What'sHappened to the Spring Dust Storms?

By Juanita Polegi, P Ag

Conservation Agrologist

There's a story going around aboutan experienced farmer who says that in the 50 years since he's been farming, hehasn't seen a normal spring yet. But to those with good memories or completediaries, the early spring of 2000 has seemed a lot like 1988. The differencebetween the two springs, however, is that the dust storms we had in '88 weren'tas prevalent in 2000.

The weather conditions of the twoyears can be compared fairly easily because Sask. Ag & Food has beenkeeping records for several years. Terry Karwandy, an Agricultural Economistwith the Statistics Branch, sent me a bundle of 1988 Crop & WeatherReports. The first thing I did was to compare precipitation levels between the2 years for the R.M. of Lumsden #189 and the R.M. of Corman Park #344.

The precipitation levels are alittle higher in 2000 than in 1988 but not high enough to keep all the soil athome. So then I compared the written analyses for each week of that time periodin the 2 years.

Beginning with the 1988 reports,the first report, dated April 11 shows a map of the crop districts. The topsoilmoisture conditions for districts 1A to 7B were rated as fair to poor, whiledistricts 5B, 5A, 8B, 9A & 9B were rated as good. There was very littlespring run-off so dugouts were either low or dry. Wind erosion was reported inmany parts of the south west and west central Saskatchewan. This was followedby the statement; "Field cultivation has been undertaken to alleviate thisproblem." And finally, it was reported that seeding had already begun inthe Radville area.

Between the April 18 and June 6reports from 1988, strong winds were reported three more times. Above normaltemperatures were reported in the April 18, May 30 and June 6 crop reports. ByJune 6, the report indicated that "Much ofSaskatchewan is under a great deal of heat stress".

The first report of 2000 alsoindicates that snowfall amounts across the province were below average but anearly April snowstorm improved the topsoil moisture conditions from what theywere at the end of March. The April 24 report indicated that winds caused somesoil drifting in south central regions. Most of the province had fair to goodmoisture conditions on cropland.

The May 1 & 8 reports of 2000indicated that winds had dried up the topsoil and had caused soil erosion inmany areas. By May 15, the southern grain belt had received some good moisturebut moisture conditions continued to deteriorate in the central and northerngrain belts. By the time the May 23 report was out, some of the farmers in thenorthern grain belt were waiting for moisture to finish seeding theirshallow-seeded crops. The Stats Branch continued to receive reports of somefrost and wind damage.

The May 30 edition of the reportshowed that the topsoil moisture situation had greatly improved on the easternside of the province but it continued to be dry on the west side. Strong windsand cool temperatures were making it difficult to do any spraying. The windshad caused soil erosion and some damage to emerging seedlings.

While the above discussion isn't astatistical analysis, there are some parallels between the 2 springs. In eitherspring, there wasn't a lot of run-off or a lot of spring moisture. Both springshad several days of strong winds. There was lots of dust in the air in '88 butnot so much in 2000. That's not to say there wasn't any soil in the air. Forthe dedicated listeners of CBC Radio, we all heard the host of the MorningEdition describe the dust storm she found herself in near Watrous during theMay long weekend. And there are many stories of people driving in various partsof the province that encountered some soil drifting across the road. Yet thegeneral feeling is that the amount of soil in the air this spring was less thanthat in 1988. What made the difference?

Dr. Fran Walley, a soil scienceprofessor at the University of Saskatchewan said she believes the reduction indust in the air this spring is a direct result of conservation tillagepractices. "When driving down the back roads this spring, it was very easyto see the impact of conservation tillage", she said. "Whereintensive tillage had been used on the field, the field was literally in theditch. But where fields had been direct seeded, there wasn't a problem withsoil in the air". Fran said a drive out into the country this springshowed that conservation tillage is a good production practise. "It's easyto make an argument for conservation tillage especially in dry springs. Not allof Saskatchewan was blowing and conservation tillage played a big role inkeeping soil in the field and out of the ditch."

Dr. Les Henry, also from theUniversity of Saskatchewan, said that 1988 was a much hotter and drier yearthan 2000 but he agrees that over the last several years, the dust in the airin the early spring has been reduced. "It used to be that there was dirtin the air every spring. Now, since the amount of summerfallow has dropped andthere are fewer tillage operations in the spring, you see dust only here andthere. There are no big clouds of dust like there used to be."

Sometimes in this farming game, itseems the harder you try, the more you spin your wheels. Yet in the area ofsoil conservation, Saskatchewan farmers have been making strides forward. Asthe number of passes across the field have been reduced, the ability to keepthe soil at home has increased. Hats off to all those who have changed theirtillage system from 1988. The tangible benefits to the change may seem smallbut the intangible benefits are huge! The slogan from the old Save Our Soilsprogram still rings true: Soil conservation … it's in our hands.