Conversion of Cultivated Land to Perennial
Tame Forage in the Parkland Region
(Framework #3)
Prepared by Ron McNeil, LandWise Inc.
Prepared for North American Waterfowl Management Program
and Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development
To Advance the Alberta Cropland Conversion Protocol
February 2013
Cover Photo by Author: Meadow bromegrass and tall fescue stand 18 months after handbroadcast seeding in the Central Parkland Natural Subregion west of Red Deer.
Suggested Citation: McNeil, R. 2013. Conversion of cultivated land to perennial tame forage in
the Parkland region (Framework #3). Prepared by LandWise Inc. for North American
Waterfowl Management Program and Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, to advance
the Alberta Cropland Conversion Protocol. Lethbridge, Alberta. 33 pp.
ii
Executive Summary
This framework document is number three of four that provide information on sustainable
practices for the conversion of cropland to native or tame forage in Alberta. The current
document focuses on conversion of cultivated annual cropland to tame pasture or hay production
in the Parkland region, which correlates with the Black and Gray soil zones. The information is
intended for all personnel involved with the Alberta Cropland Conversion Protocol (ACCP),
including land managers, seed providers, policy-makers, aggregators, auditors, and professionals
including agrologists or biologists. This document is designed to be all-inclusive by providing a
general overview. Future documents will be designed for more specific audiences.
Information on sustainable management practices for conversion of cropland to tame forage in
the Parkland region is provided, including development of a conversion plan, field preparation,
species mixes and seeding rates, timing, equipment and techniques, and fertilizer or other
amendments. Fertilizer at low rates is required for stands that have less than 30% legumes.
Information is also provided on practices for sustainable grazing and post-seeding management
of tame forages, including rejuvenation to extend productivity.
Short-term and long-term verification of management practices are expected to be largely
conducted by third-party professionals. Short-term verification will focus on proof of seeding
and stand establishment, and a grazing management plan. Indicators of short-term establishment
include measures of bare ground, soil erosion, plant numbers, weed types and density.
Long-term verification includes a grazing management plan indicative of sustainable grazing
practices that promote pasture health. The management plan will specify aspects related to
grazing intensity, rotational systems, and the timing and duration of grazing and rest periods.
Tame pasture health assessments will be conducted at three-year intervals to measure factors
including legume content, invasive species, vegetative cover and plant density, plant vigour,
litter, and soil erosion. Contracts are recommended to be 15 years in duration, with renewals at
five year intervals. Tame forage stands tend to lose vigour and productivity over a period of
several years, and greenhouse gas capture also decreases over time. However, tame pasture can
be rejuvenated or re-seeded, so contracts can be renewed at five year intervals provided that
pastures remain healthy and viable. This program is flexible with regard to the specific
techniques used to accomplish rejuvenation. Sustainability of tame pasture or forage is promoted
by appropriate management practices. Development of a viability assessment for hay is
potentially required for long-term verification of the health status of tame forage used for hay
production.
Barriers and opportunities for the success of the Alberta Crop Conversion Protocol are discussed,
including promotion, remuneration, seed availability, findings from previous conservation
programs, and consistency with existing programs. The ACCP is expected to target the eastern
portion of the Parkland region because this area has a higher risk for climatic limitations or soil
degradation associated with annual crop production.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
iii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ ii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Conversion and Management ......................................................................................................... 3
Conversion Plan .......................................................................................................................... 3
Field Preparation ......................................................................................................................... 4
Seed Bed ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Pre-Seeding Weed Control.................................................................................................................... 4
Companion Crops .................................................................................................................................. 5
Tame Forage Species and Seeding Rates.................................................................................... 5
Selected Parkland Species..................................................................................................................... 6
Timing ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Techniques and Equipment ......................................................................................................... 8
Row Seeding.......................................................................................................................................... 8
Broadcast Seeding................................................................................................................................. 8
Special Considerations for Saline Conditions ........................................................................................ 8
Fertilizer and Other Amendments ............................................................................................... 9
Fertilizer .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Legume Inoculation............................................................................................................................. 11
Manure and Compost ......................................................................................................................... 11
Post-Seeding Management........................................................................................................ 11
Weed Control ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Grazing Management.......................................................................................................................... 12
Fire Management ................................................................................................................................ 13
Grasshopper Control ........................................................................................................................... 13
Pasture or Hay Rejuvenation .............................................................................................................. 13
Verification ................................................................................................................................... 14
Short Term Verification (Establishment).................................................................................. 15
Proof of Seeding .................................................................................................................................. 15
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
iv
Stand Establishment ........................................................................................................................... 15
Grazing Management Plan.................................................................................................................. 17
Long-Term Verification (Health) ............................................................................................. 19
Contractual Obligations ...................................................................................................................... 19
Long-Term Grazing Management Plan ............................................................................................... 20
Hay Viability Assessments ................................................................................................................... 20
Tame Pasture Assessments................................................................................................................. 20
Barriers and Opportunities for Adoption ...................................................................................... 22
Lessons Learned from Previous Conversion Programs ............................................................ 22
Permanent Cover Canada Program .................................................................................................... 22
Greencover Canada Program .............................................................................................................. 23
Other Conservation Cover Programs in Western Canada .................................................................. 23
International Programs ....................................................................................................................... 24
Promoting Program Success in the Alberta Parkland Region .................................................. 24
Provide Training .................................................................................................................................. 24
Turning Barriers into Opportunities .................................................................................................... 24
Promoting Awareness ......................................................................................................................... 25
Remuneration for Conversion Costs ................................................................................................... 25
Consistency with Existing Programs.................................................................................................... 26
Promoting Seed Availability ................................................................................................................ 26
Selection of Potential Target Areas..................................................................................................... 26
Uncertainties Posed by Climate Change ............................................................................................. 27
References ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................................... 32
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Greenhouse Gas Budget for Tame Forage in the Parkland. ............................................ 1
Table 2. Rest requirement and rate of re-growth for forage species in the Parkland region. ........ 3
Table 3. General fertility guidelines for long-term tame forage in the Dry Prairie region. ......... 10
Table 5. Five recommended indicators of the success of short-term establishment. ................... 16
Table 7. Carrying capacities and average production for Parkland tame pastures. ..................... 18
Table 9. Hay and pasture health indicators applicable to the Parkland region. ........................... 21
Table 10. Audit of Greencover Contracts. ................................................................................... 23
Table 11. Ranching barriers and related opportunities related to tame forage conversion. ......... 25
Table 12. Costs for forage production per year in the Black soil zone. ....................................... 26
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
1
Introduction
Properly managed stands of tame forage provide valuable feed or fodder, reduce soil and water
erosion, minimize nutrient losses, contribute to biodiversity, and enhance wildlife habitat
(Franzluebbers et al. 2012). The current total estimated direct economic value of the Alberta
forage industry is estimated as 1.68 billion, and estimates of the indirect economic value range
from 0.54 to 2.246 billion (Kosinski 2012). The indirect economic values include erosion
control, enhanced water quality, water retention and regulation, wildlife, recreational fishing,
pollination services, honey production, and carbon sequestration.
The carbon footprint is reduced because cultivation is only involved in site preparation and
seeding in pasture systems. Carbon sequestration is valued at 184 to 419 million dollars of the
total indirect economic value of forages in Alberta (Kosinski 2012). Greenhouse gas reduction is
estimated to be high for forage stands where there is no mechanized haying, baling, transport or
feeding. Soil organic carbon increased in the surface layer of the soil after a period of five to 12
years following the seeding of perennial grasses on marginal cultivated land in east-central
Saskatchewan (Mensah et al. 2003). The suggested greenhouse gas budget for tame forage
conversion in the Parkland is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Greenhouse Gas Budget for Tame Forage in the Parkland.
From Janzen and Haugen-Kozyra 2012.
Estimated Net Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reduction and
Removal (tonnes CO2 ha-1 yr-1)
High (1.5 to 2.0)
Project Condition
Grass Type
Fertilizer
Grazing
Haying
Tame with Legumes >30%
No
Yes
No
Medium (1.0 to 1.5)
Tame with Legumes >30%
No
Yes
Yes
Low (0.5 to 1.0)
Tame Grasses
Yes - Low
Yes
Yes; Occ.
*Nitrogen fertilization is not allowed, but if indicated by soil testing, phosphorus, potassium or sulphur can be
applied occasionally to support legume maintenance.
Note: The conversion of t/ha to t/ac is obtained by multiplying 0.445 by the number of t/ha.



The High reduction scenario describes stands where legumes constitute more than 30% of
the cover, and stands are only grazed, not hayed. Erichsen Arychuk and Lastiwka (2006)
state with >30% legume in a forage stand, nitrogen fertilizer is not required and
greenhouse gas emissions are reduced (Paragon 2010).
The Medium reduction scenario describes stands where legumes constitute more than
30% of the cover, and stands are typically hayed but can also be grazed. Nitrogen
fertilization is provided by legumes. An example pertinent to this scenario is a meadow
bromegrass – alfalfa mix with alfalfa more than 20% (Janzen and Haugen-Kozyra 2012).
The Low reduction scenario for tame grasses describes forage stands that are mainly used
for pasture production, but can be occasionally hayed. Fertilizer applications are
occasional and may range from about every two to four years. Two production models
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
2
with carbon emission rates that cause them to be not eligible for the low reduction
scenario are continuous tame grass hay, and annual fertilizer applications to stands
dominated by tame grass.
The area of tame forage land in Alberta decreased 28% between 2006 and 2011. Tame forage
land has decreased from 834,044 ha reported by 12,204 farms in 2006, to 593,494 ha reported by
9,394 farms in 2011. Lesser declines were experienced in Saskatchewan (17%) and Manitoba
(20%) in the same time period (Kirychuk 2012). Canada Census data indicates hay production in
Alberta has decreased from 25.2% to 21.3% of total cropland between 2006 and 2011 (Statistics
Canada 2012).
Four frameworks are being developed to provide information on the conversion of cropland to
native grasslands or introduced perennial grass species in the Parkland and Dry Prairie regions of
Alberta. The current document is focused on conversion of cropland to tame forage that may or
may not include legumes, in the Parkland region, which correlates with the Black soil zone. The
Parkland region, as used throughout this report, is composed of the Foothills Fescue Natural
Subregion and the Parkland Natural Region (which includes the Central Parkland, Foothills
Parkland, and Peace River Parkland Natural Subregions). The Parkland Native framework
covers the same area but with the addition of the Northern Fescue Natural Subregion, because
the dominant native grass species, plains rough fescue, is also the dominant species throughout
the Parkland region.
This framework focuses on sustainable practices for cropland conversion that can be used by
land managers, with reporting usually by third-party professionals, to develop farm-specific
action plans for the Alberta Cropland Conversion Protocol (ACCP). In this report, the term
“land managers” includes landowners, land renters, or occupants, provided they have a signed
agreement with the land manager. This framework is designed as an initial and inclusive
document that is a precursor to future specific versions directed to particular audiences. As the
ACCP develops, it is expected various user documents will be prepared for land managers, seed
providers, verifiers, aggregators, policy-makers, and auditors. Verifiers are professionals
including agrologists, biologists, or experienced pasture specialists who provide planning,
confirmation of conversion and establishment, and project monitoring. Aggregators take the
concept to producers for participation, and potentially include multiple agreements.
Potential participants in the Alberta Cropland Conversion Protocol (ACCP) will be required to
sign a contract to receive payments. The following are recommended requirements for each
ACCP contract. Each requirement is described in more detail in this report.
 A simple conversion plan.
 Proof of seeding and stand establishment.
 A grazing management plan that that shows careful management and meets short- and
long-term requirements, which can be adjusted based on periodic tame pasture health
assessments.
 For hay production, a tame forage viability assessment is required.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
3


Short-term verification records, including current and on-going cultivated acres.
Long-term verification records, including periodic tame pasture health assessments.
This framework is divided into three key components: i) land conversion and management
practices promoting sustainable establishment of tame forage species; ii) short-term and longterm verification of successful conversion, and iii) potential barriers and opportunities. The
framework provides a summary; the references at the end of the document contain more details.
Conversion and Management
Conversion Plan
A simple conversion plan is a required component for participation in the tame forage conversion
protocol. Aasen and Bjorge (2009) provided the following list of potential items for inclusion in
the conversion plan, with accompanying discussion regarding each item.
 Cropping history
 Soil fertility
 Pre-seeding weed control
 Species and variety selection, including re-growth rates (Table 2) and compatible mixes
 Seed quality
 Seeding rate
 Type of crop stubble
 Companion cropping and a harvest plan for the companion crop
 Seed bed preparation
 Seeding date
 Seeding depth
 Seeding techniques
 Post-seeding management including weed control
Table 2. Rest requirement and rate of re-growth for forage species in the Parkland region.
From Aasen and Bjorge (2009).
Long Rest, Slow Re-Growth
Timothy
Smooth Bromegrass
Intermediate Wheatgrass
Pubescent Wheatgrass
Cicer Milkvetch
Moderate Rest and Re-growth
Reed Canarygrass
Alfalfa
Alsike Clover
Red Clover
Sweetclover (biannual)
Hybrid Brome
Short Rest, Rapid Re-growth
Orchardgrass
Tall Fescue
Creeping Red Fescue
Kentucky Bluegrass
Meadow Bromegrass
Kura Clover
Meadow Foxtail
The plan for conversion of cultivated land to tame forages will include a prioritized list of land
use goals. Cultivated land parcels within the property should be prioritized for conversion to
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
4
tame forages. The plan should recommend conversion practices that will be best suited for the
planned area and will minimize potential offsite effects. Wruck and Hammermeister (2003,
Appendix C) provide a detailed framework for timeline and budget planning that can be adapted
for intended conversion to tame forage. In addition, a valuable flow chart is provided
(Gramineae 2012, Figure 7) for planning purposes related to conversion of large-sized
disturbances such as formerly cultivated fields.
Natural resource information is important for successful conversion to tame forage. The area
planned for conversion should be characterized, including the identification of potential soil
types (Wark et al. 2004; Wruck and Hammermeister 2003). Soil landscape model information
contained in the Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Information Database (ASIC 2002) is a
valuable tool recommended for use by third party professionals for planning and prioritizing
parcels for conversion to forage.
Field Preparation
Preparation for seeding includes weed management and seed bed preparation (NDGF and NRCS
2005; Wruck and Hammermeister 2003).
Seed Bed
Best results in the Parkland region are typically obtained by seeding into standing annual crop
stubble, so that soil erosion and soil moisture loss are minimized.
Successful establishment of tame forage species is promoted by maximum seed-to-soil contact,
either by reduced or conventional tillage systems. Topsoil should be loose and friable at the
surface, without large clods or debris, and uniform soil texture. The underlying seed bed must be
firm, such as obtained by machine rolling. The seed bed is firm if the impression left by an adult
footprint does not exceed approximately 3 cm (Gabruch et al. no year). Harrowing after seeding
reduces the presence of soil clods (Wruck and Hammermeister 2003).
Pre-Seeding Weed Control
Perennial weeds such as quack grass, Canada thistle, foxtail barley and dandelions should be
absent or at low levels to promote successful conversion. Effective weed control can be
accomplished through the use of glyphosate within four days prior to the planting of forages
(Iwaasa and Schellenberg 2005), or within five days after seeding and before germination (Aasen
and Bjorge 2009). Weed seeds can remain dormant for a significant time, so pre-seeding weed
control will require at least one, and possibly, more growing seasons (Gabruch et al. (no year).
Removal of standing crop through silage or greenfeed harvest can be used effectively to remove
introduced plants and weeds, and reduce or eliminate weed seeds before seeding (Iwaasa and
Schellenberg 2005).
Before undertaking weed control, weeds need to be identified and their distribution must be
characterized. Weeds may be problematic along former structures, including fence lines, corrals,
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
5
and storage locations. For cases where weed control is required, herbicide companies employ
professionals who can offer free advice regarding the most effective weed control plan, including
products, timing and techniques. Chemical and tillage methods can be used, but tillage reduces
soil moisture and increases erosion risk as well as spreading certain rhizomatous weeds.
Herbicides are usually the most effective solution to deal with weeds for cropland conversion to
tame forages, because weeds typically out-compete forage seedlings. Herbicide application can
be done by back-pack sprayers, ATV-mounted sprayers, and agricultural field sprayers (Wruck
and Hammermeister 2003).
Companion Crops
Companion crops (sometimes referred to as cover or nurse crops) are usually agronomic cereal
crops that are planted on a conversion site to allow a harvest yield in the seeding year, and to
protect emerging seedlings. Use of companion crops at a typical rate of 2 bushels/acre increases
the risk that many forages species will not survive the establishment year, resulting in thin
stands, reduced forage yields and increased weeds (Aasen and Bjorge 2009). For this reason,
Aasen and Bjorge (2009) recommend only using companion crops if soil erosion is a concern,
and they identify several required practices, including seeding at low rates. Seeding companion
crops at low rates can limit competition from weeds and create successful forage establishment.
Ducks Unlimited Canada has had 20 years of good results when using companion crops such as
barley at low rates, such as 1/3 to ½ bushel/ac1.
Companion crops can be useful during times of drought (Gramineae 2007) or at locations where
the potential for soil erosion is high to extreme (Wruck and Hammermeister 2003), such as in
areas dominated by coarse textured soils (either sands or gravels). When a companion crop is
used the forage crop is not considered “perennial” until the second growing season (Paragon
2010).
Tame Forage Species and Seeding Rates
The Alberta Forage Manual (Aassen and Bjorge 2009) provides extensive information on a large
number of tame forage species suitable for the Parkland region. Tabular information is provided
for eight legumes and about 20 grasses that are suitable for the Parkland region, along with
extensive information for each species regarding hardiness, longevity, yield, quality, potential
limitations such as the tendency for bloating, pasture re-growth rate, suitability for hay
production, and tolerance to grazing, drought, flooding, acidity, and salinity. Additional
information is provided in the text for each species. For example, numerous species have
excellent re-growth (Table 2), and are therefore ideal for pasture species. These include meadow
bromegrass, orchardgrass, tall fescue, Kentucky bluegrass, creeping red fescue, alfalfa, kura
clover, and white clover (Aassen and Bjorge 2009). As another example, white clover and kura
clover tolerate close and frequent grazing, while other legumes are intolerant of frequent grazing.
However, these two species are short in height, and therefore not suitable for haying. In
addition, white clover does not tolerate drought and is prone to winterkill, and kura clover has a
1
Barry Bishop, Ducks Unlimited Canada. Personal Communication, January 2013.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
6
bloat potential. Iwaasa et al. (2003) also portray the period of growth and the acceptable grazing
period of tame grasses and legumes, and indicate species that are difficult to establish.
The Alberta Forage Manual provides guidelines on seeding rates for single-species forage stands,
with detailed information on the seeds per kg, seeds per linear m2, and the seeds per metre of row
(Aasen and Bjorge 2009). Pastures can be seeded to one species (monoculture) or a mixture of
forage species. However, a monoculture is susceptible to weather variations and more
susceptible to diseases or pests. Mixtures of several species can give a more flexible forage
supply and reduce risk, but if they are incompatible species they are harder to manage.
Compatible species are favoured because they have similar production periods, maturity and
palatability characteristics. Various resources are available to assist with the selection of
appropriate forage varieties for potential hay and pasture crops. Examples of such resources
include the Alberta Seed Guide (AACSCP and ASGA 2012), and various producer
organizations, including the Gray Wooded Forage Association, the Foothills Forage and Grazing
Association, Battle River Research Group, West Central Forage Association, the Peace Country
Beef and Forage Association, and the Gateway Research Organization. Alberta Agriculture and
Rural Development (ARD) provides a forage seed mixture calculator that can be used to
calculate an appropriate mix and estimate a seed density based on row spacing, area, and
equipment (ARD 2012). Detailed information related to seeding density for more than 25
grasses and eight legumes appropriate for the Parkland region is contained in Table 4 of ARD
(2005a).
It is recommended for this conversion protocol that there be no restrictions on the minimum
number of species, as occasionally a monoculture is appropriate. For example, creeping foxtail
or meadow foxtail are appropriate on their own in moist areas, and legumes will have very poor
establishment success in areas with acidic soils or subject to sub-irrigation or flooding. For most
situations, species mixes provide more diversity and resilience compared to monocultures. The
Saskatchewan Forage Crop Production Guide provides suggested mixes for seven hay crops and
five pasture systems for the Black and Gray soil zones (Saskatchewan Agriculture, Food and
Rural Revitalization 2003). ARD provide a comprehensive listing of approximate seeding rates
and suggested row spacing for nine mixes for hay or pasture that are suitable for the Black soil
zone, and 11 mixes suitable for the Gray Wooded soil zone (ARD 2003a).
Selected Parkland Species
Aasen and Bjorge (2009) provide extensive information on all forage species adapted to the
Parkland region. For example, two clover species that can be long-lived due to seed set are
Alsike clover and red clover. Information for three important Parkland species (alfalfa, meadow
bromegrass, and tall fescue) and other grasses is summarized below.
Alfalfa seedlings are vigorous and grow quickly provided measures are taken to minimize
competition. Well-established alfalfa seedlings are winter-hardy. Late-seeded stands of alfalfa
need at least six weeks of good growing conditions following emergence to attain good winter
survival. Alfalfa plants die out as plants get older, but if remaining plants are healthy each
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
7
crown increases in diameter and will produce additional shoots, thus maintaining the number of
stems per acre. For example, a healthy mature alfalfa stand that provides a full yield will have
45 plants per m2 with 8 to 10 stems per plant in irrigated Parkland conditions, and 20 plants per
m2 with 3 to 4 stems per plant in non-irrigated conditions. Alfalfa is well adapted to seed mixes
but it is not as aggressive as some grasses, and is highly prone to reduction after three to five
years (Aasen and Bjorge 2009).
Meadow bromegrass is a long-lived perennial that is mainly used for pasture in Alberta. It is
hardy, long-lived and drought-tolerant, and it is one of the highest yielding pasture grasses in
Alberta. It is effective in mixtures with legumes including alfalfa, red clover, and alsike clover,
and it is well-suited to rotational stocking. Meadow bromegrass has a high rate of re-growth
after grazing. The re-growth rate in late summer exceeds that of smooth brome, meadow foxtail
and orchardgrass, and it can also be grazed in the spring. If pastures are continuously grazed
then stocking rates should be lighter. Rest or light grazing in the late summer and early fall
increases the ability to store reserves for winter (Aasen and Bjorge 2009).
Tall fescue is acceptable for either pasture or hay but is not often used. Hay harvest should be
done at the time of early heading. Tall fescue is long-lived and high yielding with a high nutritive
value, as long as a hardy variety is chosen. The root system is deep and extensive, with a fair
tolerance for drought. Tall fescue is adapted to medium- and heavy-textured soils and organic
soils, and can be grown on soils with low to neutral pH. Tall fescue has excellent re-growth
ability, with good tolerance for close and frequent grazing. Tall fescue re-grows well throughout
the summer and fall, and is very valuable for late fall and early winter grazing. Rest or light use
is required during the last four to six weeks of the growing season in order to promote hardiness.
Rotational grazing is preferred, and continuous grazing is a satisfactory system if stocking rates
are carefully matched to production (Aasen and Bjorge 2009).
Other Grasses. Hybrid bromegrass and smooth bromegrass are also popular grasses in the
Parkland Region. Hybrid brome is becoming more popular and is a good choice for either hay or
grazing production. Smooth brome is usually selected as a hay species and as hay productivity
declines, stands are usually switched to pasture. Orchard grass is commonly used for pasture,
but can also be used for hay in moister regions of the Parkland. It is recommended that hardiness
be an important choice when selecting an appropriate variety. Grazing of orchard grass is best
conducted in a rotational system, and livestock must be readily moved in order to protect the
lower stem bases, as orchard grass will winterkill if grazing is too close.
Timing
Seeding of tame forage species in the Parkland region in early spring is preferable to seeding in
late summer for stand establishment. Spring seeding promotes winter survival for grasses and
legumes because it promotes root development. Seeding can occur from May 1 to June 15,
provided moisture conditions are suitable (Aasen and Bjorge 2009). Seeding is often conducted
between May 20 and June 15, to provide the best soil temperatures for germination (10 to 20oC),
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
8
and to provide for optimal pre-seeding weed control2. Dormant seeding just before freeze up
(October to November) can be successful provided germination does not occur, so soil
temperatures must remain below 2oC (Aasen and Bjorge 2009). The author of this report
successfully hand-broadcast a seed mix dominated by meadow bromegrass and tall fescue on six
acres with slight snow cover in November 2009 west of Red Deer (cover photo taken in early
May, 2011).
Techniques and Equipment
Row Seeding
Row seeding requirements include consistent and accurate seed flow rate, accurate and uniform
seed placement, and adequate packing for seed to soil contact (Gabruch et al. no year). Seeding
can be done with specialized grass seed drills, air drills, and other conventional drills. It is
essential to minimize equipment operations to prevent soil pulverization and reduce the potential
for wind erosion. Recommended row spacing in the Parkland is approximately 15 to 20 cm
(ARD 2003a). Depth banding, if possible, is recommended (NDGF and NRCS 2005).
Seed depth is related to seed size, soil texture and moisture conditions. Seed should generally be
placed at 1 to 2 cm depth into a firm seed bed (Aasen and Bjorge 2009). Gabruch et al. (no year)
recommend seed depths of 0.6 to 1.3 cm in medium and fine-textured soils, and 1.3 to 2 cm in
sandy soils. Seeding at a depth of 3.5 cm had only 45% emergence of alfalfa and 40% emergence
of timothy in a central Alberta study (Winter 1981).
Broadcast Seeding
Broadcast seeding is beneficial because once established it provides more cover than row
seeding, thus reducing bare soil. However, required seeding rates are about 50% higher than for
row seeding. Wruck and Hammermeister (2003) recommend broadcasting at higher rates to
account for seed losses to desiccation, insects, birds, rodents and wind. They also note that
broadcast seeds should be shallowly harrowed or raked, which can be followed by a packer to
improve seed to soil contact.
The most common broadcasting equipment is a spin-spreader. In rough terrain, such as moderate
to high-relief hummocky landscapes, broadcast equipment such as spreaders or tow-behind
broadcasters are recommended (Wruck and Hammermeister 2003).
Special Considerations for Saline Conditions
ARD (2007a) provides information on tame forage species that are adapted to varying degrees of
salinity, with information including their expected longevity, winter hardiness, and livestock
palatability. Sprigging is a seeding technique that promotes vegetation establishment in saline
areas. Sprigging involves planting rhizomes at a depth of 7 to 10 cm. Rhizomes are more salt
2
Barry Bishop, Ducks Unlimited Canada. Personal Communication, January 2013.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
9
tolerant than seeds, and are placed below the highest salt concentration in the soil profile. The
method requires a rhizome source location and specialized equipment. The sprigging method is
expensive, but some municipalities or producer organizations have expertise and sprigging
equipment available for rental. AC Saltlander and NuHy are two green wheatgrass types that
have been shown to have great potential by the Chinook Applied Research Association in the
Oyen area3. Wentz (1997) provides a detailed table listing recommended species and seeding
rates for lands affected by salinity. Information is also supplied regarding rate of establishment,
salinity tolerance, winter hardiness and longevity.
Fertilizer and Other Amendments
Maintenance of tame forage stands is contingent on the available nutrients. Hay or silage
operations remove more nutrients than do pasture systems. Aasen and Bjorge (2009) provide
information on the general fertility guidelines for maintaining forage stands in the Parkland
region of Alberta. To maintain a high level of forage or pasture production, periodic soil testing
must be conducted to determine proper fertilization rates. Phosphorus, potassium and sulphur
are typically required to maintain legume percentages in a seeded stand. Fertilizers could be of
either chemical source or livestock manure.
Aasen and Bjorge (2009) provide information on nutrient of levels required in relation to
different forage systems, assuming soil test levels are at zero kg/ha in the upper 60 cm. For this
project it is assumed that most soils in the Parkland region have low to deficient levels of
potassium and sulphur, and that conversion from annual crops to forage perennials will occur on
less productive lands that typically have low to moderate nutrient levels. Nutrient removals are
higher on hay land than on grazed lands, as approximately 70% of the forage nitrogen and 90%
of the forage potassium is excreted within the pasture (ARD 2005b). Grass – hay systems
typically require annual fertilization, and other systems can be fertilized once every few years 4.
General fertility guidelines for Parkland forage systems with low to moderate nutrient levels are
shown in Table 3 based on the assumptions in this paragraph.
General soil fertility needs for forage production, in locations in the Black and Gray Wooded soil
zones of Saskatchewan are provided by Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food (2007). General
cost and return data related to fertilizer use is also provided.
3
Grant Lastiwka, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. Personal Communication, February 2013.
Ross McKenzie and Rob Dunn, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. Personal Communication, February
2013.
4
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
10
Table 3. General fertility guidelines for long-term tame forage in the Dry Prairie region.
Forage
Fertility requirements in kg/ha
Nitrogen
Phosphate
Potash
Sulphur
80
20 to 30
0 to 20
0 to 20
Grass - legume hay mix
0 to 30
20 to 30
0 to 20
0 to 20
Legume-dominated Hay
0
30 to 40
0 to 30
0 to 30
Grass - legume pasture mix
0 to 20
10 to 30
0 to 20
0 to 20
Grass pasture
20 to 40
20 to 30
0 to 10
0 to 20
Grass hay
Note: The conversion of kg/ha to lb/ac is obtained by multiplying kg/ha by 0.8921.
Fertilizer
Aasen and Bjorge (2009) provide the following information regarding the use of fertilizer for
establishing tame forage. Fields should be soil tested before seeding forages to determine soil
properties and nutrient levels. Legume stands or grass and legume mixtures have higher
requirements than grass stands for phosphorus, potassium and sulphur. Seed-placed nitrogen
must be at low rates because seedling germination is reduced by at least 30% when nitrogen is
applied at rates of 30 kg/ha or higher. Low rates of phosphate fertilizer, such as 15 kg/ha, can be
placed with the seed at the time of seeding. It is highly beneficial to use equipment that can band
or place fertilizer separate from the seed as higher amounts can be used.
When grasses and legumes are grown in mixtures it is important to apply fertilizers based on the
grass to legume ratio. Application of high levels of nitrogen to a mixed stand will cause the
grass component to increase, and reduce the ability of the legume to be productive and survive
over the long term. When legumes are present in forage mixtures at a range of about 30 to 40%
they will supply the grasses with nitrogen through cycling, and they may build soil nitrogen
levels (Aasen and Bjorge 2009).
Phosphorus is important for root development and plant growth, and it is often the limiting
nutrient for optimum forage production, particularly legume production. Aasen and Bjorge
(2009) state that phorphorus may be applied at high rates, such as 100 to 200 kg/ha before
seeding the forage crop to use over several years. However, caution must be used to ensure that
nutrient losses are not encountered.
Aasen and Bjorge (2009) provide information on other nutrients required for forage production.
Potash is recommended only when soil fertility analysis indicates a deficiency. Sulphur is an
essential element in forage production, and is deficient in some Parkland region soils, including
the Black and Gray Wooded soil zones. Most sulphur in the topsoil is contained in the soil
organic matter, and is slowly released as sulfate sulphur. However, this form is mobile in the
soil, and is subject to leaching, particularly in sandy soils. Soil tests are required to measure the
concentrations of all available nutrients, and to determine appropriate supplementation rates.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
11
Legume Inoculation
Aasen and Bjorge (2009) provide the following information on legume inoculation. Legumes
require inoculation with rhizobia bacteria in order to fix atmospheric nitrogen in the soil and
make it available to plants. Although some native nitrogen fixing bacteria are present in the
soils, commercial inoculants are highly recommended. Commercial inoculants are usually peat
or clay based and applied as powder, coating or granular materials. Inoculants are based on the
legume group, as there is a different one for alfalfa vs. clover. Legume seed can be purchased as
a pre-inoculated product. Ensure that the product has not expired and that it is specific to the
desired species. Properly inoculated legumes can generally fix about 80% of the nitrogen
required for productive stands, which ranges from about 50 to 220 kg of nitrogen per ha per year,
depending on the legume species.
Manure and Compost
Manure and compost are acceptable amendments for increasing fertility of tame forage stands,
provided nutrient management planning is used. Manure or compost must be applied at
agronomic rates based on sampling and testing of nutrient levels in both the amendment and soil.
Manure contains high phosphorus concentrations, and establishment of forage on previously
manured fields is an effective strategy for reducing phosphorus levels.
Manure has some limitations, including the presence of weed seeds, and that phosphorus
concentrations are significantly higher than required for forage crop use. Major advantages of
properly managed compost are that it does not contain weed seeds, and the reduced volumes for
transport makes it more economical. Both manure and compost can assist with the recovery of
problem locations such as eroded crests and upper slopes within fields that are planned for tame
forage conversion.
Post-Seeding Management
Weed Control
Herbicides must be used carefully after seeding to prevent adverse effects on desirable species.
Post-seeding weed control can include mowing and 2,4-D application for the control of pioneer
weeds. Mowing can curtail weed seeds (Gabruch et al. no year), but careful timing is critical as
some weed species can become major problems if mowed at or near maturity. Hand-held or
mechanical wick applicators can be used for selective weed control, and high mowing can be
used to control taller weeds. Weed control professionals can assist with recommendations on the
most effective weed control plan.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
12
Grazing Management
Information to be contained in an ACCP grazing management plan includes:
 soil and landscape characteristics of the field that affect plant growth, and
 timing and intensity of use. The plan can be flexible and should contain information on
rest periods, rotational choice, grazing period length and season(s), and an understanding
of planning, monitoring, and maintenance of a long-lived and healthy forage stand.
Grazing methods work best when they are flexible, particularly so they can be adapted to
weather conditions and to the specific operation. Sustainability is promoted by matching the
timing of rest periods and duration of use to the pasture condition and forage growth rate on each
field. Ideally, there should be numerous fenced pastures with a variety of acceptable grazing
seasons. Operations should establish and manage pastures so that they include pastures suitable
for grazing at different periods, including early spring, late spring, early summer, late summer,
fall, and winter. For example, early spring pastures require hardy species that are early growers
and tolerant to grazing in the early growing season. Field selection can be based on when the
field is ready for grazing. Operations with a variety of pastures also provide insurance for
weather-related problems such as sustained drought.
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development provide a discussion on the use of tame pastures,
determination of stocking rates, and grazing systems (ARD 1998). Aasen and Bjorge (2009)
provide details including advantages and disadvantages related to numerous grazing methods,
such as rotational grazing and stockpiled grazing. Stockpiled grazing refers to grazing in the
dormant season, including winter, which allows producers to extend the grazing season beyond
the growing season. Stockpiled grazing is cheaper than harvesting and feeding stored supplies,
and also reduces the carbon emissions associated with harvesting and transporting feed.
Stockpiled grazing is generally better on grasses that have summer and fall re-growth because
leaf retention is better than on legumes, and the forage quality is higher.
Research by Baron et al. (2004; 2005) found that creeping red fescue and meadow bromegrass
are generally the most suitable species for stockpiled grazing in central Alberta. Meadow
bromegrass and creeping red fescue re-growth provided moderate to moderately low winter
pasture yields, respectively, but each species had relatively high to high in vitro digestible
organic matter, and they are therefore recommended grass species that will meet livestock
nutritive requirements during winter. Timothy provided high winter stockpile yields, but protein
levels varied over the three-year study (Baron et al. 2004). Baron et al. (2005) recommend
adequate rest to allow for increased re-growth in order to maximize winter pasture yields in
central Alberta. For example, meadow bromegrass, creeping red fescue, orchardgrass, and
Kentucky bluegrass require a rest period starting about July 1. Smooth bromegrass and alfalfa
species require a rest starting as early as July 15. As forage stands age, improved soil fertility
and timely precipitation will improve the potential for re-growth.
Aasen and Bjorge (2009) also provide information regarding the management of pastures with
legumes. Most legumes are sensitive to grazing, and pasture management is critical to increase
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
13
the life of the stand and maximize animal productivity. Winterkill of legumes may result from
continuous grazing or grazing in the critical period of late July to late August. Legume pastures
require a significant rest period after grazing to retain vigour. Livestock should be moved from
the grazed stand once the majority of legumes are grazed to 8 to 12 cm in height. Management
techniques to reduce the potential for bloat in livestock are discussed (Aasen and Bjorge 2009).
Popp et al. (2000) recommends the inclusion of at least 50% grass in the pasture mix to reduce
the risk of bloat. In addition, the alfalfa cultivar AC Grazeland, available at Pickseed, reduces
the incidence of bloat in livestock. Popp et al. (2000) also noted an increased rate of gain in
cattle on pastures with 35% or more alfalfa content. For legume - alfalfa seedmixes that contain
at least 20% sanfoin as dry matter, bloat potential will be reduced due to the presence of tannins
in sanfoin.
Fire Management
Excessive biomass can sometimes accumulate in a short period after tame forage seeding, and
this can hinder more sensitive forage species, resulting in a less than complete diverse mix.
Litter quantity could be measured to provide an indication of the need for biomass reduction5.
Haying, grazing or burning can be used to remove excessive biomass and reduce weed species.
Burning is not socially acceptable in most Parkland areas, due to safety concerns. NDGF and
NRCS (2005) discuss careful burning with a well-documented safety plan, and adequate
equipment and resources. If burning is conducted, it may need to be followed by weed-wicking
in a later season (Wruck and Hammermeister 2003).
Grasshopper Control
Grasshoppers can quickly destroy emerged forage seedlings, and control may be required if they
reach infestation levels. Grasshopper control using insecticides may be required when
grasshoppers reach densities of 8 to 14 per m2, and control is important at higher densities
(Gabruch et al. no year; Aasen and Bjorge 2009). Clear-winged grasshoppers are generally
associated with grasses and some legumes, while migratory grasshoppers prefer a wide range of
host vegetation (Aasen and Bjorge 2009). Grasshoppers may be deterred from invading newly
seeded fields by planting a non-preferred crop (E.g., oats) in strips of 30 m wide around the field
perimeter; in contrast, rye should be avoided (Wark et al. 2004).
Pasture or Hay Rejuvenation
As pasture and hay lands become older, forage productivity and quality may decline, and
undesirable species and weeds may increase. Seed-bed re-establishment using intensive
mechanical activity such as plowing or frequent discing or cultivating is not eligible under the
ACCP, because the associated carbon emissions exceed the carbon sequestered with forage.
Aasen and Bjorge (2009) provide a discussion regarding pasture or hay rejuvenation. Tame
forage crops can be rejuvenated with various techniques, such as improvements in grazing
5
Barry Adams. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. Personal Communication, February
2013.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
14
management, improving soil fertility, over-seeding into the established stand with specific
legumes and/or grasses, direct seeding species such as alfalfa into sod, applying herbicides,
tillage, and winter pasture feeding. Winter feeding of livestock using feeding strategies such as
row-bale grazing can rejuvenate pastures by adding a relatively even distribution of manure
(West No Year).
Passive mechanical rejuvenation usually involves equipment such as a cultivator with narrow
spikes (5 to 10 cm) to create perforations in the soil (SAFRR 2003a). For example, equipment
such as rotary harrows are available that create a perforated soil surface without destroying
vegetative cover. In northeastern British Columbia, a machine called the AerWay is used to
penetrate the soil by pressure from alternating tines on a metal roller (PRFA 2000).
Municipalities, agricultural service boards, and forage associations may have equipment for
rental or assist with knowledge transfer related to rejuvenation of pasture or hay. The
perforations create pockets that promote water infiltration and can improve rooting. Another
strategy is to use a one-time severe grazing followed by fertilization with phosphate, potassium
and/or sulphur, and legume seed incorporation. The severe grazing inhibits the current forage
and the fertilizer provides direct benefit to the legume seed6.
Tame pasture assessment such as outlined in Erichsen Arychuk and Lastiwka (2006) and Adams
et al. (2009) and resulting scores for pastures, or portions of a pasture, can be used to identify
problems and help determine potential rejuvenation techniques.
Verification
Verification using short-term and long-term indicators is a required component of protocols
involving the conversion of annual cropland to tame forage. Verification will be conducted by
qualified professionals including agrologists, biologists, or agriculturalists with significant field
experience and extension skills. Short-term verification focuses on stand establishment and
success, and is normally conducted for the period up to one year following seeding. However,
when companion crops are used, stand establishment is evaluated during the year following
harvest of the companion crop (Paragon 2010).
Long-term verification requires different forms of assessment for pasture vs. hay production.
Tame pasture health assessments will be conducted periodically following successful
establishment. Measures of pasture health that show either maintenance or improvement in
health indirectly indicate sustainable grazing management. A hay viability assessment is a
necessary component to satisfy contractual obligations in the ACCP for tame forage stands used
for hay production.
6
Grant Lastiwka, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. Personal Communication, February 2013.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
15
Short Term Verification (Establishment)
Third-party evaluators will assess the success of seeding and stand establishment using shortterm indicators, including verification of the seed mix used, an introductory grazing management
plan, and periodic assessments of stand establishment. Short-term verification must account for
variations in the time required for stand establishment, and patience is important.
Verification requirements used in the Conservation Cropping Protocol (AESRD 2012) can be
modified slightly for the Tame Forage Conversion Protocol. Short-term verification records
required for this project include: 1) land title certificate for legal locations being claimed, 2) an
agreement between the aggregator and the farm operator, 3) GPS track file for seeding
operations, or measurement of the field size, 4) detailed records of the seeding, including the
seed labels and supporting records, 5) evidence of re-seeding events if applicable, and 6) records
of current and on-going cultivated acres.
Proof of Seeding
Items that prove seeding was conducted include receipts indicating seed purchase, seed tag labels
showing quality and quantity at levels adequate for the indicated area, photographs, and thirdparty confirmation. Seed certificates should indicate percent ratings for Pure Live Seed, inert
component, germination, amount of dormant seed, other crop seed, hard seed, and types and
amounts of weed seeds (Wark et al 2004; NRCS 2009a; NRCS 2009b). Copies will be sent to
verifiers prior to seeding to confirm that the mix and quality is appropriate.
There are numerous important points to consider while planning and conducting seeding to
promote success and attain forage establishment (ARD 2003a). Seeding success will be
promoted by high seed purity with negligible contamination. ARD (2003b) list grade standards
for Canada Foundation No. 1 and No. 2, Canada Registered No. 1 and No. 2, and Common No. 1
and No. 2. Canada Foundation No. 1 is the highest standard, with a minimum of 85%
germination and less than 5% total weeds and Brassica crops. ARD (2003b) also provide stepby-step instructions for calculating seeding rates, and for the purchase of high quality seed,
including the interpretation of seed analysis reports.
Stand Establishment
The initial evaluation of germination should be conducted within 90 days of spring seeding, or
during the mid or late spring following fall seeding. Stand establishment is conducted in the year
following seeding, by measuring stand density at numerous locations per field. However, during
times of severe climatic conditions such as prolonged drought, the measurement of establishment
can be delayed. Table 4 lists suggested minimum seedling density in the Parkland region for
legumes, grasses, and grass-legume mixes generally for the first year after seeding (Aasen and
Bjorge 2009). These minimum plant densities are required to obtain a productive stand. Plant
densities are expected to decline over time.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
16
Table 4. Minimum seedling density for productive Parkland forage stands.
Adapted from Aasen and Bjorge (2009).
Soil Zone
Black
Gray Wooded
Seeding Density (plants/m2) for Parkland Forage Stands
Legumes
Grass/Legume (50:50)
Grass
80 – 100
80 – 100
100 – 160
40 – 50
30 – 40
40 – 50
Note: To convert plants per m2 to plants per 1/4 m2, divide by 4. To convert plants/m2 to plants/ft2, divide by 10.80.
ARD (2003c) provide guidance on the evaluation of recently seeded forage stands to determine
next steps in the event that establishment is problematic or not successful. For example,
information is provided related to thin and spotty forage stands, the recognition of patterns
within the seeding, weak plants or seedling mortality, and the effect of competition and weeds.
Hecker and Neufeld (2006) identify several parameters that can be used to indicate the success of
prairie restoration, that have application to establishment of tame forages. Five indicators that
are deemed to be most useful as indicators of short-term establishment to this project are listed in
Table 5, based on selected items modified from Hecker and Neufeld (2006) and Aasen and
Bjorge (2009).
Table 5. Five recommended indicators of the success of short-term establishment.
Adapted from Hecker and Neufeld (2006) and Aasen and Bjorge (2009).
Indicator
Typical Assessment Method at
Representative Field Locations
At representative field locations.
Assessment Guidelines
Soil erosion
Representative of a field
management unit.
Plant count
Each individual plant is counted in
a frame at numerous locations per
field, in the year after seeding, in
order to measure stand density.
Guidelines are provided in Adams et al. (2009, pp 3941). Useful to combine with weather and site history
since seeding.
Plant counts to indicate success are shown in Table 4.
A low count may require patience and monitoring,
and re-seeding or over-seeding will be required if
counts remain low for the first year following seeding.
Plant numbers
Calculated as the number of
established species in the
conversion divided by number of
species seeded, multiplied by 100.
It is expected that most seeded species will be evident
a few years after seeding, even if only in low
numbers. It is recommended that a score of ≥50%
represents establishment success.
Weed types and
density
Rate the density distribution of
each weed and each type (problem,
noxious, and prohibited noxious).
Weed designations are explained in
the Weed Control Act (Province of
Alberta 2010). Density class
information is provided in Fig. 17
(Adams et al. 2009).
The number of allowed weeds is specific for each
weed type. There is zero tolerance for prohibited
noxious weeds. Noxious weeds must not be present at
a class higher than in adjacent areas, and require
control. For problem weeds, any total weed count less
than 3 per ¼ m2 is generally acceptable and more than
14 per ¼ m2 requires control. Municipal weed
designations over-ride provincial designations.
Bare ground
Tame Parkland Framework
Guidelines are provided in Adams et al. (2009, pp 4244). Bare ground will be high at establishment, but
decreases significantly as the plants in-fill.
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
17
The indicators will be assessed at representative field locations using counts or measurements
within a 50 x 50 cm frame. For fields with multiple management units (different soils or
topography) each of the management units will be assessed separately.
Soil erosion is an example of a parameter that is recommended to be reported on a management
unit basis within fields. Third party professionals may not have all the skills required for field
assessment, and therefore, training will be required to ensure a consistent approach among
assessors. Experience indicates that the potential pool of professionals requires training in areas
that include the choice of representative sampling locations and the use of density distribution
charts.
The root system of the seeded stand can also be assessed. The presence of secondary and tertiary
tillers (root systems) is a positive indicator of successful establishment because it demonstrates
enhanced viability for survival.
Grazing Management Plan
A relatively simple and general grazing management plan is required at the outset of each ACCP
contract. Grazing must not occur in the establishment year, and in the year following
establishment, grazing must be at sustainable levels. The grazing management plan needs to be
flexible as there will be conditions such as drought that require adaptation or modification.
Grazing guidelines should be discussed by the review team in order to develop a standard
protocol for use with newly established tame pasture systems.
The goal of Alberta’s Grazing Lease Stewardship Code of Practice is careful stewardship that
maintains healthy functional rangeland ecosystems on public lands for present and future
generations (ASRD 2007). Similar goals apply to tame pasture systems, and further discussion is
provided in Aasen and Bjorg (2009). The key management variables that leaseholders must
apply to achieve range health goals are stocking rate, stocking density, timing and frequency and
duration of grazing. A document by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (No Year) includes
explanations provided by several producers regarding their pasture management systems and
how they have made their operations more efficient.
For native pastures, MultiSAR and the Alberta Conservation Association7 use the following
guidelines regarding sustainable grazing management. After establishment grazing is allowed at
up to 75% of animal unit months (AUM) for the identified plant community. The allowable
grazing rate is increased to 100% of AUM as the stand matures. Third party assessors need to
discuss and document operator concerns and management strategies, and develop an appropriate
grazing management plan for eligible parcels in the ACCP initiative.
7
Brad Downey, Alberta Conservation Association (ACA). Personal Communication, November 2012.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
18
Recommended target values for carrying capacity and forage production for three seeded tame
pasture condition classes (defined in Table 6) in the Parkland region are provided in Table 7.
The poor pasture condition class is not included, because sites must be assessed as good or
excellent for continued participation in the ACCP, and the fair class is provided to show when
grazing is not being managed at sustainable levels. Table 7 provides guidelines or rules of
thumb that have been applied and tested for more than 20 years.
Table 6. Definitions of tame pasture condition classes for the Parkland Region.
Adapted from Wroe et al. (1988).
Pasture
Condition Class
Excellent
Good
Fair
% of Potential Yield
for the Area
75 to 100%
60 to 75%
50 to 60%
% of Production from
Desirable, Adapted Grasses and
Legumes
>95%
>90%
>60%
% of Total Production from
Weeds or Undesirable Plants
<5%
5 - 10%
>10 - 25%
Table 7. Carrying capacities and average production for Parkland tame pastures.
Adapted from Wroe et al. (1988).
Soil Zone
Excellent
AUM/ha
Forage
Production
(kg/ha)
Pasture Condition Class
Good
AUM/ha
Forage
Production
(kg/ha)
Black
5.00
2070
3.50
Dark Gray
8.20
3360
5.45
Note: to convert AUM/ha to AUM/ac, divide by 2.47.
Note: to convert kg/ha to lb/ac, divide by 1.123.
1460
2240
Fair
AUM/ha
Forage
Production
(kg/ha)
2.70
4.00
1120
1680
Stocking rates for specific pasture types based on species are provided by Saskatchewan
Agriculture and Food (1998). The stocking rates are provided for three stand ages and for
different soil textures and three soil nitrogen levels (Table 8). Stand ages of 1 to 3 years apply
to short-term verification, and stand ages of 4 to 6 and >7 years apply to long-term verification
(discussed in the following section). These stocking rates are for pastures in good condition, and
therefore provide useful target values for verifiers and producers. However, forage competition
may be reduced in moist areas of the Parkland Region, and this inhibits the long-term viability of
some species, including alfalfa8.
8
Grant Lastiwka, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. Personal Communication, February 2013.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
19
Table 8. Stocking rates for tame pasture species in good condition in the Black and Gray
Wooded soil zones.
Adapted from Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food (1998).
Forage in Good
Condition
Nitrogen
(kg/ha)
Meadow Bromegrass
Stocking Rates (AUM/ha) for Stand Age in Years
Fine and Medium Soil Texture
Coarse Soil Texture
1 to 3 yr
4 to 6 yr
7+ yr
1 to 3 yr
4 to 6 yr
7+ yr
0
3.7
3.2
1.7
3.2
2.7
1.7
56.0
5.2
4.0
3.0
4.7
3.5
2.7
112.0
5.9
4.4
3.7
5.2
4.0
3.2
0
4.0
3.0
2.0
3.7
2.7
1.7
56.0
5.7
3.7
3.5
5.2
3.2
3.0
112.0
6.4
4.2
4.0
5.7
3.7
3.7
Alfalfa
0.0
5.9
4.4
3.0
5.2
4.0
2.5
Cicer Milkvetch
0.0
4.9
3.2
2.7
4.7
3.7
2.5
Smooth Bromegrass
Long-Term Verification (Health)
Contractual Obligations
Contracts are recommended to be at least five years in duration to allow time for establishment
and carbon sequestration. Contracts can potentially be up to 15 years for pastures that remain
healthy and viable, due to either effective management or as a result of successful rejuvenation
or re-seeding. Contracts may be eligible for renewable beyond 15 years if qualifications are met.
Hay production systems have usually lost significant viability after six years, but could be
eligible for contract extension if intense verification indicates they are viable.
Basic documents required for long-term verification include the items noted in the Conservation
Cropping Protocol (AESRD 2012):
 Land title certificate for legal locations being claimed,
 An agreement between the aggregator and the farm operator, and
 Records of current and on-going cultivated acres, to ensure that program applicants
maintain the same or more acres of tame pasture and hay in relation to cultivated annual
crop acres.
The ACC protocol requires landowners to increase their net tame forage acres. Forage stands
can be broken and converted to cropland provided that more acres of new tame forage are
brought into the farming operation. An increase in cultivated annual acres is allowed only if the
participant purchases or rents additional cultivated land. Verification tools are required to ensure
that participants do not convert tame forages to cultivated, such as an on-going record of
cultivated acres, crop insurance records, and/or remote sensing imagery. Remote sensing
imagery can also be used to assess stand establishment.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
20
Contract renewals must be tied to long-term verification requirements. Alberta Environment
suggests contract renewals at six year intervals (ARD 2011). Claims for offset credits are
contingent on verification. Long-term monitoring for the ACCP is recommended to be
conducted every three years.
Long-Term Grazing Management Plan
A general grazing management plan is required for the duration of each ACCP contract,
including grazing practices with livestock numbers, grazing season and grazing duration to
promote sustainability. The plan is flexible provided range health is not compromised. Land
managers will discuss concerns and management strategies, and consult with third party
assessors so that grazing management plans can be modified as necessary.
Hay Viability Assessments
It is recommended that a hay viability assessment be developed for the ACCP, based on
discussion and recommendations by the tame forage review team. The assessment of tame
forage stands used for hay production could include the following aspects, where applicable, as
noted by Aasen and Bjorge (2009) or certain indicators used in the tame pasture assessment.
 Species desirability and diversity
 Plant density
 Plant vigour
 Percent legume
 Uniformity of use
 Degree of use
 Plant residue and litter
 Perennial weeds
 Soil erosion
Certain indicators used in the tame pasture assessment (described below) could also be
incorporated in the assessment of tame forage stands used for hay production.
Tame Pasture Assessments
The long-term success of cropland conversion to tame pasture can be efficiently evaluated using
tame pasture health indicators to provide a rapid determination of the ecological status (RRMP
2004). Pasture health indicators are used to ensure that grazing practices are not degrading the
long-term potential or carrying capacity of the pasture (Moen 1998).
Time must be allowed for a stand to be established and healthy, as indicated by tame pasture
health assessment. Third-party professionals will assess tame pastures in order to show
maintenance or improvement in health. A documented grazing plan may be provided to the
third-party evaluator, or it may be developed and reviewed by the third-party evaluator,
including dialogue and discussion with the land owner/manager.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
21
Long-term verification relies on indicators of conversion success and biodiversity. Indicators of
tame pasture health are compared to similar locations in the surrounding area or in published
data. Tame pasture health is assessed in different ways by different organizations. Indicators
used in pasture health assessment for areas applicable to the tame pasture are shown in Table 9.
The indicators used by Adams et al. (2009) (Table 9) are the components recommended for use
by third-party professionals for long-term verification of pasture health within the ACCP. These
indicators are listed in the right-hand column of Table 9, with reasons for excluding indicators
used by other jurisdictions.
Table 9. Hay and pasture health indicators applicable to the Parkland region.
Indicator
Indicators Used by Others
AB
AB
AB
BC
Erichsen
Arychuk and
Lastiwka
(2006)
Adams
et al.
(2009)
Alberta
Env.
(2010)
BC
MAFF
(2005)
Indicators
Recommended for
ACCP Verification for
Parkland Tame Pasture
Systems
Legume content
√
Invasive/noxious species present
√
√
√
√
√
Invasive/noxious species cover
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Invasive/noxious species
distribution
√
√
Soil erosion
√
√
√
√
Soil movement or loss
√
√
√
√
Bare soil/ground
√
√
Soil compaction
√
Included in erosion
√
√
√
√
√
Litter (for hydrologic function;
protect soil)
√
√
√
√
√
Desirable species
√
√
√
√
√
√
Representive age and size of
desirable species
Desirable species indicate vigour
√
√
√
Plant density
√
√
√
√
Annual production
Woody re-growth cover and
distribution
Tame Parkland Framework
√
√
√
√
Could be an option
√
Plant mortality/ decadence
Not required
√
landys@telusplanet.net
Could be used in
ungrazed holdings
√
February 2013
22
The tame forages health assessment score sheet (Adams et al. 2009, Appendix 1) is to be used in
the ACCP by third-party professionals to assess all indicators at a similar time; a score is
determined by following the detailed instructions in Adams et al. (2009). Professionals require
training and practice to become familiar and experienced with tame pasture health assessment.
They will then be able to perform more rapid visual assessments that fulfill assessment
requirements.
Two additional indicators not used by Adams et al. (2009) are also recommended: legume
content and soil compaction. Legume content is required to validate the particular category of
ACCP eligibility based on the requirement for fertilizer (Table 1). Legume cover is a
recommended indicator, as measured by canopy cover. The “desirable species indicate vigour”
indicator in Table 9 requires diagnostic skills and recognition of compromised plants. Aasen and
Bjorge (2009) provide valuable information on the recognition of forage diseases and pests.
Numerous indicators in Table 9, including bare soil, plant density, desirable species, woody regrowth cover and distribution, and soil compaction provide supporting information on the
potential need for rejuvenation. Interpretation of data based on these indicators will help
producers and third-party professionals to make decisions regarding the choice of appropriate
techniques to rejuvenate the forage stand.
Barriers and Opportunities for Adoption
This section focuses on factors that will promote the success of the Alberta Cropland Conversion
Protocol, including knowledge gained from previous conversion programs.
Lessons Learned from Previous Conversion Programs
This section provides a brief background regarding completed or on-going conservation
programs for tame forages in western Canada and the United States. A more detailed analysis of
these programs is required so that useful aspects can potentially be used in the Alberta Cropland
Conversion Protocol.
Permanent Cover Canada Program
The Agriculture Canada Permanent Cover program (PCP) (sign-up years 1989 to 1992) provided
one-time payments to western Canadian producers for the conversion of annual cropland to
pasture land. A caveat was registered on the PCP land to prevent land disturbance during the
contract years. Remuneration under the Permanent Cover program began at $50 per hectare in
1989, and was increased in 1990 to $75 for ten-year contracts and to $160 per hectare for 21-year
contracts. Verification and management were required for all contracts, and forage rejuvenation
was required to keep the stands productive under 21-year contracts.
The Permanent Cover program successfully promoted the conversion of cultivated land to
pasture systems in western Canada. More than 585,000 acres (230,000 ha) were converted to
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
23
pasture under this program (Hilliard et al. 2009). This represented an increase of only about 1%
of the previous 55,854,000 acres (21,757,000 ha) of natural and hay land in the Prairie Provinces
in 1992 (Statistics Canada 2012). The vast majority (90%) of respondents indicated the
Permanent Cover program helped their farm operations, according to a survey conducted by
Hilliard and Fomradas (2009). Only 4% of the overall total lands enrolled in the program were
converted back to annual cropping by 2009. Of the total contracts in Alberta, only 3.9% were
liquidated prior to their expiration at 10 or 21 years.
Greencover Canada Program
One component of the Agriculture Canada Greencover program (2003 to 2008) was to provide
payments to western Canadian producers for the conversion of annual cropland to pasture land.
Greencover administered ten-year land use agreements, and the youngest contracts expire in
2018 (ARD 2011). The Land Conversion component of Greencover accounted for
approximately 59% of overall program expenditures (AAFC 2008).
Greencover conversion contracts required at least 40 contiguous acres on the same quarter
section. Two one-time payments were as follows (AAFC 2008):

$20 per acre for tame forage or trees; $75 per acre for native species.

$25 per acre after establishment and inspection of perennial cover, contingent upon
signing a ten-year land-use agreement.
An audit of the Greencover program (AAFC 2008, Table 10) found no fiscal issues, and
recommended a simplification of the contribution agreements within the Land Conversion
component.
Table 10. Audit of Greencover Contracts.
Greencover Land
Conversion Program
Number
Total Value
Percentage
of Total
Average
Value
Contracts Audited
73
$392,100
2.4%
$5,371.23
Total Contracts
3130
$16,181,400
100%
$5,169.78
Other Conservation Cover Programs in Western Canada
Ducks Unlimited Canada currently funds a Rangeland Grazing Incentive Program at $10 per
acre.
More than 11,000 producers converted more than 200,000 hectares to perennial cover under
Saskatchewan's Conservation Cover Program in 2001. This represented an increase of less than
1% of the 25,728,000 acres of natural land and hay in Saskatchewan in 2001 (Statistics Canada
2012). Program applicants also planted perennial forages on an additional 60,000 hectares above
those acres eligible under the program.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
24
International Programs
Russillo and Pinter (2009) provide guidance on the design of farm-level programs that provide
ecosystem services through producer practices. They recommend that program design should be
practical, compensate the farmer for data collection, include simple databases, provide
knowledge transfer, and provide threshold values and numerical scoring wherever possible.
Ruto and Garrod (2009) indicate that most farmers prefer short contracts because they increase
flexibility. A review of the conservation reserve program in the U.S.A. provided two key
findings: i) restoration support should be tied to ecosystem services using science-based models,
and ii) agricultural producers favour having varying contract lengths, and this reduces potential
liquidation (Khanna and Ando 2009).
Promoting Program Success in the Alberta Parkland Region
Provide Training
Third party professionals, who are generally agrologists, biologists, or agriculturalists with
significant tame forage field experience and extension skills, will assist with the design and
review of plans for cropland conversion and grazing management, and verify stand establishment
and pasture health. ACCP efficiency will be promoted by providing professional training
programs in topics including the choice of representative sampling locations, understanding soillandscape variability, understanding weed designations, recommending seed mixes for parcels,
the use of density distribution charts, imagery interpretation, and assessment of litter and plant
cover. Similar training programs have been conducted to improve the professional practice of
agrologists and biologists working with the Alberta Reclamation Criteria (Alberta Environment
2010). These programs have been implemented as user pay programs, and training for the
ACCP can follow the same model. Training will allow professionals to improve their skill set
and therefore be more qualified than competitors who do not take the training.
Franzluebbers et al. (2012) recommend availability of training for producers through
demonstration programs that can showcase on-farm research with examples of ecologically
sound pasture systems. They also recommend that mentoring programs could also be available
for producers. Mentoring programs would focus on grazing management and practices to extend
the grazing season and reduce feeding costs.
Turning Barriers into Opportunities
Barriers faced by ranching operations in western Canada can potentially be reduced by
conversion of cropland to tame forages (Table 11).
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
25
Table 11. Ranching barriers and related opportunities related to tame forage conversion.
Barriers for Long-Term
Forage
Opportunities for Conversion to Tame Forage
Long-season winter feeding and
associated high costs.
Tame forage lands can be planned and managed to have staggered
grazing seasons. A diverse array of tame forage types can extend the
grazing season and shorten the feeding season using techniques such
as stockpiled grazing. Managers must ensure protein levels are
adequate and snow cover does not limit grazing.
Drought frequency presents a
risk for grazing production, and
this sometimes leads to herd
downsizing.
Choose hardy pasture species mixes that are tolerant to pressures
such as grazing and drought. Farming operations that have different
pastures with different seasonal growth patterns can be more resilient.
Intensive mechanical
rejuvenation is frequently used
when stands lose viability.
Non-eligibility for intensive mechanical rejuvenation within the
ACCP will promote trials and testing of low-impact rejuvenation
methods.
Promoting Awareness
Tame forage pasture or hay production are a relatively low cost land use with ecosystem benefits
including erosion control, enhanced water quality, water retention and regulation, wildlife,
recreational fishing, pollination services, honey production, and carbon sequestration (Kosinski
2012). Promoting awareness of the long-term benefits of converting from cultivated annual
crops to tame forage stands will enhance the potential success of the program. Ranchers will be
more amenable to a program promoting the ecosystem benefits of tame forages than to a
program that is solely promoted as greenhouse gas mitigation.
Remuneration for Conversion Costs
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) has developed cost and return budgets for
several forage crops in Alberta, including timothy hay production (ARD 2001a), and creeping
red fescue operations (ARD 2001b). ARD has also developed a crop enterprise cost and return
calculator for export timothy production (ARD 2003d). The ARD AgriProfit$ website also
provides tools for the economics of beef production related to land and livestock use (ARD
2009). Forage production costs are summarized for the Black soil zone of Saskatchewan in
Table 12.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
26
Table 12. Costs for forage production per year in the Black soil zone.
Adapted from Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture (2007).
Soil Zone
Forage Mixture
Black
Smooth bromegrass and alfalfa
Establishment
Cost per acre
$59
Annual Cost per
acre (7 years of
production)
$126
Note: Establishment costs include costs for spraying, seeding, seed, and fertilizer.
Note: Total cost includes interest on land investment, establishment, production, maintenance and breaking to
return to annual cultivation.
Fencing, including supplies and labour for a four-strand barb wire fence, was estimated to be
$3720 per mile (approximately $23.25 per acre if fenced on all four sides) (Saskatchewan
Ministry of Agriculture 2009). The Alberta customs rate data indicates that fencing costs range
from $800. to $3,000. per mile (ARD 2007b). Electric fencing costs approximately $1,000. per
mile. The conversion to tame forage pasture may also require the cost of water development.
Consistency with Existing Programs
This potential program must mesh constructively with other programs currently being discussed,
such as payments for ecosystem services. The ACCP should be a “stackable” program as long as
the standards of all potential programs are made compatible. A detailed analysis is required to
investigate how the currently proposed ACCP may stack with other programs, including the
existing Ducks Unlimited program that pays for conversion to forage species. Potential
remuneration associated with tame forage conversion in the Parkland region also requires a
modeling analysis, possibly with the expertise of Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) and
Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC), with input data including conversion costs,
price ranges for crops such as canola and wheat, and the valuation of tame forage systems.
Promoting Seed Availability
This potential tame forage conversion program could create strong demand that might push
forage seed prices higher over the short term. The program provides a potential opportunity for
additional producers to be involved in forage seed production. Efforts should be synchronized
with existing forage seed producers. There is a need for communication of the potential tame
forage seed demands; the Association of Alberta Co-op Seed Cleaning Plants, the Association of
Alberta Agricultural Fieldmen, and the Agricultural Research and Extension Council of Alberta
(ARECA) can all assist in this role. The website provided by ARECA (foragebeef.ca) would be
particularly useful for future communications.
Selection of Potential Target Areas
An effective ACC program will target locations most amenable to tame forage conversion. The
target area for this framework will be locations in the Parkland region with relatively high
livestock densities, and not in areas that are most sustainable for crop production. Kosinski
(2012) identifies environmentally sensitive marginal land under annual cultivation in various soil
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
27
zones of Alberta. The Black soil zone of the Parkland region has an estimated 185,000 ha of
sensitive marginal land with a high potential for forage conversion. An additional 93,000 ha
occur in the Dark Gray soil zone and 135,000 ha in the Gray soil zone.
Conversion from annual cropping to tame forages and hay production is most suitable for eastern
portions of the Parkland region, for several reasons. Eastern areas of the Parkland are
characterized by higher transport costs for annual crops, and eastern areas (e.g., east of
Edmonton) are also drier than western regions, so forage conversion may offer an option for
increased drought tolerance in pasture or hay production.
The risk of soil salinization is somewhat higher in eastern portions of the Parkland, making it
more ideal for forage conversion. Almost 80% of land managers who responded to a survey for
the Permanent Cover program conducted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada from 1989 to
1992 identified soil degradation issues (erosion or salinity), or poor crop production (Hilliard and
Fomradas 2009) as their reason for enrollment.
The lower human population, low population growth rate, and moderately high livestock
densities of the eastern Parkland region also make this area more ideal for ACCP participation.
Ruto and Garrod (2009) found that areas with limited rural development and relatively low
growth are target areas for programs that focus on the provision of ecosystem services.
Municipalities targeted for tame forage conversion in the eastern portion of the Parkland region
include the northern portion of Special Areas, the Counties of Paintearth and Stettler, and the
M.D. of Provost in the south, through Flagstaff County and the M.D. of Wainwright, to the
County of Minburn in the north.
The Nature Conservancy of Canada identified ecodistricts with a high probability to remain in
annual crop production, including the Olds, Red Deer, Leduc and Vermilion Plains (Riley et al.
2007). Tame forage conversion for a long duration is expected to be a low priority in these
areas.
Uncertainties Posed by Climate Change
Tame forage species that are chosen for their hardiness, re-growth rates, drought tolerance and
resilience to grazing will provide increased protection from climate change. Species that are
chosen solely for their high production value are typically less resilient to unpredictable weather
patterns. Well-planned compatible seed mixes provide more production insurance than
monocultures.
Climate change models indicate the potential for the Parkland area to expand to the north over
time. Tame forage species adapted to the Parkland are almost all suitable for the Dry
Mixedwood and Central Mixedwood Natural Subregions, even though the soils are Dark Gray
Chernozems and Luvisolic soils, as opposed to the Black Chernozems in the Parkland region.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
28
References
Aasen, A., and M. Bjorge. 2009. Alberta forage manual. 2nd Ed. Alberta Agriculture and Rural
Development. Edmonton, Alberta. 348 pp.
Adams, B.W., G. Ehlert, C. Stone, M. Alexander, D. Lawrence, M. Willoughby, D. Moisey, C.
Hincz, A. Burkinshaw, J. Carlson, and K. France. 2009. Range health assessment for
grassland, forest and tame pasture. Public Lands and Forests Division, Alberta
Sustainable Resource Development. Pub. No. T/044. ISBN No. 0-7785-2848-0. 128 pp.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). 2008. Audit Report - Greencover Canada
Program. Office of Audit and Evaluation. Ottawa, Ontario. Available at:
http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1234817744362&lang=eng
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). No Year. Making it work: extending Alberta’s
grazing season. Written by Ground Words Communications. 27 pp.
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD). 2011. Intent to Develop Alberta Offset
System Quantification Protocol: Conversion of Annual Cropland to Perennials.
Edmonton, Alberta. 13 pp.
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD). 1998. Grazing tame pastures effectively.
Available at: www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex113
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD). 2001a. Cost and returns budget for straight
seeded certified timothy. Available at:
www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex109
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD). 2001b. Cost and returns budget for straight
seeded creeping red fescue. Available at:
www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex111
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD). 2003a. Establishing perennial hay and
pasture crops. Available at:
www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex130?opendocument
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD). 2003b. How to purchase high quality
forage seed. Available at:
www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex131?opendocument
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD). 2003c. Forage stand establishment trouble
shooting. Available at:
www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex4859?opendocument
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD). 2003d. Crop Enterprise Cost and Return
Calculator. Available at:
www.agric.gov.ab.ca/app24/costcalculators/crop/getcalcinputs.jsp
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD). 2005a. Perennial forage establishment in
Alberta. Available at: www.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex9682
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
29
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD). 2005b. Fertilizing grass for hay and pasture.
Available at:
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex10473#requirements
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD). 2007a. Perennial forages for saline seeps.
Available at: www.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex11501
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD). 2007b. Custom fencing rates. Available at:
www.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sdd12102/$FILE/fencing.pdf
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD). 2009. AgriProfit$ beef economics.
Available at: www.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/econ12883
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD). 2012. Forage seed mixture calculator.
Available at: www.agric.gov.ab.ca/app19/calc/forageseed/forageseedintro.jsp
Alberta Environment 2010. 2010 reclamation criteria for wellsites and associated facilities for
cultivated lands (includes tame pasture). Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB. 77 pp.
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2012. Quantification
protocol for conservation cropping. Version 1.0. Specified Gas Emitters Regulation.
Edmonton, Alberta. 98 pp. ISBN: 978-0-7785-9627-1 (Printed). ISBN: 978-0-77859628-8 (On-line). Available at: http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8561.pdf
Alberta Soil Informaton Center (ASIC). 2001. AGRASID 3.0. Agricultural Region of Alberta
Soil Inventory Database Verion 3.0. Edited by J.A. Brierley, T.C. Martin, and D.J.
Spiess. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, and Alberta Agriculture,
Food and Rural Development, Conservation and Development Branch. Edmonton,
Alberta. Available: http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/asic
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). 2007. Grazing lease stewardship code of
practice. Edmonton, Alberta. 14 pp.
Association of Alberta Coop Seed Cleaning Plants and the Alberta Seed Growers Association
(AACSCP and ASGA). 2012. Alberta Seed Guide, Fall 2012. 80 pp. Available at:
www.seed.ab.ca/1808072310/index.html
Baron, V.S., A. Campbell Dick, M. Bjorge, and G. Lastiwka. 2004. Stockpiling potential of
perennial forage species adapted to the Canadian western prairie parkland. Agronomy
Journal 96(6):1545-1552.
Baron, V.S., A. Campbell Dick, M. Bjorge, and G. Lastiwka. 2005. Accumulation period for
stockpiling perennial forages in the western Canadian prairie parkland. Agronomy
Journal 97(6):1508-1514.
BCMAFF 2005. Assessing tame pastures. Pasture and Range Health Factsheet No. 4 in series.
B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. 5 pp.
Erichsen Arychuk C. and G. Lastiwka. 2006. Alberta Tame Pasture Scorecard. Available at:
www.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex8267
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
30
Franzluebbers, A.J., L.K. Paine, J.R. Winsten, M. Krome, M.A. Sanderson, K. Ogles, and D.
Thompson. 2012. Well-managed grazing systems: a forgotten hero of conservation.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 67(4):100A-104A.
Hecker, K., and C. Neufeld. 2006. Guide: Restoration Assessment Form and Sheets. Prepared
by Last Mountain Lake National Wildlife Area and Migratory Bird Sanctuary,
Environment Canada – Canadian Wildlife Service. 5 pp.
Hilliard, C., and K. Fomradas. 2009. Permanent forage cover programs, 1989-1992. An
evaluation of medium-term environmental outcomes and program participation.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada- Agri-Environmental Services Branch. Part 11:
Interview study of program participants. Regina, SK. 11 pp.
Hilliard, C., C. Kenny, and K. Fomradas. 2009. Permanent forage cover programs, 1989-1992.
An evaluation of medium-term environmental outcomes. Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada- Agri-Environmental Services Branch. Regina, SK. 34 pp.
Iwaasa, A.D., P.G. Jefferson, and M. Schellenberg. 2003. Selecting introduced and/or native
perennial forages to extend your growing season. Semi-arid Prairie Agricultural
Research Centre. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Swift Current, SK. 4 pp.
Janzen, R., and K. Haugen-Kozyra. 2012. Science discussion document for proposed
conversion to perennials protocol. Submitted to Alberta Agriculture and Rural
Development. Edmonton, Alberta. 42 pp.
Khanna, M., and A.W. Ando. 2009. Science, economics and the design of agricultural
conservation programmes in the US. J. Environmental Planning and Management
52(5):575-592.
Kirychuk, B. 2012. Trends in western Canadian grasslands – The good, the bad…
Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. Saskatoon, SK. Powerpoint presentation.
Kosinski, S. 2012. The value of Alberta’s forage industry: a multi-level analysis. Alberta
Agriculture and Rural Development, and Alberta Forage Industry Network. 48 pp.
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/deptdocs.nsf/All/for13923
Mensah, F., J. Schoenau, and S. Mahli. 2003. Soil Carbon changes in cultivated and excavated
land converted to grasses in east-central Saskatchewan. Biogeochemistry. 63: 85-92.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the United States Dept. of Agriculture
(USDA). 2009a. Understanding seed certification and seed labels. Plant Materials
Technical Note No. 10. 6 pp.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of USDA. 2009b. Understanding seeding
rates, recommended planting rates, and pure live seed (PLS). Plant Materials Technical
Note No. 11. 4 pp.
Paragon, 2010. Technical background document for conversion to perennials protocol. Phase 1.
Paragon Soil and Environmental Consulting Inc. Prepared for the Technical Working
Group and Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. Edmonton, AB. 55 pp.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
31
Popp, J.D., W.P. McCaughey, R.D.H. Cohen, T.A. McAllister, and W. Majak. Enhancing
pasture productivity with alfalfa: A review. Can J. Plant Sci. 80:513-519.
Peace River Forage Association (PRFA) of British Columbia of B.C. 2000. Peace region
ranchers knife life into forage fields. Forage Fact #1. Sept. 2000.
Riley, J.L., S.E. Green and K.E. Brodribb. 2007. A conservation blueprint for Canada’s prairies
and parklands. Nature Conservancy Canada. Toronto, Ontario. 226 pp.
Russillo, A., and L. Pinter. 2009. Linking farm-level measurement systems to environmental
sustainability outcomes: Challenges and ways forward. Prepared for Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada by the International Institute for Sustainable Development. 66 pp.
Ruto, E., and G. Garrod. 2009. Investigating farmers’ preferences for the design of agrienvironment schemes: a choice experiment approach. J. Environmental Planning and
Management, 52(5):631-647.
Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. 2007. Fertilizing Tame Pastures. Available at:
http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/default.aspx?dn=93ae682c-788b-4eff-87bd-026b2d249ccd
Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. 2007. Dryland forage production costs. Available at:
http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Dryland_Forage_Production_Costs_PDF
Saskatchewan Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization. 2003. Forage crop production guide
2003. Regina, Saskatchewan. 20 pp.
Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. 2009. Fencing costs. Fact Sheet. Available at:
http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/default.aspx?dn=c339823b-d410-4b8e-898746957c437d5a
Statistics Canada. 2012. Farm Area. Contained in: Canola area surpassed spring wheat area in
Alberta. Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/95-640-x/2012002/prov/48eng.htm#Farm_area
Wentz, D. 1997. Perennial crops for salinity control in discharge areas. Alberta Agriculture,
Food and Rural Development. Agdex 518-15.
West, B. No Year. Cattle wintering sites: managing for good stewardship. Prepared by Alberta
Cattle Commission, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, Alberta Agriculture,
Food and Rural Development, and the Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture
program. 21 pp.
Winter, G.R. 1981. Management of forage systems. Vol. 1. Efficiency of forage production in
Canada. Published by Olds College, Olds AB.
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
32
Appendix 1
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013
33
Tame Pasture Health Assessment - SCORE SHEET (Adapted from Adams et al. 2009)
Site _______________________ Observer _________________ Date _____________ Photo # _________
Legal Location ________________________________ Special Observations _______________________
GPS Coord (NAD 83) Lat. ________ Long. _______ Estimated usable forage production______
SCORING (circle appropriate values and add their sum to the Score box)
Dominant Species
Grasses &
Cover
Legumes Cover % Forbs
Cover % Shrubs
Grasslikes
%
Cover
%
Trees
Cover
%
Plant Community Name (code)______________________________________________
1. Do introduced forage plants dominate the site?
1A Tame Pasture
1B Modified Tame
Pasture
2.
3.
4.
9
5
5
0
Comments
Score
What kind of plants are on the site? Shift in stand composition.
2.1 Tame & desirable native
14 7 0
Comments
2.2 Weedy & disturbance
14 7 0
Is the site covered by litter?
Litter cover & distribution
25
16
8 0
Score
Comments
Score
Is there accelerated soil erosion? Site normally Stable / Unstable (circle):
4.1 Erosion Evidence
10 7 4
0
Comments
4.2 Bare Soil
5.
12
9
5
3
Are noxious weeds present?
5.1 Cover
5 3
5.2 Density Distribution
6.1 Cover
6.2 Density Distribution
1
1
0
0
Human Caused Bare Soil (%)
Dominant
species
Cover
%
Density
Dist.
5 3 1 0
Does this site have woody re-growth?
6 3 0
Dominant species Cover %
4
2
0
Score
Infestation
Size (ac or
ha)
Density Dist.
Score
Score
Comments
Soil compaction (Alberta Environment 2010) (root restrictions may indicate need for rejuvenation) (circle
appropriate description):
No restriction
Slight (mostly inped roots) Moderate (mostly exped roots) Severe (root mats & exped
roots).
Site Score (total score)
Grazing Intensity Est. long Term (circle): U U-L L-M M M-H H
Observed Utilization _______% Vegetation Height _________ cm/inches
Trend (apparent – circle): Upward
Stable
Downward
Unknown
0--------------------------------------------------------------50------------------------------75---------------------------100
<50% (Unhealthy)
50 – 74% (Healthy with problems) 75 – 100% (Healthy)
Tame Parkland Framework
landys@telusplanet.net
February 2013