Agricultural production profiles of land systems within the county of Stettler, Alberta.

68 Pages·1994·3.3 MB·English

by  Hiley, J

A
Agricultural Production Profiles
of Land Systems
within the County of Stettler, Alberta
Agriculture
Canada
I /dlberra
631. Research AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND
L253 Branch RURAL DEVELOPMENT
C A E 8 A
C 94-34 Conservation and Development Branch
c. 3
Citation
This document may be cited as:
Hiley, J.C., L.C. Marciak, D.L. Beever and C.R. King. 1994.
Agricultural production profiles ofland systems within
the County of Stettler, Alberta. Centre for Land and
Biological Resources Research Contribution No. 94-34.
Edmonton: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Alberta
Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 55 pp.
m
AGRICULTURE ^S&v
V
CAANMAADHAA v->
CENTRAL LIBRARY
BIBLIOTHEQUE CENTRALE
VW3L, EDIFICE SIR JOHN CARLING BLDG. M/J
OTTAWA, ONTARIO sS/
N^s C—ANAD—A K1A 0-C—5 r^r
/->
<fe
"^U^NADIENNE Sfcj£>^
Copies of this publication are available from:
Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
Conservation and Development Branch
206, 7000 - 1 1 3 Street
Edmonton, Alberta T6H 5T6
Telephone - [phone]
Fax - [phone]
Agricultural Production Profiles
of Land Systems within
the County of Stettler, Alberta
J.C. Hiley
Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Edmonton, Alberta
L.C. Marciak
D.L. Beever
Conservation and Development Branch
Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
Edmonton, Alberta
and
C.R. King
Edmonton, Alberta
February 1994
CLBRR Contribution No. 94-34
i^3J13.Cia. Agriculture - Building a Healthy Environment AIILaSTIQ

Executive Summary
This report develops, tests and assesses a method to integrate and summarize agricultural
production data with biophysical landscape units. The method produces an effective
framework for municipal soil and water conservation planning.
Present methods to integrate production data with landscape units work poorly at the
municipal level. These methods use federal Census of Agriculture data, the most consistent
and detailed source of farm-level production data. The data are summarized by enumeration
area, the smallest unit for which Statistics Canada routinely provides data. Enumeration areas,
however, do not coincide with biophysical landscapes. Thus, when the two datasets are
combined, valuable data are lost and production summaries are too general for use in municipal
planning.
The study method processes Census data by farm headquarters to provide more accurate
summaries of agricultural production for landscape units of a municipality. The method is
developed using the 1986 Census of Agriculture for the County of Stettler, Alberta. This rural
municipality has in place a biophysical landscape classification called land systems. Land
systems are biophysical units with similar climate, soils and landscape features at a scale
appropriate for municipal soil and water conservation planning. The classification shows 23
land systems in the County.
Four steps integrate and summarize agricultural production data for the 23 land systems:
• linking farm headquarters records and associated production data to a land system;
• describing land resource characteristics of the land systems;
• summarizing agricultural production by land system; and
• grouping of the land systems into five broad groups for comparative analyses.
A test of the method shows that farming in the three groups of land systems in the Black soil
zone is more productive but not more efficient compared to farming in the two groups in the
Dark Brown soil zone. The Black soil zone groups have much larger gross sales per hectare of
total farm area. However, they put much more into production, both in absolute and relative
terms. They show higher expenses, more crop expenses and greater capital investment.
Cultivated land is more extensive, as are barley and oilseeds. Summerfallow is not as widely
practised. Fertilizers and herbicides are used more extensively, and fertilizers are applied more
intensively. The two Dark Brown soil zone groups have sales to expenses ratios similar to
those for the Black soil zone groups, with higher machinery expenses and lower crop expenses,
and more spring wheat and summerfallow.
The test also shows that within both soil zones production is less efficient in land systems with
extensive biophysical limitations to annual cropping. For the two groups in the Black soil zone
with topographical and texture limitations, a lower sales to expenses ratio is associated with
more livestock and less crop expenses. In terms of land use, the two groups show a lower
proportion of cultivated land, more feeds and forages and less wheat. In the Dark Brown soil
zone, the group with extensive areas of coarse textured parent materials reports less efficient
production in conjunction with more livestock expenses.
Comparison of production profiles within a group shows more subtle differences in the
allocation of resources to crop and livestock production. At this relatively detailed scale,
profiles provide baseline descriptions of agricultural production for a land system.
An assessment of the study method shows that it should be replicable (repeatable) and
applicable to municipal conservation planning. Conceptually, it can be replicated for another
municipality or Census of Agriculture inventory, subject to the availability of land system and
Census farm headquarters files. To test the method's applicability to conservation planning, the
issue of wind erosion is considered. Subtle production differences are noted in land systems
with a potential wind erosion rating of "severe." These differences guide the selection of
conservation projects in a land system. For example, in land systems with economically
efficient crop production, the emphasis may be on surface residue management projects. For
land systems with less efficient crop production, the focus may be on perennial forage
projects. Perennial forage projects may also be emphasized in land systems with efficient
livestock production.
Further research is needed to demonstrate the replicability of the study method and to enhance
its value for municipal conservation planning. It is suggested that the method be repeated for a
different Census year and a different municipality. To improve the applicability of the profiles to
conservation planning, several topics require further study including: investigation of potential
biases in data integration; development of more sophisticated statistics on the economic
structure of agricultural production; classification of farms on the basis of similar cropping
systems; evaluation of the 1991 Census of Agriculture Land Management Module; and the
addition of a profile on livestock production. The opportunity also exists to expand this analysis
into areas such as program planning and policy development. The suggested research will
result in multi-year, comparable production databases in support of both municipal and
provincial conservation planning in agricultural regions of Alberta.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the contributions of several individuals during the initial efforts to
summarize farm headquarters data within land systems of the County of Leduc, Alberta. These
people are: Wayne Pettapiece and Ted Huffman (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada); Keith
Toogood (Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development); and Rick Burroughs and Brenda
Clarke (Statistics Canada). As well, input received from many individuals in the County over a
five year period has been invaluable to the continued refinement of the method.
The present research has been supported by specialists in several organizations. Timely inputs
were received from: Tony Brierley, Gerry Coen, Don Acton, Paula Brand and Les Usher
(Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada); Lynda Kemp and Brenda Clarke (Statistics Canada); and
Tamara Hursin, Brian West, Jan Kwiatkowski, Brad Lowrie and Gerald Stark (Alberta
Agriculture, Food and Rural Development).
Editorial comments from the following people are greatly appreciated: Ted Huffman (Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada); and Chuck Sterling and Coreen Moroziuk (Alberta Agriculture, Food
and Rural Development).
Financial contributions have been provided by the Conservation and Development Branch of
Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, the Canada-Alberta Environmentally
Sustainable Agriculture (CAESA) Agreement, and the Canada-Alberta Soil Conservation
Initiative (CASCI).
in
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada - Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada
http://archive.org/details/agriculturalprod9434hile
Contents
Page
Executive Summary
Acknowledgements
ii
List of Tables v
List of Figures v
1 .0 Introduction 1
1.1 Objective 1
1 .2 Municipal Conservation Planning 1
1.3 Landscape Approach to Municipal Conservation Planning 1
1 .4 Agricultural Production Data by Land System 2
2.0 Method 5
2.1 Linking Census Records to Land Systems 5
2.2 Land Resource Descriptions 5
2.3 Agricultural Production Profiles (APPs) 5
2.3.1 Data Integration 5
2.3.2 Cash Flow 6
2.3.3 Capital Investment 6
2.3.4 Land Use 6
2.3.5 Land Management 6
2.4 Comparative Analyses 7
3.0 Results 9
3.1 Land System Groups 9
3.1.1 Group Land Resource Description 9
3.1.2 Aggregate Group Agricultural Production Profiles (AGAPPs) 12
3.1.3 Summary 15
3.2 Land Systems by Group 16
3.2.1 Castor Plain/Central (Group 1) 16
3.2.2 Bashaw and Delburne Uplands/West (Group 2) 19
3.2.3 Castor Plain/West and Central (Group 3) 23
3.2.4 Rumsey Upland/South (Group 4) 26
3.2.5 Castor Plain/Southeast (Group 5) 29
4.0 Discussion 33
4.1 Replicability of Method 33
4.2 Applicability of APPs to Municipal Conservation Planning 34
4.3 Topics for Future Research 36
4.3.1 Demonstrated Replicability of Method 36
4.3.2 More Applicable APP Information 37
.
Contents, continued
Page
5.0 Conclusions 39
5.1 Method 39
5.2 Associations Between Agricultural Production and Land Systems 40
6.0 References 41
Appendices 43
Appendix 1 . Glossary 45
Appendix 2. Agricultural Production Profile for Group 1 : Castor Plain/Central 50
Appendix 3. Agricultural Production Profile for Group 2: Bashaw and Delburne
Uplands/West 51
Appendix 4. Agricultural Production Profile for Group 3: Castor Plain/West and
Central 52
Appendix 5. Agricultural Production Profile for Group 4: Rumsey Upland/South ... 53
Appendix 6. Agricultural Production Profile for Group 5: Castor Plain/Southeast ... 54
Appendix 7. Location of Land Systems Within the County of Stettler 55
Tables
1 Land Resource Characteristics of Land System Groups 11
2. Aggregate Group Agricultural Production Profiles (AGAPPs) 13
Figures
1. Land System Groups within the County of Stettler, Alberta 10
2. Selected Variables for Aggregate Group Agricultural Production
Profiles (AGAPPs) 14
3. Selected Variables for Group 1: Castor Plain/Central 17
4. Selected Variables for Group 2: Bashaw and Delburne Uplands/West 21
5. Selected Variables for Group 3: Castor Plain/West and Central 24
6. Selected Variables for Group 4: Rumsey Upland/South 28
7. Selected Variables for Group 5: Castor Plain/Southeast 30
VI