Productivity Score Methodology

Township Canada Ag Parcel View · v1.0 · Last updated 2026-05-23

The Township Canada Productivity Score is a 0–100 composite indicator of the agricultural productivity potential of a Canadian quarter-section. It is designed to be:

• Defensible — every input is traceable to an authoritative public dataset
• Comparable — the same formula applies to every quarter-section in Canada
• Transparent — this page documents the full calculation
• Informational — it is not a formal appraisal, and is not a substitute for one

If you are an appraiser, broker, lender, or land agent reading this page to decide whether you can cite our score: please read all of it, including the Known limitations section at the bottom.

At a glance

SCORE = round(
  ( 0.50 × Soil productivity (0–100)
  + 0.30 × CLI capability (0–100)
  + 0.20 × Crop diversity (0–100)
  ) × Drought modifier (0.85–1.00)
)

The four components

1. Soil productivity (weight: 50%)

In Alberta — uses the Land Suitability Rating System (LSRS) productivity score directly from AGRASID 4.1. LSRS is the federal-provincial standard for rating dryland-spring-cereal productivity on a 0–100 scale, accounting for climate (T), moisture (M), soil (S), water (W), continuous cropping (C), and pattern (P) limiters. Source: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada / Alberta Agriculture and Irrigation.

Outside Alberta — uses an estimated value derived from the Soil Landscapes of Canada (SLC) v3.2 soil order and great group, mapped to an approximate productivity range. The mapping is documented below.

When the SLC fallback is used, the UI labels it explicitly. The fallback is a coarse estimate, not a measured value. Confidence outside Alberta is materially lower than inside Alberta. Phase 2 will introduce provincial soil indices (SAMA Soil Final Rating for Saskatchewan, MASC Productivity Index for Manitoba) to close this gap.

2. CLI capability (weight: 30%)

The Canada Land Inventory (CLI) 1:50K Land Capability for Agriculture classifies every cultivable parcel in Canada into one of seven classes (1 = best, 7 = no capability) plus Class O (organic) and unrated areas. CLI is the national agricultural-capability baseline and has been used in farmland valuation and policy since the 1960s.

We invert and normalize the class to a 0–100 score:

The CLI limiter (the single-letter code accompanying the class — e.g. M for moisture, T for topography) is shown in the UI but does not change the score. It provides context for why a parcel is rated where it is.

3. Crop diversity (weight: 20%)

The 5-year crop diversity index is derived from the AAFC Annual Crop Inventory (the same dataset that powers our crop-history strip). For each quarter-section, we compute a Shannon diversity index across the five most recent annual classifications, then scale to 0–100.

A higher diversity score implies a more sustainable rotation, lower disease/pest pressure, and a more resilient long-term productivity profile. A persistent monoculture lowers the score even on otherwise excellent soil — a deliberate choice that rewards good agronomic practice.

If the parcel's dominant land use is not Cropland (e.g., Grassland, Forest), the diversity score is set to a neutral 50 to avoid penalizing non-cropped land for the absence of rotation.

4. Drought modifier (multiplier: 0.85–1.00)

The Canadian Drought Monitor (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) publishes drought-severity polygons monthly. The current month's status modifies the composite score downward to reflect present-condition risk:

The drought modifier is a present-condition signal, not a long-run trend. Two parcels with identical soil and capability can score differently this month if one falls within a D2 polygon. Hover over the drought status in the UI to see the data date and Drought Monitor source.

Worked example

A quarter-section near Stony Plain, Alberta:

Data sources and refresh cadence

The composite score is materialized nightly. Component dates are shown alongside the score in the UI and on every PDF report.

Known limitations

The score is a useful summary, not an authoritative judgment. We are explicit about its limitations so you can use it well:

1. The CLI dataset is decades old in most of Canada. Class boundaries reflect 1960s–80s mapping. Local land improvements (drainage, irrigation, amendments) are not reflected. Field-level appraisal still requires on-the-ground verification.
2. The SLC fallback outside Alberta is coarse. SLC polygons are ~1:1M scale; many quarter-sections sit on a single polygon and receive an averaged value. Provincial-scale soil indices (SAMA in SK, MASC in MB) will materially improve this in Phase 2.
3. The score does not include market context. Two parcels with the same score can have very different market values depending on proximity to elevators, processing facilities, irrigation infrastructure, urban-fringe pressure, and comparable sales history. Phase 2 will add comparable-sales overlays (where licensing allows).
4. The drought modifier is a current-month signal. It does not encode long-run drought trend or climate exposure. A parcel under D4 this month may have been at D0 for the previous decade. Treat the modifier as "right now," not "always."
5. The crop-diversity weight rewards rotation, which is a proxy. A parcel under a true high-value monoculture (e.g., certified seed) may score lower than a generic rotation of equal economic output. The index reflects agronomic resilience, not crop economics.
6. The score does not predict yield or revenue. It indicates productivity potential under typical management. Actual outcomes depend on operator skill, inputs, weather, and markets.
7. The score is not a USPAP-compliant appraisal. It is an informational input that may inform appraisal preparation. A formal opinion of value requires an AACI, ARA, or equivalently credentialed appraiser.

Roadmap

Phase 2 candidates that, if shipped, will refine the score:

• SAMA Soil Final Rating for Saskatchewan quarter-sections (replaces SLC fallback in SK)
• MASC Productivity Index (A–J) for Manitoba (replaces SLC fallback in MB)
• SCIC / AFSC / MASC risk-zone polygons as a regional context layer
• AAFC Agroclimate 1991–2020 normals (GDD, CHU, frost-free days) as a climate component
• Tile drainage layer for Ontario (adds a drainage adjustment for OMAFRA-mapped drains)
• Comparable sales overlay (SK CLSD, AB municipal transfers, MPAC neighbourhood bands) as a market-context layer alongside (not inside) the score

Score weights and component definitions may evolve. Every change will be versioned. The current methodology is v1.0.

Citing the score

If you cite the Township Canada Productivity Score in a report or analysis, please reference:

Township Canada Productivity Score v1.0, accessed date. Methodology: townshipcanada.com/learn/ag/score-methodology

Questions or feedback on the methodology? Email hello@townshipcanada.com.