Thank you for once again inviting me to speak at the Annual Workshop of the Manitoba-North Dakota Zero-Tillage Association. PFRA is pleased to be in partnership with your association which is no into its second decade. Your continued commitment to:

• Facilitating the exchange of ideas
• Encouraging zero-tillage research
• Dissemination of zero tillage information,

confirms your desire to address the issues of soil and water management. PFRA is now into its sixth decade of promoting soil and water conservation through water supply development, land conversion and awareness and extension of conservation issues.

Today, I would like to focus my remarks to the implications of moisture management under zero-tillage and how that may lead to more profit. I will put my remarks in context of the objectives stated in your Zero-Tillage Production Manual. Incidentally, PFRA is proud to be a sponsor of this manual that has received widespread demand and distribution. I believe there has been a recent printing that will see another 7,000 copies (bringing the total to 67,000 copies) available to Prairie Producers.

As stated in the manual, "Zero-tillage or No-till is an economically viable, erosion proof crop production system in which the crop is planted in to the previous crop’s stubble with minimum soil disturbance. Cultural controls such as crop competition and rotations as well as responsible use of herbicides are used to replace tillage. Under this system, conservation of soil moisture is a special benefit." The organizers of these meetings, in choosing the workshop theme – Managing Moisture for More Profit – believe that this special benefit can lead to more profit. I share that belief. Today, everyone is looking for ways to increase profitability.

Profit can come in many forms, over the short term and long term. There are profits due directly to the producer in the form of reduced costs and better yields. Long term profits include improved soil quality, reduced soil erosion and stability of rural communities. Some of these "profits" may not come directly to the producers pocket, but reduce the cost to society of dealing with environmental and social problems that result from irresponsible soil and water management.

I want to put forward the emerging fact that soil and water management is becoming less exclusively a private decision and more and more a shared responsibility. The actions of an individual must be judged not only on its effects on the individual but also on what is deemed to be in society’s interest. No longer can land owners in the vicinity of Winnipeg and Brandon burn crop residues at their sole discretion. Society is saying that it is unacceptable to have skies darkened with dust, streams laden with excess silt, and groundwater polluted with chemicals. Due to a few negative impacts of agriculture, society believes it should have a greater involvement in agricultural management decisions. This puts the onus on all of us – researchers, extension workers, farmers – all of us – to manage our resources. In agriculture, zero tillage, by the definition I have just read is one of the better ways of accomplishing this. I can think of on other practical, economical and achievable practice which can have such desirable, far-reaching and positive effects on our soil and water resources.

Your organization has developed a very interesting program for this workshop. Included in the topics to be addressed are:

• Tilth, water storage and use
• Managing runoff and infiltration
• Soils and agronomy

Other related topics, including farmers experiences, should set the stage for an excellent review and discussion relating to moisture management as well as other inherent components of the zero tillage crop productions system.

Let us look for a minute at some imaginary small part of the earth’s surface – a field, a ¼ section, perhaps a small watershed. Mother Nature distributes to that area, a certain amount of moisture and dictates whether it will fall as rain – gently and in the right amounts – or whether it will fall as torrents, or as hail or as snow. She also provides sunlight, temperature, and wind and dictates the amount of each.

On the surface of the earth, Mother Nature has provided a certain amount of topsoil, the characteristics of which have been largely predetermined by past events. There can be a wide variation in soil properties and topography. The landscape may range from flat to steeply sloping. So with all of these basic things largely predetermined, what, you might ask, is left to manage? In dry land agriculture we cannot control the amount of rainfall received. It is however, possible and practical to manage crop residues to provide ground cover. Vegetative material, both above and below the soil surface become important factors in providing beneficial effects on soil quality, soil moisture and the environment. Mismanagement of the ground cover can lead to soil degradation, pollution and even devastation.

The first question to be asked of our imaginary small part of the earth’s surface is, "Can we manage this given piece of land by growing annual crops, without having excess erosion or pollution and still have a reasonable expectation of profit?" If the answer is no then clearly we have to change what we are doing rather than the way we are doing it. It may well be that we should take some lands out of annual cropping and convert them to permanent cover. Prairie producers have recognized this situation by committing over 1.0 million acres to PFRA’s Permanent Cover Program.

If the answer to the question about growing annual crops without erosion or pollution is yes, then we may need only to mediate they way we are doing things.

We tend to be operating in a cereal based economy although that too is changing. A rule of thumb is that it takes about 8 inches of moisture, rainfall and soil stored moisture, to produce the first bushel of wheat or barley. Every inch of moisture thereafter produces about 4 bushels of wheat or 7 bushels of barley. It would make sense that is we can retain and make efficient use of moisture, without experiencing erosion or pollution, we improve our chances of producing adequate yields to realize a profit.

In most areas of the Prairies, water for crop protection is the limiting factor, therefore we can look at:

• increasing the amount of moisture available

• reducing moisture losses by evaporation and runoff

• making efficient use of increased available soil moisture

Let us look at the first category – increasing the amount of moisture available. The key to increasing available moisture is taking advantage of precipitation where it falls. Although our precipitation can be extremely variable, it is a vital factor in all crop production systems. Summer fallowing has been a long practiced art. If sufficient residues are kept during the entire summer fallow period to prevent erosion, and crop selection and rotation use sufficient moisture to prevent seepage and salinity or groundwater pollution, then summer fallow might be acceptable in the drier areas of the Prairies. Summer fallow and tillage, as a means of weed control is effective, however, it is an inefficient means of providing moisture for crop production and should be used only when necessary. Alternative cropping systems must be used.

Trapping more moisture, usually in the form of snow, is one simple and economical change that can be make. Research has shown that snow trapping, 1 to 2 inches of additional soil moisture is available which translated into a 2 to 6 bushel wheat yield increase. This was accomplished by leaving stubble standing as compared to fall tillage. Trapping snow can be accomplished by several means:

• leaving stubble upright

• leaving longer stubble

• leaving narrow strips of standing stubble

• using annual barriers

• using shelter belts

The use of shelter belts has long been known to have a positive influence on yields, often attributed to increased snow accumulation and distribution across fields. Recent work by the Shelter belt Center using artificial windbreaks found an average increase in grain yields of 27.3% varying from a a59% increase in corn to a 95 increase in wheat. Moisture, due to ample spring rains, was not a factor. They found that between July 26 and August 19, the average wind speed was 44% lower, air temperature 0.6 C higher, and soil temperature at 20 cm depth to be 1.6 C higher in the sheltered plots. These factors, the researchers concluded, were likely the main reasons contributing to early flowering and higher yields in the sheltered plots.

The second category is reducing moisture losses by evaporation and runoff. With reduced or zero tillage, there is an eventual increase in surface residue. The residue traps surface moisture and less moisture is lost by evaporation and runoff. More of the trapped snow is entering the soil and less leaves the field as runoff. Less runoff means a decrease in potential water erosion. Wind speeds at the soil surface are reduced with better residue cover, thereby reducing evaporation losses and wind erosion potential. Reducing losses by evaporation and runoff is an efficient way of taking advantage of our valuable precipitation.

The third category making ore efficient use of the increased available moisture – is usually accomplished by crop selection and rotation. Increased available soil moisture in zero till systems can mean growing crops that were, at one time, unsuitable for the area, or not suited to your rotation. Winter wheat will use moisture in the fall and spring that spring seeded crops do not use. Deeper rooted crops like sunflowers or biennial crops like sweet clover use more soil moisture. There are some areas that deep rooted perennial that use moisture to some depth are desirable in prevention and amelioration of saline conditions. It may become a necessity to prevent groundwater pollution or to recover nitrates and moisture that have leached beyond the annual crop root zone, that deep rooted perennial become a pare of the normal rotation.

Let me elaborate just a bit on this, Manitoba Agriculture has reported that over the period 1968-1990 the annual increase in fertilizer nitrogen use was 10,000 tones N per year. Over the same period there has been an average increase in soil test levels of 2kg N\ha\year in the top 60 cms. Under cereal and oilseed crops most of the increase has been within the rooting zone. Under heavily fertilized crops such as corn and potatoes or under heavy manuring considerable nitrogen has leached below the annual crop rooting depth. It makes little sense to have money tied up, in the form of nitrogen, below the root zone unused and potentially polluting. Clearly we will have to be judicious in our fertilizer use. But because the fertilizer is transported by moisture we should make judicious use of our moisture as well.

After time, in a zero till system, crop residue builds. Many of you have experienced improved soil structure and tilth. Improvements to the soil that increase the organic matter content and, ensuing from that, improve soil aggregation and moisture status of the soil, eventually help maintain profitable crop rotations.

So these are some of the things we should consider in achieving no pollution, reduced erosion, and hopefully more profit.

Even though PFRA considers itself an environmentally conscious organization, we are at times in dispute with the environmentalists. I believe this is because we are playing by different rules – similar to attempting to put the ball through different goal posts. In general, we attempt to define a range of environmental sustainable practices and aim to manage toward a sustainable state. However, some naturalists believe that the best situation is the natural condition and want to manage to a natural state. Our goal posts are quite different from the naturalists goal posts and neither group have been articulate in defining sustainable states.

It is no wonder that at times we disagree with the environmentalists. We know that we have altered the environment with cultivated agriculture, by disturbing the natural soil forming processes of the prairie grassland. Returning to a state of minimal soil disturbance by zero-till, provides an altered state, but more sustainable in terms of organic matter content than intensive tillage systems.

Crop selection to use more spring and fall moisture, and use of perennial crops such as alfalfa in the rotation to prevent or ameliorate salinity and recover nitrates and moisture leached below the root zone should demonstrate that agriculture is environmentally sensitive and has developed sustainable farming practices. But are these the only goal posts we should be striving toward?

Traditionally, universities and government agencies have done research and extension but more and more there is farmer involvement in directing and doing this research and extension. A prime example is the Conservation Tillage Productivity Center supported by your organization and government and other funding. Somewhat similar centers are planned for other areas in the prairies. These will provide some practical answers and may further define sustainable practices.

Under the National Soil Conservation Plan, governments are funding, in Manitoba, 44 local organizations largely directed by local farmers to implement soil conservation activities. Over the life of the agreement, $4.7 million will be spent on conservation by these organizations. To date $800,000 has been used to implement residue management on individual farms, an additional $500,000 on rental or purchase of equipment to leave more surface residue or to seed into high residue conditions.

We expect the strong commitment by farmers, and farm organizations such as yours, governments and universities toward conservation, will continue not only in promoting and implementing desirable practices but in defining the goal posts we should be managing toward.

The partnerships that have been forged under the past agri food agreements, and under the present National Soil Conservation Plan, we expect, will be strengthened under the environmental Green Plan. Sustained agricultural productivity can only be achieved through environmentally sensitive protection and management of the resource base upon which the industry is dependent.

Better use of moisture, crop selection and diversity, reduced erosion and no pollution should lead to less risk, more stable income.

Together we will not only manage our moisture for more profit but we will have an enriched environment for ourselves and those that follow, to enjoy.