32,000 from private companies for 4R (nutrient management) and adoption of cover crops.
• $79,200 for seeding cover crops on 320 acres and for converting 320 acres of cropland to hay and fencing.
• $14,200 from other incentives.

“This is a real scenario. In one single year, $194,500 from incentive programs,” Catherwood said.

That’s the good news. There’s plenty of money available for producers who are willing to try a new practice and meet the requirements of the programs, Catherwood said.

The bad news? These programs can be frustrating, complicated and don’t always reward the right farmers.

The bad

It’s hard to navigate the incentive system in Canada, mostly because of sheer volume. There are more than 60 programs that pay farmers for improving soil health, reducing emissions and other goals.

South of the border, the incentive programs are simpler, Catherwood said.

Government, private corporations and farm groups will join forces to offer one large program.

“The States seems to do a way better job … where they get people together,” he said.

“We definitely need to do that.”

There are large programs in Canada, such as OFCAF.

It helps cover the cost of seeding cover crops, improving nutrient management and trying rotational grazing.

OFCAF, and most initiatives, pay farmers for doing something new.

“All activities must have commenced on or after Feb. 7, 2022, and be completed on or before June 30, 2024,” says a Manitoba Association of Watersheds fact sheet from 2022.

That policy punishes farmers who have followed the “right” practices for years.

“It’s kind of sad because they are doing everything right for these programs … but their funding is pretty minimal,” Catherwood said.

At the meeting in Winnipeg, he shared an example of a 1,500-acre mixed farm and a long-time adopter of rotational grazing and polycrops.

That farmer was denied OFCAF funding because:

• He had been using 4R for at least five years.
• Cover cropping is a standard practice on his farm.
• He did receive $16,000 for cross fencing and off-site watering for rotational grazing.

“The system’s message — we pay for hardware and new adoption. We do not pay for stewardship,” said a slide in Catherwood’s presentation.

There may be buckets of money on the table, but many producers are ignoring the opportunities. That’s partly explained by the paperwork burden in these programs, Catherwood said.

There’s also the matter of motivation.

If a producer is already interested in areas such as cover crops, or 4R nutrient management, then it makes sense to try something new and get paid.

However, doing it simply for the financial incentive isn’t a great idea, Catherwood said.

“(Farmers should) see the programming dollars as a ‘cherry on top.’ ”

This philosophy has resulted in a variety of ventures over the years, whether it be Red Angus cattle, crop production, pollination services for alfalfa and canola or gravel and concrete services.

Why it Matters: Canadian agriculture producers often leave millions on the table yearly in grant funding they are unaware of at both the national and provincial levels.

However, it has also extended to taking advantage of a wide source of funding to power its operations.

In the last handful of years, Riverview Ranch has been able to secure more than $2 million in grant funding, said Tyler Torrie, whether it is from Scientific Research and Experimental Development, Alberta Innovates or Results Driven Agriculture Research.

He encouraged more farmers to do the same, saying millions of dollars can go untapped in yearly funding that is available to producers.

This past October at a field day, Torrie showcased virtual fencing and e-collars on 190 cattle spanning from Bow Island to Grassy Lake that was funded 75 per cent from the On-farm Climate Action Fund.

Torrie uses the Business Benefits Finder on the Government of Canada website, as well as Alberta Business Grants as resources.

Another useful tool is putting to work the inquisitive minds of agricultural university students through Riipen.

Torrie etimates that Riverview Ranch has used dozens of university projects over the last two years that have benefited all facets of its agricultural and non-agricultural businesses.

“They get university credit, you get labour. I get data analysis on my bee results,” he said.

”I’ve got a couple university students working on engineering problems and design work for the bees. I had a group of students work on a farm safety plan in regards to a prairie fire hazard.…

“Pretty much anything you can think of, you can find university students that are in a program that’s relevant to what you’re trying to do. I give them letters of reference and recommendation afterwards, and I get a lot of great, valuable research and work. Worst-case scenario, it doesn’t really go anywhere, but I didn’t pay for it.”

Digging into these resources does require time, but putting the time equity into it can provide monetary benefits 10-fold.

“If you have an idea and want to chase it, there’s going to be something out there for it,” he said.

“There’s so many resources that make it so much easier to do those things if you’re willing to sit down for a couple hours and hammer out the grant paperwork. Yes, it’s work, but the cash you get from it is more than worth the hours you put into it. I think that is one of the things that kind of freaks people out, is the paperwork.”

Farm grants in Canada for 2026 can also be found at Local Line.

The On-Farm Climate Action Fund (OFCAF) application window opens Feb. 1, with a 70 per cent rebate on approved projects with an approved grazing plan in hand.

“Don’t wait until the very end of January to start your application,” forage specialist Jodie Horvath said in a presentation at the Innovation on the Range event in Bow Island, Alta., last month.

“You have lots of time to work on it (grazing plan) over the winter. It’s a perfect time to do some kitchen table design of maps and what not. There is help for doing these applications, and there’s also lots of workshops to help throughout the winter, throughout the provinces.”

The fund applies to rotational grazing with fencing, water and perennial seeding categories eligible for funding.

Items such as cross or electrical fencing, virtual fence collars, portable crops, flow-line pipelines or shallow barren pipelines for water development are covered along with mobile units. Drilling or broadcasting legumes into existing stands to improve them are covered for seeding.

“Water development, not source water. There’s other programs that cover that, like digging wells and dugouts,” said Horvath.

Alberta was given $21 million this year to distribute to producers, enough for 42 projects.

“We have some projects that are massive. We have one that is 1,300 hectares that are looking to go in and intensify their grazing, so they needed a razor grazer and they seeded, they put in $70,000 worth of seed,” said Sonja Shank, program co-ordinator at the Agricultural Research and Extension Council of Alberta, which helps deliver the OFCAF funding.

“So make sure you are in the know of what is out there. I’ll go into some of these meetings and nobody heard of OFCAF. And then I feel bad because it was a $210 million program across the country.”

Many tools are available to ranchers, including the online advanced grazing systems that can help producers get started on the application process and access help from mentors.

Project reimbursement for producers who become mentors increases from 70 to 85 per cent. There are currently 200 mentors, with more being trained over the winter.

An advanced grazing program helps with:

• Extending the grazing period.
• Increasing pasture yields.
• Improving forage quality for livestock.
• Reducing weed pressure.
• Improving nutrient cycling.
• Helping build soil health.

The OFCAF’s objective is to support farmers in adopting beneficial management practices that store carbon and reduce greenhouse gases, specifically in nitrogen management, cover cropping and rotational grazing practices.

The CFGA works solely to support the rotational grazing practices stream in Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and Saskatchewan.

Shank is the contact for Alberta OFCAF along with other available programs. Funding can be retroactive for purchases made after February 2025.

OFCAF, RALP, OFEP — there’s an alphabet soup’s worth of agricultural loans and grants available in Canada today and we’re not talking about a few measly bucks. The On-Farm Climate Action Fund (OFCAF) alone offers up to $75,000 per farm for emission-reduction projects.

With so much cash up for grabs, one might think producers would apply to every grant program for which they’re eligible. But it’s not that simple. Depending on the program, grant applications can take a lot of time and paperwork.

Help is available. Karlene Yakemchuk from Hairy Hill, Alta., is a farm management consultant who helps farmers make grant applications, and she’s not the only one.

The owner of Scattered Spruce Ag Services offered an audience at Farming Forward, an event under Edmonton’s Farmfair International umbrella, some tips on what to look for in a consultant to get the most value from grant applications.

“As we know, it’s a stack of paperwork and a lot of complicated words and you’re not sure what’s eligible,” she said. ”Because I am very much aware that I can’t help everyone in this room, or I may not be the right fit for you … what I’m going to say is there are a few things that I do recommend when you’re looking for a consultant to help you on the grant journey.”

Consultants with Professional Agrologist (PAg) or Certified Crop Adviser (CCA) designations are usually farmers’ best bets when they need help with a grant application, said Yakemchuk, who has both.

Some program administrators such as Results Driven Agriculture Research, which oversees OFCAF in Alberta, require sign-off by someone with at least one of those credentials. Otherwise, PAgs and CCAs are generally good choices because they know their stuff, said Yakemchuk.

“That means basically that they’ve done the education. They’ve done the time. They’re continuing to improve themselves. They’re learning more every year. They’re not stagnant.”

Some agricultural grant writers who lack these credentials may be competent but still not fulfil the requirements of program administrators, she said.

“That just means that whatever they’re charging you, ultimately you’re not going to get back from the program if they don’t have those letters behind their names.”

There are bad actors in all walks of life and consultancy is no exception. Farmers should vet the fees carefully and know the industry baselines, said Yakemchuk. To that point, she said a normal hourly rate for a PAg or CCA, based on her experience, ranges from $100 to $300 per hour.

“There are some people out there that really took advantage of all the programs and just said ‘I’m going to charge you the $2,000 maximum for everything right off the hop’ without reading the fine print. So they were charging farmers through the nose just for their sign-off. I’m a farmer too (and) I’d be cheesed.”

Services provided by a consultant can range from the bare minimum to a full package deal. Yakemchuk said farmers need to know what a consultant will do before they’re surprised by a refusal.

This due diligence is especially crucial with programs that require participants to front their project costs in exchange for later reimbursement, usually at a percentage.

“Are they just putting in an application for you … and then you’re on your own? Or are you getting the full service of application questions being answered (including) public reporting so that everything is kosher and you get your money back at the end?

“So make sure that you understand what their knowledge base is. They may have the credentials and they may say, ‘yeah, I’ll help you. I’ll sign off.’ But they really may not be able to help you with the most important part, which is getting your money back and getting your reporting done.”

Don’t be afraid to ask a consultant about their successes and failures, she advises.

“If they’re not willing to tell you where their fumbles have been or anything that’s maybe been unsuccessful for them, it’s probably fair enough to walk away.”

The report from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development said the department has known since 2015 that it had to address greenhouse gas emissions. However, programs to help farmers do that didn’t roll out until 2021 and were then plagued by delays, lack of clear targets and poor results monitoring, the report said.

It also said the government’s climate plan set the fertilizer emissions reduction target of 30 per cent below 2020 levels by 2030 without consultation.

“One consequence of this lack of consultation was that some sector stakeholders interpreted the target as an absolute reduction of 30 per cent in fertilizer use, rather than a 30 per cent reduction in emissions from improved fertilizer application techniques,” the report said.

The report, which audited the three climate programs that the department has introduced, said an overarching strategy to guide its work should be implemented as soon as possible.

Agriculture Canada said the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy will be completed this year.

Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Keith Currie said the report confirms what the organization has recommended through the SAS development process. This includes the need for policy coherence across the many agri-environmental policies and programs that exist, identifying gaps and targets, and setting a clear vision for the future.

“For this to succeed, the SAS needs to articulate concrete deliverables that identify clear accountabilities for government, producers and the broader private sector,” he said.

But with only six growing seasons left to meet 2030 targets, both Currie and the report note that substantial progress is required. The government has to invest in measures that support the sector’s potential to provide solutions, he said.

“However, we need to ensure the timelines, performance metrics and plans to monitor progress under the SAS are grounded in clear, science-based pathways that support farmer competitiveness,” said Currie.

The National Farmers Union, which does a significant amount of work on climate change and largely supports the government’s efforts, said the department must finalize the SAS before harvest.

“And they need to show farmers they’re serious by allocating significant funding for effective programs to reduce emissions, speed adaptation and build resilience,” said Darrin Qualman, the NFU’s director of climate crisis policy and action.

He said the fact the Agricultural Clean Technology Program, On-Farm Climate Action Fund and Living Labs programs are oversubscribed shows farmers’ interest in doing their part.

Conservative agriculture critic John Barlow said the report was “pretty damning” and confirms what his party has been saying.

“These policies that the Liberal government are coming up with that have a direct impact on Canadian food production and farmers and ranchers … they had no consultation, no strategy and no understanding what the potential consequences would be,” he said.

Barlow said he doesn’t expect much to change, despite the department saying it will improve programs and implement better targets and data collection.

“The horse is already out of the barn. These policies have already been implemented. I fully don’t expect the Liberals to backtrack on any of their radical policies that they’ve put out there,” he said.

He added the report confirms for producers that the Liberals do not see food production as a priority.

One notable finding in the audit was the department’s 2022 estimate that greenhouse gas emission reductions under the 2030 reduction plan would be 13.07 megatonnes, but that number has since been reduced to 11.21 Mt.

That’s because it initially included reductions estimated from tree planting on agriculture lands, which have been removed.

“In our view, making this information publicly available would provide more transparent information to the agriculture sector to explain federal policy development and decisions,” the report said.

The report also recommended the department make public the emissions reduction cost per tonne by mitigation practice in order to be more transparent.

Using 2021 data, the department has projected agriculture will have to reduce or sequester the carbon dioxide equivalent of 51 Mt to achieve 2050 targets.

“Although AAFC acknowledged that significant data and funding gaps remain to map out a feasible pathway to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, we found that it had no long-term strategy for how it would achieve the 2030 or 2050 goals,” the report said.

With regard to the fertilizer emissions reduction target, the department had said it would establish voluntary agreements with farmers, fertilizer makers and other stakeholders. None had been created by January 2024. And, the report said only about 20 per cent of Canadian farmers have so far adopted three identified best management practices to reduce fertilizer emissions.

The three available programs have not been adequately tracked to validate reductions and data, and the audit found gaps in recipient reporting.

In addition, the audit said the department assumed that all expected emission reductions, apart from fertilizer emission reductions, would be permanent but had no evidence that would happen.

The department said its SAS will be “evergreen” and create policy coherence. It will include measurable goals and outcomes and identify ways to address outstanding data gaps.

It plans program improvements for OFCAF by Sept. 30, for the ACT program by Sept. 30, 2025, and for the Living Labs program another year later.

The Road to 2050 for Canada’s Grain Sector was two years in the making as the organization consulted with its members and agreed on 10 policy recommendations. It was initiated after Canada set a net-zero emissions target.

“They’re all things that for us and for grain farmers mean not only just more profitability and further food production but also mean a lowering of emissions,” said executive director Kyle Larkin.

He said the document was developed through two frames. First is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

“When government looks at programming, they can’t put something out there that will force a certain segment of farmers to do something that doesn’t work for them,” Larkin said.

The second is that Canadian grain farmers are already some of the most sustainable in the world and the government has to acknowledge that.

“Everybody can be better but we are in a great place right now and we can do even more if we partner together,” he said.

The GGC spent last week meeting with policy makers in Ottawa and discussing its report.

Larkin said it was well received.

“There’s always a nervousness out there, I would say, when we’re talking about sustainability but that’s why we’re putting the financial piece first, the Canadian economy first, and if there’s an emissions piece that can attach to that, then it’s a win-win-win scenario.”

The recommendations fall under three themes.

Positioning Canada as a global leader in agriculture investment and innovation includes expanding public and private plant breeding research, more research on agronomic practices and machinery, as well as continued expansion of rural cellular networks and broadband.

Also in this category is the need for a supportive legislative and regulatory framework so farmers have timely access to technologies.

The second theme is that government constructively recognize, publicly support and reward grain producers’ advances.

The GGC wants eligibility criteria and funding for climate programs such as the On-Farm Climate Action Fund and others to be expanded. It said tax incentives to bridge financial gaps between old and new technologies, reinvestment in provincial agronomy extension and support for crop commission programs are critical in disseminating information to producers.

Finally, the report said the government should work with provinces and industry to develop a comprehensive, accurate data base and management strategy.

“These are real things that grain farmers can support that will lower emissions but also increase profitability and food production,” Larkin said.

GGC is still watching C-234, the bill that, as currently amended, would exempt natural gas and propane for grain drying from carbon pricing. Industry wanted the bill to include farm buildings and greenhouses.

Larkin said since the bill has stalled, it might be time to accept the three-year exemption for grain dryers rather than get nothing. He said it’s frustrating that politics got in the way of a good idea.

Boundaries expanded April 1 for the Central Assiniboine, Pembina Valley, Redboine, Seine Rat Roseau and the Souris River watershed districts to include areas previously uncovered by any district.

The province announced the move March 22, saying that enhanced core funding will support the increased role of affected districts.

“Water is life, and our government is committed to protecting Manitoba’s lakes and rivers for generations to come,” said Environment and Climate Change Minister Tracy Schmidt. “Expanding watershed districts and making new resources available to help Manitobans make smart water decisions are part of this work.”

The amended boundaries now include the RM of Headingley, covered under the Redboine Watershed District, and the Town of Melita, now part of the Souris Rive Watershed District. The RM of Morris is split between the Pembina Valley, Redboine and Seine Rat Roseau districts.

Coverage is also growing in two existing participant municipalities. The RM of Portage la Prairie and RM of Rockwood now have new areas within their watershed districts.

It is the second expansion for the Pembina Valley and Redboine watershed districts in the last 12 months. Last spring, the province also announced bigger boundaries for those two districts. That announcement included growth of the Northeast Red Watershed District.

Lynda Nicol, executive director of the Manitoba Association of Watersheds (MAW), said the goal is to have buy-in from all municipalities in agro-Manitoba. The latest expansion brings them closer to that goal, she said.

“We are happy to report that we have a total of 116 municipal members in the watershed districts program.”

Municipal participation was, by design, voluntary when the watershed district program emerged from Manitoba’s old system of conservation districts in 2020.

That left gaps when MAW was tagged as the delivery organization for funding programs related to sustainable ag. Only farmers living in a participating municipality were able to access those programs.

That became a sticking point of the federal government’s On-Farm Climate Action Fund (OFCAF). That fund provided the financial seed for the Prairie Watersheds Climate Program, administered in Manitoba and Saskatchewan by MAW.

Farmers could get support for three types of projects under that program: rotational grazing, cover cropping or sustainable nitrogen management. In it’s first year in 2022, the program handed out $15.6 million between the two provinces.

Funds for nitrogen management projects were particularly popular, MAW later reported.

But farmers outside the watershed district network were locked out.

Nicol said the latest expansion will ensure more farms have access to OFCAF programming, as well as a number of other programs offered exclusively through Manitoba’s watershed districts.

She said she understands the frustration of farmers unable to access programming.

“When we have the chance to talk one-on-one with farmers and speak about where those gaps exist, they’ve always been very understanding of why it is the way it is.”

Nicol added that those conversations often prompt farmers to contact their municipal council and those municipalities sometimes engage with the program.

“I think it goes to show the power of individual farmers and the amount of sway that their voice has as a ratepayer within their municipality to make sure that they do have access to programming that otherwise they may not.”

The Agricultural Methane Reduction Challenge is part of the federal government’s plan to reduce overall methane emissions 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and to be net-zero by 2050.

The challenge aims to “advance innovative, low-cost and scalable practices and technologies that contribute to the reduction of methane emissions from cattle and livestock,” said a news release.

Described as the first of its kind, the challenge will accept applications from producers, businesses, not-for-profit organizations and others until Feb. 7, 2024.

An independent external review panel that includes ranchers, academics, stakeholder representatives and others will assess the applications at the first stage and determine which applicants will move on to a second stage.

Twenty eligible applicants in stage one will receive up to $250,000 each. Second-stage semi-finalists, to be announced next summer, are eligible for 10 awards of up to $500,000 each. Two final winners will receive $1 million each.

All the semi-finalists will also receive mentorship and training.

The government said no single solution will work because of regional conditions and soil types.

“Solutions to the challenge could include novel feed additives, improvements to existing feed additives, improved forage quality and feed efficiency, novel grazing practices” and more, said information provided on the challenge website.

Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Agriculture was responsible for 31 percent of Canada’s methane emissions in 2021, and 86 percent of those emissions came from enteric fermentation from cattle.

At the same time, cattle are helping to preserve about 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon contained in soil and protecting more than 60 endangered species in grasslands.

The government acknowledged Canada is one of the largest exporters of sustainable cattle in the world.

The challenge is the latest in the government’s efforts to tackle emissions in agriculture. It has the On-Farm Climate Action Fund and the Agricultural Clean Technology Program, which are pumping more than $1 billion into mitigation measures for greenhouse gases including methane.

A livestock feed management protocol is in development under the Greenhouse Gas Offset Credit System, and protocols for manure management and anaerobic digestion are planned for the future.

The methane strategy noted that agricultural methane emissions have dropped by 20 percent since 2005 in conjunction with declining cattle numbers. Productivity improvements also play a role.

The livestock industry has already set voluntary emissions reduction targets.

For example, Canadian Beef Advisors, representing seven national beef organizations, aims to reduce emission intensity from primary production by 33 percent, and Dairy Farmers of Canada wants to reach net-zero by 2050.

Federal agriculture minister Lawrence MacAulay said partnerships with the sector will move Canada further ahead faster.

Nathan Phinney, president of the Canadian Cattle Association, said the country’s beef producers are already environmental leaders.

“The new Agricultural Methane Reduction Challenge is well-aligned with our beef sector’s 2030 goals, and we look forward to continuing to work with government to find innovations to help further reduce beef cattle’s emissions intensity,” he said.

Dairy farmers do not shy away from new technology that will improve production and protect the environment, added DFC president David Wiens.

For Steven Balzer, there were several factors with a piece of old hay land he purchased two years ago just outside of Langham, Sask .

He wanted to intensively graze the land and looked to the On-Farm Climate Action Fund (OFCAF) to help put together the fencing and system he needed.

His proposal was rejected in the first round of funding, but when an approved project didn’t work out, the Canadian Forage and Grasslands Association, which administers some of the funding for OFCAF, turned to Balzer’s project, located near the site of the Ag In Motion trade show.

Balzer and the association held a tour in conjunction with AIM in July, where about 30 cattle grazed about half of the property. Balzer plans to fence the rest of the property but scaled it back when he didn’t originally receive the funding.

Balzer’s design follows Steve Kenyon’s one-alley design for an advanced grazing system. Kenyon is a consultant for the forage and grassland association related to grazing systems.

Kenyon, who operates Greener Pastures Ranching Ltd. in Alberta, was also at the tour and was a speaker at AIM.

The Langham area has had low precipitation in 2023, with Balzer and some of his neighbours at the tour saying the area has had only about 75 millimetres of precipitation in 2023. The town average for an entire year is about 350 mm.

“It’s been a really tough two years,” says Balzer.

Despite the lack of precipitation, Balzer says that an advanced grazing system will allow him to graze more cattle on the property’s pastures.

“It’ll definitely impact the number of animals that we’ll be able to have per acre,” he says.

As the farm was in hay for many years previously, he will have to learn how many cattle the pasture will carry.

Kenyon says it will also depend on rainfall.

“Rainfall is the most important nutrient,” he says. “Getting started in a drought is hard to do,” he adds, and encourages patience.

“It takes time to manage for a water cycle.”

The fact that Balzer is turning a hay field into pasture is a benefit, says Kenyon. It already has perennial root systems, which will help it manage through years with low moisture.

Kenyon assesses grazing systems using the acronym GRASS: graze period, rest period, animal impact, stock density and soil armour.

A hay field already fits many of the criteria of a healthy grazing system, including a grazing period — when the field is cut and harvested, and a rest period — in between cuttings. However, the nutrients are removed from the field and the livestock aren’t there to return nutrients back to the soil.

“We’re not getting that biological animal impact,” but hay fields “usually kick into gear faster than an old pasture.”

Kenyon has several strategies for managing the plants in an old hay field that’s being turned into pasture. By the time a hay field is several years into its current incarnation, it is getting thin in spots.

Kenyon has broadcast seed and zero-tilled new seeds into the ground, but he also recommends patience, and in dry areas, prioritizing water-holding capacity.

“Depending on how rough it is, my most successful way to rejuvenate a pasture is actually just deferred grazing,” he says.

He’ll let it grow for a season without grazing and then put the cattle in to “stomp it into the ground.”

“That allows the root system to dig deep. It allows it to go to seed formation, and then we stomp that material into the ground and it gives us a thatch layer. That gets us water-holding capacity for next year.”

The challenge is the financial cost of not having that plot of land produce revenue through grazing that year.

He says he’d recommend broadcasting legumes into the mostly grass hay field at the Balzer pasture to increase plant diversity. Frost seeding would also work — getting seeds onto the field after the snow is gone but when the temperatures still hit freezing overnight and are then warmer during the day, he said.

Planning for future droughts is always on Kenyon’s mind.

“Especially in this environment (in central Saskatchewan), what’s your most important nutrient? Water by far.”

Kenyon gets about 380 mm of precipitation in an average year where he ranches in Alberta, but he can get years of drought, and plans for it, especially during good years.

If there are 30 paddocks in an advanced grazing system, he says he’ll leave two or three out of use in a year, letting the plants flourish, put down larger roots and set seed. It will also help rejuvenate the biology of the soils, which Kenyon says is a major challenge for Canadian agriculture.

“I don’t believe we have a fertility issue in agriculture. I believe we have a biological issue. We need to get the biology back working in our soils,” he says.

There’s another good reason to get roots working deeper in the soil at Balzer’s Langham pasture. Kenyon pushed soil probes into the soil and found that much of the land, other than some lower areas, which were likely wet spots, was compacted at about five inches.

That means the land was cultivated until about 10 to 15 years ago, and the compaction layer still exists. Deep-rooted crops, such as pasture grasses and legumes, will eventually break through that layer and help increase the water-holding capacity of the soil.

In the shorter term, Balzer plans to extend the time on pasture for the cattle through bale grazing in an area where there’s some downed timber he’s been cleaning up. He will then bring in some replacement heifers in April next year and bale graze them until the pasture is ready for grazing.

Agriculture Canada has said the fund is designed to support farmers in adopting beneficial management practices that store carbon and reduce greenhouse gases.

Farming and environmental groups across Canada are encouraging farmers to use the funds to seed cover crops, improve nitrogen management and try rotational grazing.

South of the border, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is also encouraging farmers to try cover crops, which reduce soil erosion and keep a living root in the soil for as many months as possible.

In addition to its cover crop incentives, the USDA runs the Grassland Conservation Reserve Program, which allows farmers to use the grasslands for pasture and hay production and landowners are paid for the environmental services of the grasslands.

“The strength of this program lies in its many benefits — through annual rental payments, the program helps producers and landowners produce and maintain diverse wildlife habitat, sequester carbon in the soil, and support sound, sustainable grazing,” said Zach Ducheneaux, administrator of USDA’s Farm Service Agency, in a news release. “These benefits help keep agricultural lands in production while delivering lasting climate outcomes.”

The “lands in production” line is a critical part of the Grassland program.

The USDA supports using grasslands for livestock production because that approach preserves grasslands.

In Canada, however, grassland and pastureland are disappearing from parts of the Prairies.

Since about 2007, hundreds of thousands of acres of land traditionally used for livestock have been plowed under and converted to cropland in Western Canada.

Farmers are buying marginal land and switching it to crop production to take advantage of strong prices for canola, wheat and other commodities.

That practice is a problem, say leaders in Canada’s livestock sector. Once that pastureland becomes cropland, it will likely remain as cropland for decades. The habitat for wildlife, the carbon sequestration and other environmental wins from grasslands and pastureland could be permanently lost.

“In a country where we have fragile lands and we have great grain-growing lands, the fragile land has to be looked after, in the way of ecological goods and services,” said Martin Unrau, former president of the Canadian Cattle Association, who farms near MacGregor, Man.

Last year, the USDA signed up 3.1 million acres for the Grassland Conservation Reserve Program — the highest ever for the program.

“The current total participation in Grassland CRP is 6.3 million acres, which is part of the 23 million acres enrolled in CRP opportunities overall,” the USDA said in an April release.

The top users of the grasslands program are states in the Great Plains, including Colorado, South Dakota and Nebraska.

The Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) program in Canada also pays landowners to preserve wetlands, pollinator habitat and grasslands.

But it is a charitable organization. Compared to the USDA CRP, it is tiny.

In 2022, about 46,000 acres were enrolled in ALUS programs across Canada.