This was an 8hr, two night presentation on the 10 year drought of the upper and lower midwest in the 1930's. Video is available through PBS.com for ≈$25.
The pictures showed unbelievable devastation! It's hard to imagine living in those conditions. Although the drought may not have been caused by the farming practices, the severity of the dust storms and slow recovery certainly can be laid at the feet of those practices and the attitude of the land owners. The program centered on the social aspect. I wish that more time had been spent on what went into solving the agriculture issues.
There is a growing consensus that the weather will become more extreme in the years ahead. Farmer attitudes expressed in the PBS program are still with us today. Many deny that they have an erosion problem, and yet, when you look at their land, they have no residue to protect the surface, and the land is worked to a fine powder. When the lands fragility is not recognized by it's Stewards, serious erosion from water and wind is inevitable.
The program stated that late in the 30's farmers wanted government to do something about those farmers who were continuing to allow their farms to blow away. The volume of dust coming off those fields was impacting crops of others that were improving their land. I see that potential today. Many no-tillers are disgusted with neighbors dirt that is deposited on their land and fill the drainage ditches. In our case it is mostly deposition from water. The only real impact from wind, that I remember, was back in Oct. of 1992 (fire storm). Some of our neighbors hilltops lost more than an inch of soil. Some of this soil was deposited in deep drifts at other locations. We experienced this. Drifted dirt was loose with no structure, and the tractors could not get enough grip to climb the hill effected. For a couple of years we had to work those particular areas from the top down.
We already see the public crying for government interference. Livestock operations across the state are being impacted by government scrutiny. The department of ecology is preparing to become more involved with crop operations. Government interference is being driven by farmers that deny they have an erosion problem and continue doing the same old practice. This past year an individual in Lincoln county was accused of polluting public waters following a rain event. His ground was ripped badly, and DOE had the pics to show. He denied the charge and presented pics to counter the DOE pics. Of course, he cultivated the fields to close up the ditches prior to him taking the pics.
I think our operation is on the right track by moving from cultivation 20+ years ago and now moving from a high disturbance direct seed system, to ultra-low soil disturbance direct seeding system. This past summer one of our fallow fields took in a reported 2.6" of rain. This field had a very high level of residue on the soil surface. There were no visible signs of soil or water moving across the landscape. The conventionally fallowed fields around us had no visible residue on the soil surface, and had been worked several times prior to the event, were gutted. Deep and wide ditches were prevalent. How much soil depth was lost to sheet erosion is not visually seen but it had to be significant. One millimeter of soil is several tons on each acre of ground.
I'm anxious to see how the tall stubble, left behind the stripper header this past harvest, fairs next summer. Will we retain more moisture?? To maximize soil health, we need to learn how to replace fallow with a living cultivar to feed the micro and macro fauna. Currently, our fallow periods create a desert for microorganisms, hence, soil building is slowed dramatically.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Contour Buffers
SUMMARY:
For the Palouse, I view "Contour Buffers" in a similar light to landfills, a resource for the future, ---> if managed properly. From the beginning I have been a supporter of buffer strips as a practice to reduce soil erosion. Recently, I am having some second thoughts about that. I mostly see them being managed for short term economics (gov. land rental) without a vision to convert these lands back to a long term productive asset. Vertical drops at buffer strip transitions are not being addressed, and I have seen trees planted in areas that could be made into good crop production areas using D.S. methods.
DETAIL:
My concern is: a)- that land managers are not managing these buffers with the idea of bringing them back into production at a future date, and b)-the management practices being followed will result in further destruction of the hill side, and c)- even the bottom ground will be effected by being overburdened with deposits of poor soils. Those who are direct seeding are in good position to reclaim these hillsides with improved soil structure; however, most of those continuing to use a conventional cultivation system are moving those hillsides into the waste land category, and raising the potential for future problems on productive lands below them. This is demonstrated by pic #1. Grass lands of "old" have a history of shedding water. This water overloads the farmland lying below the grass and causes erosion on those lower slopes. Frequently, when conditions are right, areas of soil will shear, and slump down hill, leaving an ugly hole in the hill side and a spoil pile below. The steeper the slope, and the height of the vertical drop at the transition, the more likely this event will occur.
Pic #1: Shown is one of the oldest, and most extreme cases of hill side destruction. Originally, this hill side was farmed as part of the whole, which included the hill top and draw bottom. The original buffer on the rim of the hill was established decades ago. The second buffer strip was established many years after the first, and the newest, lighter green buffer is more recent. Notice the vertical drops that define the lower edge of each of the top two buffer strips. The top one is more severe then the second one. This may be do to a longer farmed period, or steeper slope, or both. The third, the bottom buffer strip has no visible vertical drop where is transitions to the crop land. This is probably because it is low on the hill side, and the modern plows can throw soil up the hill.
When the original (top) buffer was established, using conventional tillage, the make-up soil that was provided to the slope from the hill top was cut off. A soil berm has been developed over the years on the edge of the hill top. Without the make up soil from the top, tillage has gouged out the soil under the buffer strip. This practice has removed the thin mantel of top soil, if it existed, and exposed more erosion prone sub soils. This farming practice continued until the productivity under the buffer strip declined to the point where the operator took out another section of the hill side. And then a third. An equilibrium has probably been established below the third buffer strip where the remainder of the hill side will remain in production for years to come; however, the likely hood of reclaiming the buffer strips, other than the third (lowest) one is nil. The hill side's productivity could only be re-established by dozing top soil from the draw bottom up onto it. This would be very expensive. Dozing the berm at the hilltop will probably not damage further the production, but dozing the vertical drop from above will definitely degrade the hillside. This pic is going to become a common sight across the Palouse instead of a rarity, if land managers don't become stewards of their land instead of miners of their land.
Pic #2: Shown, is a vertical drop under a buffer strip caused by a short period (10 yrs) of conventional tillage through the action of the disc, cultivator, and rod weeder (8-10 inches). This slope is approximately 30%. This damage can be reversed using conventional tillage methods by employing the plow. With modern plows, and tractors, soil can be rolled up-hill on nearly any slope.
Pic #3: Shown, is a transition between a buffer strip and crop ground that has existed for more then 20 years. The pic is deceptive. The slope is approximately 30%. There is virtually no vertical drop at the transition (0.5-1"). Attached to this buffer strip is another section that is much older, and was established while we were conventionally tilling, and not thinking about reclaiming the property. There are areas with vertical drops of 18" or less, and are short in length, that we will be able to reclaim when the time comes. Current plans are to leave this poor producing southerly exposed slope in CRP as long as there is a program. We probably should consider putting a low rate of fertilizer on these strips annually, to increase the grass production (residue) which will help build soil and it's structure over time. When there is no longer programs that will provide some source of income from this property, we will have the option of returning it to crop production. It will never have the productive capacity that it had 100 years ago, but we will be able to call it a productive asset instead of waste ground.
For the Palouse, I view "Contour Buffers" in a similar light to landfills, a resource for the future, ---> if managed properly. From the beginning I have been a supporter of buffer strips as a practice to reduce soil erosion. Recently, I am having some second thoughts about that. I mostly see them being managed for short term economics (gov. land rental) without a vision to convert these lands back to a long term productive asset. Vertical drops at buffer strip transitions are not being addressed, and I have seen trees planted in areas that could be made into good crop production areas using D.S. methods.
DETAIL:
My concern is: a)- that land managers are not managing these buffers with the idea of bringing them back into production at a future date, and b)-the management practices being followed will result in further destruction of the hill side, and c)- even the bottom ground will be effected by being overburdened with deposits of poor soils. Those who are direct seeding are in good position to reclaim these hillsides with improved soil structure; however, most of those continuing to use a conventional cultivation system are moving those hillsides into the waste land category, and raising the potential for future problems on productive lands below them. This is demonstrated by pic #1. Grass lands of "old" have a history of shedding water. This water overloads the farmland lying below the grass and causes erosion on those lower slopes. Frequently, when conditions are right, areas of soil will shear, and slump down hill, leaving an ugly hole in the hill side and a spoil pile below. The steeper the slope, and the height of the vertical drop at the transition, the more likely this event will occur.
 |
| pic #1 |
Pic #1: Shown is one of the oldest, and most extreme cases of hill side destruction. Originally, this hill side was farmed as part of the whole, which included the hill top and draw bottom. The original buffer on the rim of the hill was established decades ago. The second buffer strip was established many years after the first, and the newest, lighter green buffer is more recent. Notice the vertical drops that define the lower edge of each of the top two buffer strips. The top one is more severe then the second one. This may be do to a longer farmed period, or steeper slope, or both. The third, the bottom buffer strip has no visible vertical drop where is transitions to the crop land. This is probably because it is low on the hill side, and the modern plows can throw soil up the hill.
When the original (top) buffer was established, using conventional tillage, the make-up soil that was provided to the slope from the hill top was cut off. A soil berm has been developed over the years on the edge of the hill top. Without the make up soil from the top, tillage has gouged out the soil under the buffer strip. This practice has removed the thin mantel of top soil, if it existed, and exposed more erosion prone sub soils. This farming practice continued until the productivity under the buffer strip declined to the point where the operator took out another section of the hill side. And then a third. An equilibrium has probably been established below the third buffer strip where the remainder of the hill side will remain in production for years to come; however, the likely hood of reclaiming the buffer strips, other than the third (lowest) one is nil. The hill side's productivity could only be re-established by dozing top soil from the draw bottom up onto it. This would be very expensive. Dozing the berm at the hilltop will probably not damage further the production, but dozing the vertical drop from above will definitely degrade the hillside. This pic is going to become a common sight across the Palouse instead of a rarity, if land managers don't become stewards of their land instead of miners of their land.
 |
| pic #2 |
Pic #2: Shown, is a vertical drop under a buffer strip caused by a short period (10 yrs) of conventional tillage through the action of the disc, cultivator, and rod weeder (8-10 inches). This slope is approximately 30%. This damage can be reversed using conventional tillage methods by employing the plow. With modern plows, and tractors, soil can be rolled up-hill on nearly any slope.
 |
| pic #3 |
Pic #3: Shown, is a transition between a buffer strip and crop ground that has existed for more then 20 years. The pic is deceptive. The slope is approximately 30%. There is virtually no vertical drop at the transition (0.5-1"). Attached to this buffer strip is another section that is much older, and was established while we were conventionally tilling, and not thinking about reclaiming the property. There are areas with vertical drops of 18" or less, and are short in length, that we will be able to reclaim when the time comes. Current plans are to leave this poor producing southerly exposed slope in CRP as long as there is a program. We probably should consider putting a low rate of fertilizer on these strips annually, to increase the grass production (residue) which will help build soil and it's structure over time. When there is no longer programs that will provide some source of income from this property, we will have the option of returning it to crop production. It will never have the productive capacity that it had 100 years ago, but we will be able to call it a productive asset instead of waste ground.
Friday, September 21, 2012
2012 Planting with Cross-Slot Drill
[Click on "CrossSlot" or "direct seeding" label at bottom of post for more posts on subject.]
In Summary:(as of 10/9/12)---- The Cross-slot opener did a good job considering our inexperience with the drill & tractor. A very complex system with GPS, mapping, variable rate for three products, seed tube monitoring, auto steer and auto boom control. We started drilling on 9/12 with the capability of 100% crop emergence, but that didn't happen. With experience we'll do better about seed depth control, and the plugging that we did encounter, although minor. The Cross-slot system has great potential, but not yet perfect. Our concerns are: 1)--Tractor horse power and weight required to push 30 straight running notched disc's 4-6" deep in uncultivated ground. 2)--Acre cost for disc and blade wear. 3)--Plugging of openers.
More Detail:--- Our chemical fallow had good moisture in the seed zone; however, the soil surface was drying and hardening do to the sun and wind. We probably should have started seeding a week earlier. The drill has an auto depth control system to keep the seed location at a desired position; however, we didn't do well at monitoring, and adjusting the hydraulic pressure for that system; hence, some of the seed was placed to shallow. Technically, this monitoring should not be required. Sensing, for instance, 40 pounds resistance on the packer wheel from the ground should have been enough to keep the opener at depth. It appears not to be that simple.
I have known for many years that a rolling disc can require an amazing amount of weight to penetrate dry hard ground. Thirty disc's working at depth, coupled with blades on each side acting like a brake from the pressure of the soil against them, create a significant draft. We have some concerns that our Case 4994 wheel tractor with 400hp and weighing 38,000 pounds is of sufficient size to pull a drill of this type with 1500g of aqua, 60bu of seed, and 350g of starter solution. These are the volumes we currently have with our hoe type direct seed drill, and it is a relatively easy pull.
A few openers were fitted with carbide inserts on the blades. They were causing rapid wear on the disc. Some of the problem is due to the spring plate that holds the blade against the disc. The current design has dense rubber bumpers glued to a plate which press against the blade, and hence, the disc, and is secured to the opener frame with a single 12mm stud. When the spring plate is secured to the opener, it puts significant pressure against the disc through the blade, even at rest. When the drill runs across our sloping terrain, the disc's bend from the weight of the drill. The upper side of the disc has increased pressure applied from the blade, and the lower side can develop a gap between the disc and blade which allows residue and dirt to enter the seed or fertilizer channels causing a plug. I believe this situation could be rectified by a slight shape modification of the spring plate allowing some rocking motion, and by putting a rubber washer under the stud that secures the spring plate to the opener body. This allows more movement of the blade, allowing it to follow the disc as it flexes (bends), and at the same time reduce the pressure exerted on the disc. This should help reduce draft as well as reduce the incidences of plugging. Reducing this excessive pressure on the disc applied by the blade should reduce the wear issue as well.
In Summary:(as of 10/9/12)---- The Cross-slot opener did a good job considering our inexperience with the drill & tractor. A very complex system with GPS, mapping, variable rate for three products, seed tube monitoring, auto steer and auto boom control. We started drilling on 9/12 with the capability of 100% crop emergence, but that didn't happen. With experience we'll do better about seed depth control, and the plugging that we did encounter, although minor. The Cross-slot system has great potential, but not yet perfect. Our concerns are: 1)--Tractor horse power and weight required to push 30 straight running notched disc's 4-6" deep in uncultivated ground. 2)--Acre cost for disc and blade wear. 3)--Plugging of openers.
More Detail:--- Our chemical fallow had good moisture in the seed zone; however, the soil surface was drying and hardening do to the sun and wind. We probably should have started seeding a week earlier. The drill has an auto depth control system to keep the seed location at a desired position; however, we didn't do well at monitoring, and adjusting the hydraulic pressure for that system; hence, some of the seed was placed to shallow. Technically, this monitoring should not be required. Sensing, for instance, 40 pounds resistance on the packer wheel from the ground should have been enough to keep the opener at depth. It appears not to be that simple.
I have known for many years that a rolling disc can require an amazing amount of weight to penetrate dry hard ground. Thirty disc's working at depth, coupled with blades on each side acting like a brake from the pressure of the soil against them, create a significant draft. We have some concerns that our Case 4994 wheel tractor with 400hp and weighing 38,000 pounds is of sufficient size to pull a drill of this type with 1500g of aqua, 60bu of seed, and 350g of starter solution. These are the volumes we currently have with our hoe type direct seed drill, and it is a relatively easy pull.
A few openers were fitted with carbide inserts on the blades. They were causing rapid wear on the disc. Some of the problem is due to the spring plate that holds the blade against the disc. The current design has dense rubber bumpers glued to a plate which press against the blade, and hence, the disc, and is secured to the opener frame with a single 12mm stud. When the spring plate is secured to the opener, it puts significant pressure against the disc through the blade, even at rest. When the drill runs across our sloping terrain, the disc's bend from the weight of the drill. The upper side of the disc has increased pressure applied from the blade, and the lower side can develop a gap between the disc and blade which allows residue and dirt to enter the seed or fertilizer channels causing a plug. I believe this situation could be rectified by a slight shape modification of the spring plate allowing some rocking motion, and by putting a rubber washer under the stud that secures the spring plate to the opener body. This allows more movement of the blade, allowing it to follow the disc as it flexes (bends), and at the same time reduce the pressure exerted on the disc. This should help reduce draft as well as reduce the incidences of plugging. Reducing this excessive pressure on the disc applied by the blade should reduce the wear issue as well.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Soil Moisture
[Update: Jan 5/15] --- Web search shows several studies, ( Canada, Nebraska, Colorado, Washington) where the 13-14m fallow period in a wheat-fallow rotation store a low of <20% to as high as 34% of the moisture received. The more I discover the more I'm becoming convinced that fallow is a loser. Even cropping environments with 6" annual rainfall would be better off developing a crop rotation that includes building biomass and growing tall residue with annual cropping. The other 66-80% of the precipitation received is lost, primarily through evaporation.
[Update: 5/22/14] --- Summary of a Summary ------ The bottom Line:
a)--Where rainfall goes (average over 10 years of a two year moisture cycle): 1% deep penetration, 4% runoff, 12% transpiration through the crop, 83% evaporation off soil surface.
b)--In a wheat/fallow rotation, the fallow year provides only 34% more moisture for the winter crop. In short, we lose the equivalent of 2/3 of one years precipitation growing one winter crop.
c)-- That long term study showed no statistical difference in moisture retention between moldboard plowing, disc plowing, para-plowing, or chiseling.
d)--Best moisture retention is attained by keeping soils as cool as possible in the summer, and the air at the soil surface as calm as possible all year long.
SUMMARY: I feel there is value in this old research project (below) done in the 1970's. The four conclusions stated at the conference need to be altered in my opinion in light of the technology available to us today. All are still valid for a tilled field, but can be improved through a DS system; and, leaving long cut standing stubble following harvest.
[Update: 5/22/14] --- Summary of a Summary ------ The bottom Line:
a)--Where rainfall goes (average over 10 years of a two year moisture cycle): 1% deep penetration, 4% runoff, 12% transpiration through the crop, 83% evaporation off soil surface.
b)--In a wheat/fallow rotation, the fallow year provides only 34% more moisture for the winter crop. In short, we lose the equivalent of 2/3 of one years precipitation growing one winter crop.
c)-- That long term study showed no statistical difference in moisture retention between moldboard plowing, disc plowing, para-plowing, or chiseling.
d)--Best moisture retention is attained by keeping soils as cool as possible in the summer, and the air at the soil surface as calm as possible all year long.
SUMMARY: I feel there is value in this old research project (below) done in the 1970's. The four conclusions stated at the conference need to be altered in my opinion in light of the technology available to us today. All are still valid for a tilled field, but can be improved through a DS system; and, leaving long cut standing stubble following harvest.
More Detail:
Above is a study that was done in the late 1970's on soil moisture and what combination of tillage operations were best in conserving it in the fallow period. There are some interesting findings and conclusions. Direct Seeding was not on the radar when this study was done. The following are a dressed up set of my notes from an education event attended in the spring 1989. Below, I make conclusions/comments on this study as it may relate to Direct Seeding. Two separate studies were conducted with this research project.
1)-- Comparison of four primary tillage operations for holding moisture.
2)-- Determining the moisture use in a two year cropping cycle that included fallow.
#1 SUMMARY----The four primary practices were: A)--moldboard plow, B)--paraplow, C)-- Chisel, D)--Disc. The great disappointment at the end of this study was that there was no statistically significant difference in moisture retention between any of the operations.
#2 SUMMARY----The statements showing on the image insert are "from the time". Using DS, --- are these still valid statements?? What has intrigued me over the years, and is the reason for me hanging onto this information is the section: -- "where rainfall goes".
With todays bank of knowledge, the use of rotations in cropping, and using DS, I am confident that we can eliminate the 1% loss through deep penetration.
I'm certain that we can eliminate, or nearly eliminate 4% loss from runoff. (this summer our fallow took in the 6.5"event reported for that area without showing signs of runoff (no displaced residue or mudded over residue. In the bottom of the drainages there were the usual small cut channel; however, I couldn't tell whether they were from the winter/spring flush of snow, or from this event.) The conventional fallow around us was gutted to the depth of cultivation[4"-6"].)
This study shows we are raising our crops on 12% of the moisture received (through transpiration). Is this still a valid number? Just think of the potential!
This study shows that, of the rainfall we receive, 83% is lost through evaporation from the soil surface. Just think of the potential here if we reduce that number.
The numbers shown for seasonal variations,-- 1st winter @+66%, 1st summer @-20, and 2nd winter @ +41% are not to be construed as netting the 34% showing for the increase of fallow moisture over that of annual cropped ground. This image is poorly expressed. The study was on a winter wheat - fallow - winter wheat crop rotation. The correct interpretation of these numbers is:
The first winter following a winter wheat crop, the ground collects 66% of the moisture of it's two year cycle. Why?--The crop just harvested depleted the moisture in the soil profile so the hydraulic pull is strong and will accept all or most of the moisture that first winter, even with frozen ground. There was probably a primary tillage operation (moldboard plow, chisel, disc, paraplow) done to the ground prior to winter. Evaporation was probably the largest user. Some transpiration from weeds and volunteer. Some runoff is possible.
The "1st" summer [fallow period], the ground loses a net of 20% of the moisture collected over the two year cycle. (Why?-- Evaporation -- heat and wind movement across the soil surface are strong forces that hydraulically pull moisture up and off the soil surface. In our climate where most of our moisture comes in the winter, any and all summer moisture is over-ridden by evaporation. Also included is tillage where each pass across the ground stirs and aerates to the depth of 4-6 inches. This accelerates the loss by evaporation for that depth of soil. Traditionally there is little or no residue left on the soil surface, and certainly no residue left standing. This gives sun and wind high access to moisture through evaporation.)
The 2nd winter, that ground only gains an additional 41% instead of the 66% the first winter. (Why?-- The hydraulic pull is less the second winter because the soil profile has significant amount of moisture. The ground has been tilled a number of times since the previous crop, and the new crop has been seeded. The natural channels into the soil have been destroyed and most fields have the look of a garden with finely textured soil and no, or little residue remain. When that 2nd winter comes, moisture encounters a soil surface that quickly seals off allowing a high percentage of the moisture to flow across the soil surface to drainages varying with climatic conditions present. There is also a growing crop, and I don't remember how that complexity was explained.
The 2nd spring/summer, the soil profile is depleted of moisture. (Why?-- early on, evaporation is significant. Later in the season, as the crop grows and covers the ground, the evaporation forces decrease; however, the Transpiration force (growing crop) is very strong and will normally take the moisture down to the wilting point for the crop.
This study has influenced me for what has been done on this farm. In the 70-80's I recognized that tillage was destroying the long term productivity of our ground and began combining operations to reduce trips over the field. I also divided the slopes where there was crop on either top or bottom, and something else on the other. This shortened the run for water compared to the whole hill being one crop. From the 90's on, we have been in one form of notill/DS mode or another, trying to take advantage of what could possibly be attained from the above study.
Where are we today?:
Deep penetrating moisture: We haven't addressed this because of the low return on deep rooted crops like mustard and canola. That appears to be changing and those crops are looking more attractive.
Runoff: We have this element mostly controled. Including canola or mustard in our crop rotation will add a safety factor.
Transpiration: I don't know where we are on that one. I think the new commercial cultivars are more efficient in the use of, fertilizer and moisture. We are not fertilizing nearly to the level that the (currently used, but old) research states we need for the yields we are getting.
Evaporation: That, we are aggressively working on. The success, or not, will show in the future. My gauge for this will be when our 15"-17" rainfall zone can be annual cropped with results mirroring our current 18"-19" rainfall zone. We are addressing it two ways:
a) We have bought a Shelbourne stripper header. The first harvest (2012) is a raving success in wheat, barley and mustard. The winter wheat stubble (Brundage 96) is 38-40" tall with good density. This is the first barley stubble we have ever left that shows some capability to reduce air velocity on the soil surface. Instead of being about 4-6"tall, it is 22-24" and some areas taller. Since the barley and mustard ground will be fallow next year, we hope this will help decrease the evaporation. We have good surface residue cover on the barley. The mustard ground has less cover.
b)--We are building or refitting our DS drill with Cross-slot openers and associated technology. This is the ultimate low disturbance opener. We hope to have it ready for spring 2013. This fall (2012), we are renting that technology to seed the fall crop, but the frame designe significantly reduces the integrity of the technology built into the opener. The frame is designed for AB line operation on a flat, rectangular field.
Shelbourne Header -- 1st harvest - 2012
[Click on the label "stripper head" at the bottom of post for more posts on the subject.]
SUMMARY: We harvested Brundage 96 winter wheat, Bob spring barley, and IdaGold spring mustard. We are pleased with the results on all three crop types. With the mustard, all of the tops are taken off and run through the combine leaving a ragged looking field with stems of varying lengths. Wheat stubble looks daunting with 38-40" remaining standing. Barley stubble stands 22-30".
MORE DETAIL:
Winter Wheat: Header was relatively easy to control even with an inexperienced operator. It will take some time to gain experience to gage hood height and rotor speed for optimum performance. Header loss was very low, but without straw in the machine, distribution across the sieve dramatically changed. Our losses are higher than I find acceptable. After about 50 hours, Kye has concluded that most of what is going through the concave is dropping onto the right side of the sieve, which is an overload. Before next year we will have to make changes in the distribution augers or the floors of the augers to move material further across the sieve. We'll need to have some adjustment capability because improvement will be through trial and error. AND-- we will have to convert back to use this machine with a standard header for some crops (canola as an example).
Spring Barley: Barley harvests much more efficiently than with a standard head. Less head loss, less green in the tank including unripe kernels. This is a great (and pleasant) surprise! Barley has never given me much self satisfaction regardless of yield, because of the associated head loss. Barley is inherently weak strawed which lends itself to lodging, and heads, if of good quality, tip over at the neck giving opportunity for catching on the reel. Between the reel tossing heads, and leaving the low heads on the ground, it is frustrating. This header is going to save 100+ pounds of barley per acre. We found that you cut patches that cut off from the main field immediately. The edge of the cut and un-cut is difficult to distinguish, even at a short distance. With barley, you break off the head stem at the crook, and the top portion of the stem is left frayed, giving a similar appearance to that of beards.
Minimizing moisture loss with barley stubble for the following chemical fallow period is challenging. Soil moisture loss is a given for the fallow period. Fallow only provides approximately 30% more moisture to the following crop than annual cropping provides (see another Post -- labeled, moisture. Barley is normally cut at, or near ground level offering little or no wind protection at the soil surface. Convection pulls moisture to the surface developing a layer with higher humidity. There is a point where that layer of higher humidity will slow convection. Air circulating at the soil surface removes this layer. The higher the wind velocity across the soil surface, the stronger the pull on available moisture. This header leaves a much better condition. The canopy (shading) is reduced when the head is removed; however, the height is not reduced. Heat will still have a drying effect; however, the higher stubble reduces the wind velocity across the soil surface reducing the degrading of the humid layer.
SUMMARY: We harvested Brundage 96 winter wheat, Bob spring barley, and IdaGold spring mustard. We are pleased with the results on all three crop types. With the mustard, all of the tops are taken off and run through the combine leaving a ragged looking field with stems of varying lengths. Wheat stubble looks daunting with 38-40" remaining standing. Barley stubble stands 22-30".
MORE DETAIL:
Winter Wheat: Header was relatively easy to control even with an inexperienced operator. It will take some time to gain experience to gage hood height and rotor speed for optimum performance. Header loss was very low, but without straw in the machine, distribution across the sieve dramatically changed. Our losses are higher than I find acceptable. After about 50 hours, Kye has concluded that most of what is going through the concave is dropping onto the right side of the sieve, which is an overload. Before next year we will have to make changes in the distribution augers or the floors of the augers to move material further across the sieve. We'll need to have some adjustment capability because improvement will be through trial and error. AND-- we will have to convert back to use this machine with a standard header for some crops (canola as an example).
Spring Barley: Barley harvests much more efficiently than with a standard head. Less head loss, less green in the tank including unripe kernels. This is a great (and pleasant) surprise! Barley has never given me much self satisfaction regardless of yield, because of the associated head loss. Barley is inherently weak strawed which lends itself to lodging, and heads, if of good quality, tip over at the neck giving opportunity for catching on the reel. Between the reel tossing heads, and leaving the low heads on the ground, it is frustrating. This header is going to save 100+ pounds of barley per acre. We found that you cut patches that cut off from the main field immediately. The edge of the cut and un-cut is difficult to distinguish, even at a short distance. With barley, you break off the head stem at the crook, and the top portion of the stem is left frayed, giving a similar appearance to that of beards.
Minimizing moisture loss with barley stubble for the following chemical fallow period is challenging. Soil moisture loss is a given for the fallow period. Fallow only provides approximately 30% more moisture to the following crop than annual cropping provides (see another Post -- labeled, moisture. Barley is normally cut at, or near ground level offering little or no wind protection at the soil surface. Convection pulls moisture to the surface developing a layer with higher humidity. There is a point where that layer of higher humidity will slow convection. Air circulating at the soil surface removes this layer. The higher the wind velocity across the soil surface, the stronger the pull on available moisture. This header leaves a much better condition. The canopy (shading) is reduced when the head is removed; however, the height is not reduced. Heat will still have a drying effect; however, the higher stubble reduces the wind velocity across the soil surface reducing the degrading of the humid layer.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Shelbourne Stripper Header
[Click on the label "stripper head" at the bottom of post for more posts on the subject.]
Summary: We are very happy with the decision to purchase the header. This old high capacity machine has a new life with more capacity, and the principal problem of poor residue distribution is eliminated. Header loss was low in all three of our crop types (winter wheat, spring barley and spring mustard).  2012 harvest |
More Detail:
This pic shows a 2012 CVS32 mounted on our 1985 Gleaner N7. This was a calculated $70k gamble. Improving yields over the years along with the poor residue distribution associated with the N7, were adding to problems associated with our Direct Seeding. We love this machine with it's low profile, wide stance, large bulk tank, high capacity, ease and low cost of repair, great horsepower to weight ratio, and the ability to harvest and save the grain on our slopes that max out around 40%. I'll give more detail on the N7 and changes to accommodate this 7000#, 32 foot header in a later post. My emotions have run the gamut, from excitement when Kye ordered it, to apprehension as I read more "tractor house" forums and Utube videos, to being ecstatic after only a few days of cutting. It handles very easy, our capacity is up, our ground speed is slower at this point in time, and I'm sure we will hit 10kbu/d before the old girl hits her 28th birthday -- although it will be a longer day and our two man operation will become three. One truck driver can't haul that much grain away from this machine in our operation. |
 |
This pic shows stripping Brundage 96 winter wheat in a small ravine at sun down. Very quiet air. Notice the thin layer of dust at the header. Since the header is basically a sealed unit using either metal or a crop wall, there is much less dust generated in that area compared to a standard wheat header. The dirt plume out the back is dense and lingering.
|
This pic shows the interaction between header and grain. As you drive through the standing grain it is pushed forward, bent down along curved nose where the rotor engages the wheat and combs through the straw, drawing it up behind the nose into the curved portion on the back side of the adjustable hood, where the kernels are pulled off the center stem portion of the wheat stalk and propelled back into a deep auger trough, where it is transported to the feeder house. This rotor rotates between 400 and 800rpm. Approximately 85% of the threshing is done by this rotor, leaving only 15% to be threshed by the combine rotor. The un-threshed tend to be the tips of the wheat head. We have harvested some lodged wheat and it did fine as advertised; although more material is put into the combine.
This pic shows the transition between harvested and unharvested wheat. The preferred rotor speed is where the center stem portion of the wheat head is not flailed off, but left mostly intact. This leaves the appearance that the stubble at times seems taller than the wheat crop itself. Our stubble in 2012 is 38-40" tall.
This pic shows the machine entering the cut on a ≈30% slope. The camera does not give it justice. We added a header tilt package to the machine which is helpful harvesting steep slopes, and dips that you angle through. Another change that proved out, was to replace our 18" outer duel wheel. We now have two 24.5x32 wheels/tires. We only added 2" extra width but the stability with more rubber on the ground is noticeable. It climbs and stays on the hill better. Where we don't level the machine, a lot of weight is transferred to the lower side.
This pic shows stripping spring barley. It's the 1st time we have ever cut barley with more than about 6" left standing. About 30 inch stubble is showing here.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
T-storm Erosion
SUMMARY: Although most chem fallow fields had some visible erosion, some did not, including one field that experience 2.6 inches in one burst. All of the conventional fallowed fields showed extensive damage which included combination of sheet, rill, and gulley erosion. Erosion was inverse to the amount of residue and how fine the field was worked. A few fields were just gutted.
More Detail:
This spring/summer we have had a number of thunderstorms that resulted in spotty downpours which has caused significant erosion in conventionally tilled fallow, and some fields in spring crop that were prepared with tillage. Monday evening a wide band of damage was done all along the northern boundary of Whitman County from an intense thunderstorm moving from east to west. We received word that our Thornton operation received 2.6 inches of rain and all fallow ground, whether chemical fallow or conventional tilled fallow in the area was gutted. This morning we did a drive by to assess the damage in the area and found that all the chem fallow held up well, and our fields didn't look as if they had any water move across them. The chem fallow fields that had poor areas from past erosion did have visible erosion. Those areas though, mostly filtered out and stopped when it encountered areas with residue. That's not the story with cultivated fallow fields. All of them received heavy damage, first through sheet erosion, followed by extensive rilling, and that followed by ditching. I'm sure that many of those fields, if not all, had been fertilized, so a lot of fertilizer went down the creek along with the soil and water. The county road crews are going to be busy, and a lot of taxpayer money will go to clean and repair the roads associated with those fields. The cost has got to be staggering when you factor in: current fertilizer loss, lost future productivity from the soil that once resided in those fields, and the cost of clean up. One operation I observed got hammered Sat. evening with damage along a quarter mile of public road. Although they had recently cultivated that field and there wasn't any weeds, by Monday, they felt compelled to re-cultivate, and they got nailed again Monday evening. Some people follow bad decisions with more bad decisions, and the ground pays the price. The irritating thing about this is that if you approach them, they will explain it away as "nothing you can do with that much water coming that fast" -- and that is just bullshit! With modern farming techniques, all the soil, and most of the water can be held in place and not lost from the field, but it requires a willingness to change farming practices. For twenty six years (1980-2006) these water events, either summer or winter, were extremely rare. For the last six years, (2006-2012), these events are becoming more frequent, more intense and more wide spread. It may not happen every year but I'm guessing that the trend will continue. My farming career was mostly during drought conditions. My Son may have to survive in an environment with more extremes. I haven't taken any pics yet, and don't know if I will. It's getting boring -- same farmers, same fields year after year. The NRCS has 75 years of pics of eroded fields. One looks just like another. I wonder if there is another business in the US that still exists using the same practices they started with over a hundred years ago---- besides farming????
Tomorrow I will do a walk around. I may update this post if I find it different than expressed here.
------- 7/19/12 update: this morning I did walk the fields and took a few pics. I was happy to see that our fallow field didn't look as if it had any especially hard rain; although the neighboring fields showed quite a pounding. We surely lost some water; however, the residue didn't show dirt deposited on it. Even the "new" chem fallow fields in the area did well. Some severely eroded areas where there was no residue had some spiderwebbing. You could see the streaks of dirt where it entered areas with residue and soon stopped. Looking at the cultivated fallow fields, many areas appeared to have lost 5-10% of their surface to a depth of 3-6". That translates to many tons (50+) per acre. Many years of productive life left those fields. An example is the pic above. Recent deep cultivation, done vertically, compounded the destruction. This pic shows one of the flaws with this old conservation practice of divided slope farming. The crop filtered out a lot of dirt heading for the drainage ditch; however the cultivated top was hammered. In the 70-80's this would have been a successful practice but it isn't today. Although it shows potential water quality improvement, the sustainability of the productive capacity of the field is diminished. Technology and practices have improved and we don't have to settle for "some success" as demonstrated above.
Above is our operations chem fallow field near the eroded field above. Even though we drill vertically with a hoe type opener, I didn't find signs of water or dirt movement. This is not a good practice to rely on for the future. We could get a bigger event that may do damage. We are replacing our hoe opener with a single disc (minimum disturbance) type opener this fall. That should give us a higher level of protection from these weather events.
More Detail:
This spring/summer we have had a number of thunderstorms that resulted in spotty downpours which has caused significant erosion in conventionally tilled fallow, and some fields in spring crop that were prepared with tillage. Monday evening a wide band of damage was done all along the northern boundary of Whitman County from an intense thunderstorm moving from east to west. We received word that our Thornton operation received 2.6 inches of rain and all fallow ground, whether chemical fallow or conventional tilled fallow in the area was gutted. This morning we did a drive by to assess the damage in the area and found that all the chem fallow held up well, and our fields didn't look as if they had any water move across them. The chem fallow fields that had poor areas from past erosion did have visible erosion. Those areas though, mostly filtered out and stopped when it encountered areas with residue. That's not the story with cultivated fallow fields. All of them received heavy damage, first through sheet erosion, followed by extensive rilling, and that followed by ditching. I'm sure that many of those fields, if not all, had been fertilized, so a lot of fertilizer went down the creek along with the soil and water. The county road crews are going to be busy, and a lot of taxpayer money will go to clean and repair the roads associated with those fields. The cost has got to be staggering when you factor in: current fertilizer loss, lost future productivity from the soil that once resided in those fields, and the cost of clean up. One operation I observed got hammered Sat. evening with damage along a quarter mile of public road. Although they had recently cultivated that field and there wasn't any weeds, by Monday, they felt compelled to re-cultivate, and they got nailed again Monday evening. Some people follow bad decisions with more bad decisions, and the ground pays the price. The irritating thing about this is that if you approach them, they will explain it away as "nothing you can do with that much water coming that fast" -- and that is just bullshit! With modern farming techniques, all the soil, and most of the water can be held in place and not lost from the field, but it requires a willingness to change farming practices. For twenty six years (1980-2006) these water events, either summer or winter, were extremely rare. For the last six years, (2006-2012), these events are becoming more frequent, more intense and more wide spread. It may not happen every year but I'm guessing that the trend will continue. My farming career was mostly during drought conditions. My Son may have to survive in an environment with more extremes. I haven't taken any pics yet, and don't know if I will. It's getting boring -- same farmers, same fields year after year. The NRCS has 75 years of pics of eroded fields. One looks just like another. I wonder if there is another business in the US that still exists using the same practices they started with over a hundred years ago---- besides farming????
Tomorrow I will do a walk around. I may update this post if I find it different than expressed here.
Monday, July 9, 2012
NoTill Guidlines from Dakota Lake R.C.
The Dakota Lakes research station is a great source of information that can be used to formulate your Direct Seed system. This 30 page primer should be a "must read" for anyone considering Direct Seeding.
The caution here is: -- keep in mind that this station is in a 14-16" rainfall zone, but most of it comes during the growing season. When their spring "breaks", they have few cold (freeze or frost) nights that retard plant growth, where we are plagued with them. They have very cold winters but they get a lot of heat units during the growing season. With Direct Seeding, they have been able to bring high yielding winter wheat varieties normally grown south of I80, to north of I90. C4 crops like corn can be successfully grown. Prior to Direct Seeding the region was based around spring wheat. The principals that are stated in the guide are sound, but they have to be applied with knowledge of our climate. Don't try and shove a square peg in a round hole -- look for alternatives that follow the specific principal you are trying to achieve. The by-word for Direct Seeding has got to be: rotation--rotation--rotation. Successful DS starts with the combine and it's spreading of chaff and straw. Mats are difficult to manage. Beginning DS requires more applied N until the soil microbes adjust to the new system. This can be years. When tillage is stopped, destruction of organic mater is drastically slowed or stopped, which decreases N that is produced from these operations. Weed species are associated to a specific rotation of crops. Changes in rotation will change some weed species. Rotations with a mixture of high residue and low residue crops will diminish seeding issues. Chopping high residue crops creates a mat on the soil that helps hold moisture close to the soil. The down side to that is; cold, wet soils and tough surface mat to seed into.
(my comment: -- for us, the lack of markets and related value of the product for alternative crops have been a major stumbling block for us. Hopefully the future will be better for crops like dry peas, canola, mustard which we would like in our rotation. Another issue that has become clear is that everything is site-specific. Within a field, soils vary and micro-climates exist.)
One profound statement you will find in this guide is: pp.13--"Grossly understated is the detrimental effect of soil erosion on soil fertility. Preventing............................."
The caution here is: -- keep in mind that this station is in a 14-16" rainfall zone, but most of it comes during the growing season. When their spring "breaks", they have few cold (freeze or frost) nights that retard plant growth, where we are plagued with them. They have very cold winters but they get a lot of heat units during the growing season. With Direct Seeding, they have been able to bring high yielding winter wheat varieties normally grown south of I80, to north of I90. C4 crops like corn can be successfully grown. Prior to Direct Seeding the region was based around spring wheat. The principals that are stated in the guide are sound, but they have to be applied with knowledge of our climate. Don't try and shove a square peg in a round hole -- look for alternatives that follow the specific principal you are trying to achieve. The by-word for Direct Seeding has got to be: rotation--rotation--rotation. Successful DS starts with the combine and it's spreading of chaff and straw. Mats are difficult to manage. Beginning DS requires more applied N until the soil microbes adjust to the new system. This can be years. When tillage is stopped, destruction of organic mater is drastically slowed or stopped, which decreases N that is produced from these operations. Weed species are associated to a specific rotation of crops. Changes in rotation will change some weed species. Rotations with a mixture of high residue and low residue crops will diminish seeding issues. Chopping high residue crops creates a mat on the soil that helps hold moisture close to the soil. The down side to that is; cold, wet soils and tough surface mat to seed into.
(my comment: -- for us, the lack of markets and related value of the product for alternative crops have been a major stumbling block for us. Hopefully the future will be better for crops like dry peas, canola, mustard which we would like in our rotation. Another issue that has become clear is that everything is site-specific. Within a field, soils vary and micro-climates exist.)
One profound statement you will find in this guide is: pp.13--"Grossly understated is the detrimental effect of soil erosion on soil fertility. Preventing............................."
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Cold Soil and Direct Seeding
I've happened on to a project (1994-2009) called the Alberta Reduced Tillage Inititive (ARTI). This project had many partnerships, including private, public, and education. They studied many aspects of Direct Seeding (DS) including effects of cold soils. The following URL access' their site.
http://www.reducedtillage.ca/about.aspx
This is a big site. One study indicates that tall standing stubble (stripper header) warmed faster than the short stubble mat left by regular platform header, and allowed better seed/soil contact with disc type opener.
I will update this post as I have time to read other studies.
http://www.reducedtillage.ca/about.aspx
This is a big site. One study indicates that tall standing stubble (stripper header) warmed faster than the short stubble mat left by regular platform header, and allowed better seed/soil contact with disc type opener.
I will update this post as I have time to read other studies.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Bio Fuel
A thought provoking article on biofuel from 2005 research at Cornell and UC-Berkeley. Have the ensuing 7 years changed the economics using their parameters?
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050605231841data_trunc_sys.shtml
I have long thought that one needs to "follow the money" on this hyped fuel. The Camelina based alternative fuel does intrigue me. The inputs appear to be significantly less then the output. Steve Camp of LaCrosse, Wa. is involved in a study and it looks very positive as an alternative to diesel. In Summary: -- he is self sufficient, processes his own fuel, takes approximately 1/6th of his acres to grow all his needs. To me, this has real potential.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050605231841data_trunc_sys.shtml
I have long thought that one needs to "follow the money" on this hyped fuel. The Camelina based alternative fuel does intrigue me. The inputs appear to be significantly less then the output. Steve Camp of LaCrosse, Wa. is involved in a study and it looks very positive as an alternative to diesel. In Summary: -- he is self sufficient, processes his own fuel, takes approximately 1/6th of his acres to grow all his needs. To me, this has real potential.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Soil Moisture
This post will be updated on occasion when I find info that relates to the title:
Keep in mind that midwest and Canadian research will not translate directly to the PNW; however, the principals that they employ can benefit us -- don't discount their value too quickly. Some ideas work in our environment and soils.
The following are excerpts from NoTill Farmer website: http://www.no-tillfarmer.com/
Keep in mind that midwest and Canadian research will not translate directly to the PNW; however, the principals that they employ can benefit us -- don't discount their value too quickly. Some ideas work in our environment and soils.
The following are excerpts from NoTill Farmer website: http://www.no-tillfarmer.com/
No-Till, Right Rotations Store More Water
Scientists at the 102-year-old Agricultural Research Service Central Great Plains Research Station in Akron, Colorado, are in the 20th year of a major project determining which alternative crops farmers could use to eliminate — or at least reduce the frequency of — fallow fields.
Storing Precious Soil Water Is Key
Merle Vigil, an ARS soil scientist at Akron, gets farmers’ attention when he tells them that storing water in just the top inch of an acre of land — an “acre-inch” — is worth $25 to $30 an acre. Vigil, ARS agronomist David Nielsen and ARS soil scientist Joseph Benjamin made this calculation by using 10-year average crop prices in equations they developed to relate crop yields to stored water levels.
Four to six tillage passes to kill weeds result in a loss of 3 acre-inches of water over 14 months of fallow. Those six passes cost $24 to $48 an acre in fuel and labor costs.
“Adding that to the cost of water lost, that’s $99 to $138 from your pocket,” Vigil tells farmers.
The scientists have shown that using no-till practices in the conventional wheat-fallow rotation can increase net farm income. They have also shown that by combining no-till and no-fallow, farmers can capture much more of the precious 14 to 18 inches of rain or snowmelt that may occur each year in various parts of the Central Plains.
The idea is to store precipitation in the soil during the idle months,” Vigil says. “That was a good idea then, but today it is not economically or environmentally sustainable for most soils in the region.”
Fallow loses 65% to 80% of precipitation to evaporation. Besides wasting water, fallow causes a decline in soil organic matter, leaves soil susceptible to wind erosion and gives low economic returns.
Ways To Save Even More Water
The project has shown that no-till’s value for storing precipitation in soil can be enhanced by changing harvesting equipment to leave even more residue on the soil surface. This includes use of a stripper header. The stripper header removes just the head of grain, leaving the rest of the plant standing to enhance precipitation storage and erosion protection. Traditional combine headers cut off most of the plant stalk with a sickle and then leave the stubble short. [my comment: most of my life I have watched the relationship of snow and stubble height and concluded that 4" of stubble was all we needed to keep wind off the soil surface. That was wrong -- what should have been observed was that 4" dropped the velocity of the wind below the point where snow moved. The taller the standing stubble the less air movement along the soil surface, and less direct sunlight. This apparently, is reducing moisture loss another 1-1.5" over and above normally accepted DS techniques. References are being made toward this conclusion, but I haven't found direct statements through research projects to confirm.]
Also, the scientists have recently shown that skipping one or more rows — rather than planting every row of a crop — conserves soil moisture and improves crop yields.
“We proved the value of stripper-header harvesting and skip-row planting in ancillary experiments and then made them part of the ACR project in recent years,” Vigil says. [my ?: does this mean that you need to maintain stubble height in skip row? Other sites are indicating that, for the growing crop the stubble needs to be flat to minimize sunlight intercept. Statements like, spindly stalks, and reduced tillering are connected to amount of direct sunlight the crop receives -- more is better.]
Adds Nielsen: “Including crops such as millet and triticale, grown for forage instead of grain, reduces the risk of total crop failure from a lack of rainfall during the critical growth stages of grain crops.”
He has found other ways to reduce the risks of drought, including estimating soil water in the spring to see if there is enough to warrant skipping fallow.
[my commentary: removing fallow from our rotations was a prime reason for us to look at DS 30 years ago. The problem in the past has been the low $ value of all our alternatives to wheat. That may be changing. If so, all we have to deal with is changing 100+ years of mindset of "wheat is all there is".]
Friday, June 29, 2012
Shelbourne Stripper Header
[Click on the label "stripper head" at the bottom of post for more posts on the subject.]
Wednesday, June 20, 2012, we took delivery of a new CVS 32' header. There are no other units in our immediate area to draw information from about their use. There are two 32', 2011 units at Worley, ID run by Seth Melhorn on relatively flat (or gentle slopping ground). Eric Thorn of Dayton, WA runs two 25' AgCo units on 40% slopes. The Shelbourne website gives the basic combine setup information. Ag Talk: (go to links page) appears to have helpful information for trouble shooting. This post will be updated as I find useful information relating to harvesting with the stripper header.
| ---- I'm in agreement with everything Jon, Josh, and Phil have already said. To add a bit to Jon's discussion on selecting a head height, there are several reasons you don't want to go any lower than you have too, header loss can become an issue not only because the "wall" of wheat is missing but in varieties prone to shattering if you run the nose of the hood too low so that the heads are above it you actually force the wheat to do a double bend, it bends towards the combine when it first comes into contact then has to bend back around the nose of the hood, then rapidly snap back upright prior to hitting the rotor. I've seen the mechanics of this cause a great deal of shatter before the wheat ever gets to the rotor. ---- Most header loss comes from running excessive rotor speed and too slow of ground speed. Only run the rotor as fast as you need to, the head as low as you have too, then drive fast. When conditions are good the field should look almost a little shaggy behind. If you are removing the entire head then you are either running the rotor too fast, the head too low, or a combination of both.
RVS Rice Special Range: 2002 onwards (10 to 28 foot widths)
|
Monday, June 4, 2012
Seeding issues
[Click on the label "direct seeding" at the bottom of post for more posts on the subject.]
A recent survey of our 2012 spring seeded fields shows drill problems: My conclusion is that we have hit the wall on residue and our current methods of managing it. We are a season behind getting a handle on this issue. The cross-slot drill did much better at the Thornton place; but, depth of material, and inconsistent distribution shows problems with that drill as well. The straw distribution(management) of our Gleaner N7 is among the worst in the industry. Replacing the old girl with a newer machine with the micro cut straw chopper is one option we have been looking at; however, field observations show that they have distribution issues as well on these hills. The hillsides are left with ribbons of fine chop that will be difficult for disc drills to penetrate. The alternative for us is to replace our header with a Shelbourn Stripper head for the 2012 harvest. This head will leave most of the stubble intact, standing tall in the field, allowing a disc type opener to slip through the canopy and penetrate into mineral soil. Forget putting a hoe type drill in that environment.
Our drill was not used in 2011(all our crop was seeded with the cross-slot drill). We gave it a quick check, seeing that fertilizer and seed was being delivered to the seed row; however, we should have check more closely about seed depth. One half the drill did OK, but the other half did not. Field conditions changed and we didn't make the necessary adjustment. It will take more looking, but it appears that we have too much duff for this style and arrangement of openers and packer wheels. Although we seed shallow, in mineral soil, we leave a substantial mid row ridge. Deep residue combined with long, uncut straw, remaining after mowing the field, from wheel crush, promotes a drag and drop situation, resulting in an uneven seed row surface. The mustard crop with it's tiny seed is especially bad. Were it not for the insurance, we would tear most of it out and fallow the ground. This is an example where insurance will hold the money together, but you better not regularly farm for the insurance.
Some of the difficulties encountered by the cross-slot drill is from the uneven ground conditions left from our hoe drill. Drilling at a slight angle to our hoe drill rows is helpful for the cross-slot drill.
Our fall seeded crops using the cross-slot drill have all been excellent.
Some research on this topic follows:
A recent survey of our 2012 spring seeded fields shows drill problems: My conclusion is that we have hit the wall on residue and our current methods of managing it. We are a season behind getting a handle on this issue. The cross-slot drill did much better at the Thornton place; but, depth of material, and inconsistent distribution shows problems with that drill as well. The straw distribution(management) of our Gleaner N7 is among the worst in the industry. Replacing the old girl with a newer machine with the micro cut straw chopper is one option we have been looking at; however, field observations show that they have distribution issues as well on these hills. The hillsides are left with ribbons of fine chop that will be difficult for disc drills to penetrate. The alternative for us is to replace our header with a Shelbourn Stripper head for the 2012 harvest. This head will leave most of the stubble intact, standing tall in the field, allowing a disc type opener to slip through the canopy and penetrate into mineral soil. Forget putting a hoe type drill in that environment.
Our drill was not used in 2011(all our crop was seeded with the cross-slot drill). We gave it a quick check, seeing that fertilizer and seed was being delivered to the seed row; however, we should have check more closely about seed depth. One half the drill did OK, but the other half did not. Field conditions changed and we didn't make the necessary adjustment. It will take more looking, but it appears that we have too much duff for this style and arrangement of openers and packer wheels. Although we seed shallow, in mineral soil, we leave a substantial mid row ridge. Deep residue combined with long, uncut straw, remaining after mowing the field, from wheel crush, promotes a drag and drop situation, resulting in an uneven seed row surface. The mustard crop with it's tiny seed is especially bad. Were it not for the insurance, we would tear most of it out and fallow the ground. This is an example where insurance will hold the money together, but you better not regularly farm for the insurance.
Some of the difficulties encountered by the cross-slot drill is from the uneven ground conditions left from our hoe drill. Drilling at a slight angle to our hoe drill rows is helpful for the cross-slot drill.
Our fall seeded crops using the cross-slot drill have all been excellent.
Some research on this topic follows:
Uneven Seeding is “the worst”
Crops seeded unevenly “are the worst,” says Dr. Yantai Gan, an Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research scientist in Swift Current. Shallow seeded plants emerge several days faster, competing with the slower emerging, deep seeded plants for water, light and soil nutrients. Yields can be reduced by 50% or more and there can be 10 days between the first and last plants to emerge, which can be crucial in a frost year, he stresses.
Dr. Gan says frost or no frost, crops seeded shallow and uniform have a definite edge. They emerge more quickly and evenly, mature faster, and have higher yields. He led a three- year study that showed canola, mustard, and flax planted uniformly at 3⁄4 of an inch in early May emerged 3 to 5 days faster than seeds planted at 2 inches and had yields up to 25 % higher. With lentils, the yields increased up to 15%. A small plot study with wheat showed a 27% yield increase at 1 inch compared to 2 inches.
[My comment: --Twenty years ago another researcher from Canada reported that 90% of a crops (wheat) yield was from the plants that that emerged within three days of each other. Those emerging later were basically filler. It didn't make any difference whether the crop emerged in 5 days or two weeks --the importance was that it emerged all together.]
[My comment: -- A comment to a blog post on seeding depth of Peas -- shallow vs deep. Everyone has their own theory, and they all work to some extent. I base my idea of seeding peas deep (3-4") on a neighbors comment to me many years ago. His statement was " my neighbor seeds shallow (1-1.5"). I seed at (3-4"). His peas comes up earlier and looks fantastic, while mine look puny in comparison early on. I always out yield him in the end." My theory on this is that in our environment, deep seeding (provided you can seed consistently at depth) allows the root mass to access moisture longer than shallow seeded peas. Peas don't provide early canopy cover, so evaporation takes a big toll on moisture near the soil surface. Unless a DS drill has the capacity to adjust down force for differences in soils and residue, seeding 3-4" will be difficult to establish a stand with even emergence.
Emile deMilliano, Agricore United:
When I first started working with direct seeding equipment, I believed the one area where we would see major development would be openers. But besides some tweaking of original openers, I must say I’m a bit disappointed in the lack of development.
Both PAMI and AFMRC have studied the issue of openers and their conclusions were the same. “All openers work most of the time if properly adjusted for the conditions at hand!” It is not realistic to expect to find the perfect opener for all conditions.
AFMRC did suggest slowing down (< 5mph) as this did improve the performance of every opener they tested.
What do we know? We know organic matter levels improve over time. We know that carbon sequestration has, and is occurring. We have noticed better water infiltration and fewer problems with excess water. As well, lower soil moisture evaporation and higher moisture use efficiency has been apparent.
So what are we not seeing? We saw a period of increased N immobilization where microorganisms tie up free and available N as an energy source as they adjust to increased amounts of straw residue on the soil surface.
Banding much of our N below this straw residue does minimize the impact of immobilization.
Over time, however, as microorganisms adjust and organic matter levels increase, the rate of mineralization (release of N from organic matter) begins to outpace the rate of immobilization (tie-up of N by micro- organisms). This results in an extra boost of N available to the crop. Research in numerous other countries suggests it takes at least 15 years for this process to occur.
So does that mean we can expect a huge release of N starting in year 16? No, not really.
[my comment:-- Mineralization requires fuel, heat, oxygen. When we quit tilling, soil gases stabilized leaving high carbon dioxide content and relative low oxygen level. The "furnace" effect was reduced, so less mineralized N resulted. To calculate the amount of N needed for the crop it includes a calculation related to the OM content of your soil for mineralization that takes place under tillage. With no tillage, that number should be reduced and replaced by applying additional N. For our ground that means adding another 20-50 # of N until the soil microbes readjust as suggested above.]
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Expressed opinions on Erosion
Occasionally I discover what a small world (mind set) I live in, --- thinking that everyone is on the same wave length about soil erosion. Recently I have experienced two statements differing from my attitude on conservation. 1)- In a discussion about two farmers doing direct seeding, I made a statement that, " They obviously had a conservation ethic for doing this"! The other person I was conversing with rebutted my statement by saying, "No, I don't think they do it for conservation! They do it to keep the Department of Ecology away from their door"! That was a stunning statement to me. 2)- The Department of Ecology had a news release talking about soil erosion in the Palouse and extolling the virtue of direct seeding. After I and a friend read the release, he commented to me that his interpretation was that Ecology thought that every cultivated field eroded. My response was that, "That was mostly true"! His response was, "I disagree"! Two revelations like this in a week is hard on my synapses.
Another conversation related to conservation that I experience this week showed my deficiency in instant recall. The discussion was around filter strips associated with a stream and the vegetation height necessary to maintain filtering action. My friend stated that the vegetation needed to be short, or it just laid down and everything would roll over it and enter the creek. This is not in line with NRCS research, or DOE's thinking. I answered poorly. I should have stated something along the line of: -- fast moving water indicates a problem upland of the stream, and that filter strips are not effective in this type of scenario. Filter strips are effective with slow moving water flowing in a sheet across the landscape dropping the sediment load (with associated contaminates) as it moves through the filter strip toward the stream. NRCS likes grass filters to be maintained at about half their mature height, roughly 12-18 inches. This has to do as much about plant health as it does for the filter aspect. Plants munched to and maintained near the crown (that neat clean groomed look) leaves the plant in poor health, unable to recover rapidly for a long lasting (sustainable) stand. This scenario also encourages weed species to take root, giving the desired plants more competition for survival.
Another conversation related to conservation that I experience this week showed my deficiency in instant recall. The discussion was around filter strips associated with a stream and the vegetation height necessary to maintain filtering action. My friend stated that the vegetation needed to be short, or it just laid down and everything would roll over it and enter the creek. This is not in line with NRCS research, or DOE's thinking. I answered poorly. I should have stated something along the line of: -- fast moving water indicates a problem upland of the stream, and that filter strips are not effective in this type of scenario. Filter strips are effective with slow moving water flowing in a sheet across the landscape dropping the sediment load (with associated contaminates) as it moves through the filter strip toward the stream. NRCS likes grass filters to be maintained at about half their mature height, roughly 12-18 inches. This has to do as much about plant health as it does for the filter aspect. Plants munched to and maintained near the crown (that neat clean groomed look) leaves the plant in poor health, unable to recover rapidly for a long lasting (sustainable) stand. This scenario also encourages weed species to take root, giving the desired plants more competition for survival.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Some DS Drills
This is a 2014 JD model 1890 (?), 50' (?) drill behind a 600hp Quad. The openers are heavy single disc on 7.5"(?) spacing. It places starter but no deep band fertilizer. This is part of a two pass system where an Exactrix fertilizer unit precedes seeding.
This is our new 2014 farm shop built CrossSlot type single pass drill. 28 openers on 10" spacing. This drill needs a minimum of 500hp, 50k weight to pull it without issues. See post of 5/3/14 "NEW CROSS-SLOT DRILL for more detail.
Another larger CrossSlot single pass drill built by AgPro of Lewiston, ID. 36 openers on 10" row spacing. Two types of liquid fertilizer are placed near the seed.
This is a "true" CrossSlot single pass drill, built, boxed and shipped from New Zealand to Montana. This unit is 28 openers on 12" (?) spacing. This unit is set up for dry fertilizer. The mainframe, low tool bar design of this drill are the basis for the two US built copies shown above.
Another type of single pass drill. It is 50+ ft wide. It is a hoe type drill. Row spacing is 12"(?). This is farm shop built. Large capacity seed and fertilizer containers. The starter is carried on the tractor. This drill is unique in that it has a swinging hitch that automatically moves side to side depending on the slope of the hill it is traversing to keep the unit pulling straight. Challenging to move on public roads.
Another manufacture of a single pass DS drill. This is a hoe drill on 12" row spacing.
This unit uses a Flexicoil frame and hoe opener.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)