ROUNDUP -- (Good or Bad ??)

UPDATE 2/24/18:  I recently received a critique on the book "Whitewash", a bash piece on GMO's and Glyphosate by Carey Gillam.  The timing and purpose of the book was to educate the public on the cancer causing effects of glyphosate and pressure the EU to not re-register glyphosate for use last fall.  The critique by Karl Haro von Mogal shreds the book and shows how, through the misuse of data,  and using partial truths, the anti-glyphosate crowd is misleading the public for the benefit of the "Organic" movement.  It's a bit difficult to read.  Because of the mirth employed, I had to read it twice to get the straight of the message.  The critique can be read at: < "Whitewash" is hogwash>

    Glyphosate was introduced to the public in 1974 following it's discovery by Monsanto chemist John E Franz in 1970.  Since it's discovery, Glyphosate has been under constant scrutiny with research trying to prove what glyphosate does or does not do.  What we do know is that it has been a very effective herbicide.  We also know that there are some resistant cultivars, and more will become resistant to the effects of glyphosate.  There is no revelation here, all our chemistry has developed resistant cultivars, --it's merely a matter of time.
     Our operation has used a lot of glyphosate and we have been comfortable with knowing that research proved over and over that it is safe for humans and animals.  At times we seem to bathe in the stuff.  We try not to ingest the chemical, but that has probably happened as well.  The first real concern over safety I'm aware of came around 2010, when Purdue professor emeritus, Dr. Don Huber dropped a bomb, stating that Glyphosate and GMO's are harming human, animal and earth's health.  The research that he based his conclusions on has never been duplicated.  With his continual repeating the claim, and the inability to duplicate the results at Purdue and other universities, Purdue disavowed him.  He is the darling of the anti-GMO crowd and continues to lecture world wide on the evils of glyphosate and GMO's.  The next big hit on glyphosate was when the World Health Organization (WHO) through the International Agency for Research on Cancers (IARC) published a statement that glyphosate "probably" is a Group 2a carcinogen.  The label "probably" can be used on a lot of chemistry and preservatives used for growing and processing our food.  Forty three years of research should be able to determine yes or no, --not a "probable".   However, if you want it to be a carcinogen but can't prove it then the next best thing is to damn it with the adverb "probably".   In fact,  Reuters has an investigative arm.  They state that the IARC research conclusions were changed from no evidence of being a carcinogen in the draft version, to a neutral or positive conclusion of being a carcinogen in the final published version.   The < Glyphosate Battle > is an interesting read.   Reuters has been stonewalled by both WHO and the researchers of the IARC on the reasoning for changing their position, --it wasn't apparently the science.   Since WHO's pronouncement, anti-Monsanto/Roundup/GMO activists, using all available media upped the public concern to the point where several countries are considering removing glyphosate from the register of approved herbicides, along with the State of California.
      In the November 2017 edition of No-Till Farmer there is an article on glyphosate titled,  Is Glyphosate Harming Your No-Till Soils?  The article states that the glyphosate molecule is hanging around longer than anticipated.  Glyphosate is negatively effecting some soil microbe communities.  Glyphosate is encouraging some plant diseases.  Glyphosate is interfering with nutrient uptake.  And, glyphosate is effecting mycorrhiza.  Some serious stated findings.
       I have been working with WSU researcher, Tim Paulitz, for several years on glyphosate interaction with soil biota, --principally bacteria and fungi.  Over the years I have gained a lot of respect and confidence in his work and knowledge of glyphosate.  He heads up a lot of glyphosate research and reads journal entries about glyphosate research worldwide.  His own research projects have found no statistical difference in either the bacteria or fungi communities, between ground that has never had glyphosate applied, and ground that has had a lot of glyphosate applied.  He is doing this study over a wide area of the Palouse and is working in three rainfall zones, ---high, medium, low.  I asked him why this study was in conflict with his findings.  His response:
       Tracy, ---- I looked over the No-Till article.  There is nothing new in this article, except the work from Cornell. The rest of the article refers to old work by Robert Kremer. As I mentioned before, he did not have the molecular tools to really address the questions about microbial communities.  He was only working with the small fraction of fungi and bacteria that can be cultured-  less than 1% of what is out there.  Kind of like trying to paint a picture of the world by only looking through a small narrow slit. Rather than trying to rebut his work, I think it is more useful to look at the new work we have done.

        But I will comment on the article from Cornell by Aristilde.  By the way, this article was reviewed by Kremer.  First of all, the No-Till article was misleading in talking about this work, when it said that “beneficial Pseudomonas… decreased when glyphosate seeped into the surface soil layer by leaching or release from glyphosate treated plants”.  In the Cornell paper, they did not work in the soil, or with plants.  All their work was done in the lab in culture. There may have been other work that they did in soil, but I could not find it published.  They took 4 biocontrol strains of the bacterium Pseudomonas and tested them in culture to see how sensitive they were to glyphosate.  Three were relatively insensitive, but one was completely inhibited at 5 mM.  It was also slightly inhibited at 0.5 mM. This is well known- some bacteria have a form of the enzyme that is sensitive to glyphosate, others are insensitive.  Nothing new here. In fact, the original gene that was used in Roundup Ready crops came from a bacterium, Agrobacterium.  But when I converted the molar concentrations into ppm, it came out to 84 ppm and 845 ppm.  Bacteria in the soil environment will never be exposed to these concentrations, unless there is a chemical spill on the soil. So I would say that this study is not really relevant to the real world.  Many things we do in the lab are useful to develop theories and basic understanding, but the key question is, --does this really happen in the real world? If you hit just about any microbe with a high enough concentration of a chemical in culture, growth will be inhibited.  Also remember that bacteria and fungi may behave in culture very differently from in the soil.   In the study they used high tech state of the art metabolomics to show that the shikimic acid pathway and aromatic amino acids were inhibited.  This has been known for 40 years.  These are the target of glyphosate, --an enzyme in the shikimate pathway that plants, bacteria and fungi use to make aromatic amino acids, which are essential.  They also showed you could supply these amino acids to the bacteria and overcome the growth inhibition. Again, this is nothing new.

         Let me address a few other points in the article. The work on Roundup ready soybean and Fusarium was not done with isogenic lines, so the difference could have been inherent differences in the genetic background of the two lines, There is a picture  of petri dishes with bacteria in the article, and says he can tell by looking at them that there are mostly non-beneficials in the glyphosate treatment.  You cannot tell by looking at cultures.  He talks about gene issues, and having transgenic DNA in the soil, --DNA is quickly broken down in the soil, and there is no evidence of these genes being transferred to other bacteria.  He talks about nutrient complications, --again, a non-issue for us since we do not have GMO wheat, --and others from Purdue have rebutted this argument.  The amount of glyphosate in the environment is so small, it does not play a role in chelating nutrients in the soil, which are in much larger concentrations.  He also cites a study on his farm of taking out fescue and then planting soybean, and noted higher levels of fungus on the roots of soybean in the glyphosate take out.  This is classic green bridge effect, and we have known about this risk for 30 years.  

        So, in summary, I think the main risks of glyphosate that our farmers in the PNW have to worry about is the green bridge effect of carrying over root pathogens to a new crop (and we have known this for 30 years) and the risk of developing glyphosate resistant weeds by overuse, --as has happened in the Midwest.  In the end, farmers have to weigh risks with benefits.

        Timothy Paulitz,USDA-ARS,Wheat Health,Genetics and Quality Research Unit,Washington State University, Pullman, WA, Phone- 509 335-7077, 
email: timothy.paulitz@ars.usda.gov

      The Green bridge referenced by Tim P. was discovered and studied by Dr. Jim Cook of WSU.  Root diseases can be carried over from one cultivar to another when planted into a  dying cultivar.  The recommendation is to not plant within 20 days of a Roundup application. Time is part of the recipe for sanitizing a field along with cultivar rotation and cultivar diversity.

HOW DO I SEE THE FUTURE!

         Regardless of  glyphosate or any other chemistry's fate, --they are all under attack, we have to get smarter about raising crops with fewer chemical inputs.  That means we have to learn how to manage cover crops for the purpose of suppressing weed competition and supplying nutrients to our cash crops.  This is a challenge, and the "How-To Book" is just starting to be written for the Inland Pacific Northwest.

WHEAT U --- 2017

      There was a good attendance and age diversity at the Wheat U in Spokane, Dec. 5th.   All the presentations will be available on < Wheat U > in the near future.  An earlier Conference in Kansas can also be viewed on that website.   I'll limit my comments to two parts of the agenda that most interested me, --the luncheon speaker,  Dr. Pete Berry (Crop Physiologist for ADAS,UK Ltd.), and Cat Solois' (McGregor's Director of Research & Technology) presentations.
        Berry:   Dr. Berry's presentation described the Yield Enhancement Network (YEN) which is part of the ADAS (stands for ??).  The YEN links producers that share information on how to enhance yields.  They have a competition that is broke down to several categories that include soil capability.  Fields are ≥5ac, with the average size ≈10ac.  Many of the participants have relative small acreages, or small fields for their farm operation.  Out-of-the-box ideas are encouraged.  Berry shared a lengthy list of ideas, some sounding ridiculous.
        I didn't have much interest in this presentation until it dawned on me that this concept may be useful to gain experience and ideas on cover crops, --how to use plant cultivars to replace commercial inputs.  The idea here would be to solicit participation of farmers around the region to devote a small acreage to a project where all plant nutrients and weed control would be done through the use of plant cultivars, whether they be cash crop or cover crop cultivars.  The only rule for a participant would be that no applications of commercial inputs would be allowed on that acreage.  A business plan with more detail of the project needs to be worked up along with rewards/awards that participants may expect.  This is an idea in early development stage.
        Solois:  Cat started by showing the locations around the region of McGregor plants.  She stated that they have 2 years of data taken in fields they service to baseline soil fertility levels.  These are taken in three locations within each field indicating high-medium-low management areas.  In the midwest, when you pull up a fertility map of a region it is very detailed about what the usage is and what element is short.  In the west it is a grey page with no data.  Her general topic was plant nutrition.  She talked about factors that effect the efficiency of plants taking in various nutritional elements like, N-P-K.  She also showed that the Inland Pacific Northwest (IPNW) soils were very complex and pH varied dramatically in short distances.  Inadequate levels of K are showing up in low and medium management areas.  These are basically the eroded areas.  Taking core samples need to be done with care about location.  An example she shared, was where one core from a low management area included in a 10 core sample from a high management area moved the K from a high level to a marginal level.
      All in all, a day well spent.  These events are great for exchanging information with like minded people, along with the event presentations.

"DIRT" and more

David R. Montgomery has recently put out the third book of a trilogy about soil.    

     [ --DIRT, --HIDDEN HALF OF NATURE, --GROWING A REVOLUTION ].      

Event Photo: 

    All are books that we as farmers should read, and reflect on what we are doing to the soil and how to become better stewards of the land.  By our actions we have demonstrated that we really don't understand the asset we have in our soil.  We continue to flush it's productivity down the ditch year after year where it does no-one an good.  There are several uTube presentations that give you a short course on what each book is about.  The following link is the public kickoff presentation for:  < Growing a Revolution >.  I found this to be very good.  The total video is an hour and eleven minutes.  His presentation is ≈58min and than question/answer period.  I spotted this while looking at the agenda for the National Conference on Cover Crops & Soil Health, sponsored by the Soil and Water Conservation Society.   Enjoy, and think about what you are doing to the land and how you can improve your stewardship.

List of posts

I notice that I took the page off-line to update and never did since 2/17.  It's back online and updated.

Comparisons using Rain Simulator

     There are a lot of rainfall simulators on the net; however, this one is one of the best.  It's a clear demonstration of differences with five types of management, and well narrated.  The comparisons are, --conventional tillage, no-tillage, mixed species cover crop, compacted overgrazed rangeland, and well managed rangeland.  Watch for the water splash on the conventional tilled ground.
     This video was taken in the North Central part of South Dakota about 10 miles east of the Missouri River in a 16" rainfall zone, in a slightly rolling landscape.
                                      Rainfall simulator in SD (17:46min)
     All the simulators I have observed applies rain in a short amount of time on terrain that is relatively level.  Simulators have application rates of 1.5"-2" of rainfall in 10-20 minutes.  Many areas in the world would find these rates as moderate, but for our hills it would be devastating.   Fields with surfaces disturbed would be washed away.  When I started this quest to improve our resource conservation ethic in the early/mid 1970's that's what I envisioned.  At the time, we were receiving a lot of snow on frozen ground and received downpours from summer thunder storms fairly regular.  Severe erosion annually was the rule, not the exception, and no-till was a new term to be learned.  Fortunately for our fields, by the mid 80's we were designated  as in a drought condition, and erosion rates have fallen dramatically to this day.  Now, severe erosion is more the exception than the rule, even on cultivated ground.  However, this fall, our area has received two events that have left some fields in an eroded state.  The pattern is set for serious erosion on unprotected land in 2018, as it was in 2017.  Is this going to be a new trend, ?????, time will tell.  The fields that we steward are prepared, --bring it on!

Conservation from different "No-Tills"

     Over time "No Till" has taken on different meanings for different people.  I'm hearing the term no-till linked with as many as three operations on a field.  Mostly the tools are identified as, drill, shank fertilizer applicator, harrow and/or packer.  Whether one or three pass, the ground is left in better condition than a conventional cultivation system, --HOWEVER, there is a significant difference in the potential soil health between 2-3pass "no-till", high disturbance no-till and ultra low disturbance no-till.   Conditions where water is allowed to move across the ground surface is erosive, regardless of residue volume or ground firmness, --it's only a matter of the degree of erosion.  Water flowing across the ground will contain particulates of dirt, pesticides, and fertilizer.  These in turn overload low areas of the field or go off site into the public domain.

      What can we do to minimize this loss?   -- Farm in a manner that least disturbs the ground surface.  Surface disturbance destroys the channels made by roots, worms, and other organisms that allow rapid movement of water into the soil profile.  Also, every operation creates some "fines" that are redeposited and seal spaces between soil particles.  Harrows are notorious for "fining up" the ground.

 --Every operation reduces the surface cover, and degrades the ability to intercept and dissipate the explosive energy of a rain drop.  Above is a  magnified pic of a raindrop impacting the ground surface with no intercepting residue.  This condition is very destructive to soil aggregates and seals the soil surface quickly.  There are a number of good online videos that show this happening.

     [Some old history] --  This story is to make the point that leaving channels undisturbed, uncovered, exposing them to the surface is very important for moisture intake.   In the 1970's, WSU experimented on ways to enhance rain moving into the soil profile.  One experiment consisted of using a baler frame, modified to stuff wheat residue into a slot.  Their experiments looked so promising that I kept an old baler to make the machine.  The machine was clever and simple.   The pickup and conveyer mechanism was left intact.   A deep ripper shank was located where the gearbox for the plunger would be, and a large wheel mechanism was mounted in the area of the bale chamber to pick off the residue coming from the opening that fed the bale chamber.   The wheel would push the residue into the slot left by the ripper shank filling the slot and leaving material at/above the ground surface.  The concept was proved do-able and was very successful.  With the slot open to the surface, rainfall was intercepted and fed into the soil profile.  The slots needed to be spaced so they would intercept the flowing water before noticeable erosion developed.  Depending on the steepness of the slope these slots could get fairly close, 5' to 20' intervals.  --THE RESIDUE IN THE SLOT concept ultimately failed because once the slots were covered from tillage operations they didn't work.    Without the slot being exposed to the surface, rainwater flowed right across the slot continuing down the slope as if it never existed.  The slots, in effect, had to be installed annually, and this proved too burdensome to be a viable conservation management practice.  

     The issue has not changed with time.  Any surface disturbance closes the natural channels made by decayed roots, worms and other organisms.  This in turn slows the movement of rainwater into the soil profile and promotes more surface water movement.  In my estimation, this is the reason we see better infiltration at 5 years than we do after one year of no-till.  Plants, worms and other burrowing organisms keep adding new channels over the years, where it takes only one pass of a farm tool to wipe them out.

     There are a lot of options available today for single pass no-till (direct seed) drills.  Everything from the maxi-disturbance (Anderson opener style), to the ultra low disturbance (CrossSlot opener style).

     I don't consider any two pass operation as no-till regardless of the drill type used.  Those operations will never move the needle from soil destruction to soil building in the environment of the Palouse.

      

GROWING A CROP IN TALL STANDING STUBBLE

   

Last spring-----As I watch our spring canola grow, the question that keeps nagging at me is 'is the standing stubble interfering with the growth of the canola (and other crops).  Most of the winter wheat stubble is laid flat, but there are areas where our drill leaves some stubble standing.  I have observed that spring wheat growing up through winter wheat stubble appears to grow taller in the early stages and tillers less.  When I mentioned this to Dwayne Beck his comment was "yes, and that's fine.  I don't want tillering of spring cereals".   Crop maturity is extended 7-10 days for each tiller.  One or two tillers may add to the yield, but, more will likely degrade your crop.  They take moisture and nutrients from the main stem if there is a shortage of either or the summer heat forces maturity.
     This fall-----It appears that tall tangled residue does hinder canola branch development.  Canola plants in very tall stubble with some of the stems lodged was observed with less branching and fewer and mispositioned leaves.  Normal harvest height using a sickle bar appears to have little impact.

SOIL HEALTH PRINCIPLES

       Over time I have viewed a lot of video around and about soil health.  Occasionally you run across a jewel.  Recently I came across the 'Merit or Myth series'.  These are a series of short videos (≈3min each) produced in South Dakota through cooperation between ARS-USDA, various researchers, and growers around the state.   < Merit and Myth website >     
       These videos do a good job of explaining what goes into improving soil health.  This series is also a good introduction to Dr. Elaine Ingham's, 'The Soil Food Web', --the need for improving the biology of the soil.  Her video links can be found at: < Dr. Ingham's video link >  Some of the venues are hard to hear.
      These videos are compelling discussions on principals of no-till and soil health, but they don't tell us how to apply them in the Palouse.  The Principles are sound, but we have to figure out how to apply them in our climate conditions.

2017 CROP YEAR --- RAINFALL

     The total rainfall shows this to be a great year.  The crop does have potential but there are caveats.  We had a long period where the ground was frozen, and a lot of moisture ran off the fields.  We had a later than normal start for spring planting which has put those crops behind.  This spring we had our usual random low temperature nights.  The extent of the damage, if any, is not known.  We have had two short periods (3-4 days) of high temperatures (98-100+).  These have shortened our canola bloom.  What other damage the heat may have caused is unknown to me.
St. John / Ewan,  Rainfall (including a lot of snow) record on our farm for 2017 Crop Year.
       August 2016 ---> 0.16", September 2016 ---> 0.45",  October ---> 4.86",  November ---> 1.92",  December--->1.02",  January 2017 ---> 1.40",  February ---> 3.91",  March --> 3.81",  April ---> 1.58", May ---> 0.84",  June ---> 0.72",  July 2017 ---> 0.00,
       [ Crop year 2017 (Aug/July) = 20.67"]
   
     At Thornton, the business that was keeping a loose record of the rainfall quit December 2016.
 [update June 2018]    For the calendar year 2017:  August = 0.00, September = 0.69", October = 1.98", November = 2.96", December = 3.16".
                     [ Calendar year total 2017 ---> 21.05"]

Low Disturbance vs High Disturbance DS drills

     All DS drills can seed and grow an excellent crop and improve soil health.  Farming too efficiently use the moisture we are provided, and the pace too improving soil health is the difference I see between high and low disturbance drill designs.
   High disturbance drills (the term I use for all hoe, double disc, and some single disc openers) all share a similar problem, --they move or disrupt too much soil which exposes the soil surface.  As a result they break infiltration channels, they accelerate decomposition of cover, they plant unwanted seed, and they damage the soil food web if any is present.  There are places in our field where even the CrossSlot fits into the high disturbance category, --on steep slopes where side pressure causes a wider slot, and where we turn.
     I distinguish between DS drills by the amount of soil surface they disturb.  They range from disrupting nearly the entire surface down to a narrow slot of <1.5 inches.  I would say that most hoe drills fall in the high disturbance category, and most single disc drills would fall in the low disturbance category and the CrossSlot in the ultra-low disturbance category.  Others may have their own scale.  By the numbers:
      High disturbance drills:  Their configuration disrupts a large percentage (>70%) of the soil surface and most or all of the surface residue. 
      Low disturbance drills:  Their configuration disrupts (<30%) of the soil surface and about 60% of the residue.
      Ultra-low disturbance drills:  Their configuration disrupts (<15%) of the soil surface and maybe 40% of the residue.
      Whether the numbers accurately describe the drill type performance is not the point here.  What is important is that they represent the concept that the more soil and residue that is disturbed, the more moisture you lose from evaporation, the less moisture your field can absorb from later rains because of disrupted channels, the more biological communities in the soil you disrupt which effects plant food production,  and the more unwanted seed that will be  planted grow and compete with the crop.
      To maximize moisture retention and absorption, you will want to minimize disturbance of the soil surface, grow and maintain the maximum amount of residue possible, and leave it as tall as possible in the absence of a growing crop. (see other posts for the reasoning behind this statement).  It's my belief as well that this statement is valid for all rainfall regions whether 7" or 70".

WHY WE HAVE GONE ULD

      A recent post referenced to why our operation has gone ULD (ultra-low disturbance) direct seed system.  I didn't elaborate on this because, although the two mentioned subjects of that post connected in my mind, the Richard Mulvaney article was my main interest.  On reflection I've decided that our reasons for going ULD should be posted.

      On our quest to improve our soil we have encountered many obstacles, mistakes, disappointments, questions on how to proceed, and yet, having enough success to continue the quest.
      Soil EROSION, and removing fallow from our rotation was the initial driving force.  Any operation that reduces soil disturbance compared to what we are doing with conventional tillage will have a positive impact on the soil.  Direct seeding is a big jump in reducing soil disturbance.  Past history of direct seeding shows that the soil surface is left, more or less in a state of nakedness, and channeled.  Nakedness is correctable; however, I can't envision how you can 'drill' a crop and not channel, whether it be double disc, hoe, or a single disc, including the CrossSlot drill.  In the Palouse channeling can be a serious erosion issue if not considered when drilling the field.
      As we progressed, saving MOISTURE became the driving force.  Although we still have some erosion at times it was mostly contained, --at least visually.  As time passed and information gathered it became clear that we needed good soil structure, more soil organic matter, and more cover on the surface, to maximize the retention of moisture.  WSU-OSU research back in the 70-80's indicated moisture was used in four ways, -----1% to deep percolation, 4% to runoff, 12% to plant transpiration, 83% lost through evaporation off the soil surface.  Research is clear that a soil profile with a cool surface temperature and a calm surface, retains more moisture compared to a hot surface with air moving across it.  The more we reduce soil disturbance, the more residue we keep on the surface, and the calmer we can keep the air at the surface the better our soil moisture will be.  Taking these parameters to the maximum create a serious challenge for drill design.
      In 2012 we moved to ULD by buying a stripper header and hiring our seeding done by a CrossSlot drill.  Now, our ULD direct seed system consists of a Shelbourne stripper header, GVM 90' suspended boom self propelled sprayer and the CrossSlot drill.
Shelbourne stripper head: --maximizes vertical intercept of snow and wind.  The taller the stubble the more snow catch (very effective in the winter of 2016-7), and the taller the stubble the calmer the air at the soil surface.  (measurements are showing that to be very effective also.  The only down side is that we can't harvest every crop type with this header.)
GVM 90' suspended boom self propelled sprayer: --it's value is in reducing tracking in the field.  It's very evident that tracks of any type promote weed emergence compared to the untracked portions in a field.  We regularly see this in our fallow fields.
CrossSlot drill: --the machine that makes ULD possible.  The header and sprayer are the supporting cast.  When we were evaluating drill technologies, and our operation, trying to match a drill to the specifications and limitations that we faced, the CrossSlot opener was the obvious choice.  The CrossSlot has the ability through its depth and pressure related sensing capability to place seed in good earth at the assigned depth while passing through complex soil types and textures, residue types and amounts whether standing or laying down, without stopping for adjustments.  It's a remarkable technology, and we have learned not to move unless it is all working.  Until the residue became too heavy to manage, our other hoe or double disc drills, could start a good fall crop; however, we never had a very good producing spring crop because of voids left by hair pinning or clumps of residue that shed off the drill, or seed not being placed at the proper depth.
      We are now set up to do ULD, and with the CrossSlot we are ready for the next stage which is building soil health.  (which is becoming a whole new story)

N is burning the Carbon Pool

     Two recent events have triggered this post.  I recently gave a presentation on why our operation has gone to a ULDDS (ultra-low disturbance direct seed) system along with sharing our cover crop experience (as limited as it is) to a group of NRCS trainee's from across eastern Washington, and, an article that came out in the July issue of NO-TILL Farmer, titled "Excessive 'N' Application Burning the Carbon Pool (vol. 46, #7).
      The first event had fertility on their minds as part of the general discussion on soil health.  the article authored by Richard Mulvaney, a University of Illinois fertility specialist, had specifics.  His position is based on mining documents on fertility, and data sets, going back 100 years.  His comments helped me to link pieces of a foggy puzzle about crop fertility and how it will react on soil health.  His recommendations are going to be a challenge for us to address.  The following is what I found engaging:  (most will be paraphrased)

      ---soil is an important source of N.

      ---applying N does not build organic matter.

      ---you can not bank N by adding N.   Soil microbes use it to burn the carbon they find in residues and soil organic matter.  This results in less C and less SOM.   (my thought: --this may be why we struggle to move SOM above 3%)

      ---"You can never decouple carbon and N --not on this Earth....".  Microbes use N to make enzymes so they can burn the carbon that supplies their energy.  Every enzyme has N.

      ---crop rotation is best.  Corn yields are better in rotation than with continuous corn, and done with much lower fertilizer inputs.  The data tells me that fertilizer cannot replace rotation for highest yields. (my thoughts: Follows Beck's principal, rotation-rotation-rotation)

      ---Mulvaney's best short-term option for growers would be to increase efficiency by putting more of the fertilizer N, "into the crop" when it is needed. --by:

                           ---Use tests to determine what the soil can provide.

                           ---Don't apply NH3 in the fall.  There is no crop (corn in this case), and there is a lot of microbes that will use the N.  (my thinking: --our fall wheat does not need all the N that we customarily place with it.)

                           ---Sidedress N to synchronize fertilization with crops N demand.  Ideally, shift from ammonia to nitrate fertilizers despite the greater risk of N loss through leaching and denitrification.  Mulvaney & colleagues base this idea on scientific evidence that plants have an edge in taking up nitrates, whereas microbes are better competitors for ammonium.

      ---the 1947 book, The Soil and Health by Sir Albert Howard, claims that there will never be sustainable agriculture until animals are put back on the land.  It's a cycle.  Do we need to rethink the big picture.  (my thought: --several people heavy into covers are going this route)

Residue protects the field

This post has sat as a draft for more than a month.  It has enough information that I decided to finish and publish rather than delete.  It's been a unique year.  I could visually compare--(heavy residue vs no residue, contour seeding vs vertical seeding)

     In February I scouted our winter wheat fields mostly for erosion, and comparing drilling patterns and ground cover.  It was consistent across the region, --on our fields as well as the neighbors.  This year, all of our winter wheat is planted on either, spring or winter pea stubble.  One field has full ground cover and the other has a lot of dirt showing.   There are so many potential variables(slope, aspect, micro-climates, etc), that frequently it is difficult to see a consistent pattern.  This year was different because of the type of winter.  Most of the region received about the same weather over a long period of time.  The whole region experienced abnormally high rain and snow fall this winter. Erosion followed the book where direct seeding showed significantly less erosion than cultivated fields.   Also, the more  surface cover, the less the erosion in direct seeded fields.  

This pic shows early drying of an eroded field.  The "sponge" top soil has been eroded off the ridges and well down the slope.  The dark areas are still showing surface moisture that hasn't evaporated off yet.  These areas are benefiting from water moving from the low water holding capacity areas of the field along with the fact these areas probably have more OM (sponge layer).  There is no surface protection on this field.  

This picture shows two different fields.  The typical cultivated field is at the top the picture,  and a direct seeded field at the bottom.  The aspect is north and the pic shows where deep snow drifts lingered in both fields.  The field at the top had no surface cover other than a nice stand of small wheat.  The field in the lower part of the picture had enough residue (wheat and pea) that very little dirt could be seen and was seeded with a cross-slot drill.  The lower field did not have visible soil erosion, but it did lose water.

This picture shows the amount and type of residue that is protecting the soil surface of the direct seeded field pictured above.  This is a combination of winter wheat and spring pea stubble.  This year, our heavy residue fields are showing rodent damage where the drill left piles.  It appears that those areas are recovering.  We have seen this once in the past where piles of loose straw sheltered rodents under the snow.

This picture shows a winter wheat field on winter pea ground.  This field had two years of low residue and seeded late to winter wheat.  The field history was (chem fallow seeded to winter canola that failed, then seeded to spring wheat, then dormant seeded to winter peas, and now seeded very late, do to the fall rains, to winter wheat). It looks like there is no crop, but the crop  has come through fine.  Even though we use a ULD system and have direct seeded for 20+ years,  if there is little or no cover on the ground there will be visual erosion.  Seeding vertical down the slope accentuates the issue. This field also shows the value of seeding on the contour rather than vertically.  The extreme left side of the picture shows the contrast between contoured and vertical seeding.  The contoured seeding had some soil movement, but you have to look closely to detect it.  Most of the field had some cover.  The corners with multiple tractor/drill passes (as shown above) were the most vulnerable areas.  This area has very light soils and regularly gets beat up with any field operation.

2017 Wheat College

This year's Washington Association of Wheat Growers "Wheat College" was held in the Three Rivers Convention Hall, Kennewick, WA., 4/28/17.  The Three Rivers facility is a great venue.  I found the program interesting.  Attendance was low.  I counted ≈55 total (staff, speakers, producers).  I'm guessing most producers are still in the fields trying to get crops seeded.  The weather has provided an abundance of moisture and a late start for field work.

           CHEMICAL APPLICATION:  The key note speaker was Greg Kruger from North Platte, NE, a professor/researcher.  The organizers should have extended the day by 1-1.5hrs and gave him a second session.  He didn't tell us anything that a licensed applicator shouldn't already know; however, he did emphasize drift issues, their causes, that resulted in lawsuits.  I am listing a few of the points he made about spray applications and off target drift potential.
      ----Spray crops at the right height.  A good rule of thumb is one inch above the targeted plant for every inch of spray nozzle spacing.  20" spacing means 20" above the target plant.  The information below, where appropriate, is taken 90 feet downwind and at the appropriate tip height, as the base measurement being compared.
      ----Wind speed should be checked at application height, not 12' off the ground from a self-propelled rig. ( Well, in Nebraska or other flat land areas, maybe that caution has merit; however, in our steep rolling terrain, I don't see that as a useful factor.)
      ----Drift has two facets: one, is particle, where particles are physically carried off target by wind.  The second is vapor.  Vapor is controlled by chemical structure and is out of the hands of operators to manage.
      ----Each herbicide has a preferred application droplet size.  You should choose the proper tip for the application speed, and related pressure range to maintain that droplet size.
     ----You can visually see a 25 micron change in droplet size.  Learning the proper spray pattern will  help you keep the spray pattern within the preferred droplet size.
     ----Air inversions are common in early morning and evening with still air.  The Pacific Northwest has more air inversions than any other part of the US.  Avoid spraying during periods of air inversions.  Chemistry can be carried a long way off target with inversions.
     ----Chemistry can be carried 7 times farther with wind speed that has been doubled.
     ----Chemistry can be carried 3.5 times farther when booms are raised double their appropriate height.
      ----Doubling the distance to a susceptible crop will reduce the damage to that crop by 80%.
      ----Check tip specification and replace any that are more than 10% off rate.  Worn tips will dramatically effect droplet size, and coverage.
     ----AI tips are used to increase droplet size by introducing air into the solution stream.  With AI's, you are sacrificing potential coverage, depending on target weed, for a coarser droplet.  The presenter likes the AI-XR's for an all purpose tip.  They have a droplet size of 400/450.  The standard AI's are 500/600 micron.
      ----To maximize the use of any given tip, keep your pressure at least 10psi above the low end recommendation, and 15/20psi below the high end recommendation.
     ----Dry herbicide products come with their own measuring cups.  They are accurate within 7-15% depending on the chemistry.  Always use the cup that comes with the box of chemistry.  These calibration marks change with the manufacturing source of the chemical.  For real accuracy a calibrated scale should be used.  Suitable scales can be purchase for ≈ $80.
     ----The first agricultural applied herbicide was 2-4D (dry) in 1947.
     ----The last "mode of action" for plant protection herbicides was discovered in 1986.  All the new herbicides are reformulations of old ones.  Any new "mode" would take 8-10 years before it could be on the market.  Protecting the effectiveness of our current chemistry is paramount, and managing to reduce potential plant resistance should be a priority for your farm.
     ----Chemical specific crops (roundup ready, liberty link, ect.) limits the interest and financial ability to discover new chemical control for weeds in crop cultivars.
     ----Any type of cultural practice used over a long period of time will promote resistant bio-types regardless of whether it is through the use of a chemical, cultivation, hand weeding, or is "organic".  The first resistant bio-type, for the culture of the time, can be tracked back ten thousand years.  A rotation of crops, chemistry, and practices, is the best method of reducing resistant bio-types in agriculture.

Dana Herron & Jay Atchison gave a Wheat Commission report:
      ----Heaven forbid a kernel of GMO wheat reaching an export terminal.  Trade would be disrupted for a year or more.
      ----Buckwheat:  Be careful if you use buckwheat as an alternate crop.  Manage so that there will be no buckwheat show in your wheat sample.  Japan treats buckwheat like we do peanuts.  If you do find buckwheat in your wheat fields, let it be known.  There is no trade issues other than with Japan for buckwheat.  The contaminated wheat/buckwheat lot can be directed to other buyers.

Drew Lions:
      ---Rattail fescue control.  Zigua (brand name) has shown good control of rattail fescue.  The active ingredient is Pyroxisulphome (sp).
      ---Mixing two chemicals with the same mode of action does not increase the effectiveness over using either chemical. --there is a slight chance that using two chemicals with the same mode of action, but are from different families of chemistry, may improve control of a specific weed, but that's not very likely.
     ---All chemical applications are better and more consistent when spraying with more solution, except Glyphosate.  With Glyphosate more water means more chemical will be tied up with the mineral content in the water.  Ammonium nitrate is used to buffer the water, filling the sites that would be filled  with the glyphosate molecule.  This means that is very important to put nearly all the water along with the ammonium sulfate into the tank before adding in the glyphosate.  WSU website has a calculator for the amount of ammonium sulfate to use for a specific hardness of the water being used.

CLIMATE CHANGE

     This is the climate portion of the PNW weather prediction given at the Spokane Farm Forum and Ag Show last February featuring Dr. Art Douglas.
     In preparation for this post I found that I needed to bolster my vocabulary and knowledge about the Milankovitch Cycle. < Milankovitch Cycle >  It's one thing to listen and get the drift of what Douglas is saying, and it's something else to restate the information without attaching a 20min recording of the presentation, --so I'm not going to try!
      I do have a better understanding of why the media doesn't report this phenomena.  It's complex with a lot of interaction and timing of various facets, and, although there is a great body of data that backs up the Milankovitch Cycle, there are two phenomena that it doesn't adequately explain so it's still considered a theory.  Hence, the only thing the media can get their teeth into, and the public can understand, is all the CO2 we are dumping into our atmosphere through burning of fossil fuels.  We are bombarded with this "fact" daily.   It's the "chicken little" syndrome that won't go away anytime soon.  My thought is that fossil fuels will be the worlds principal fuel until it becomes scarce, because of economics and infrastructure world wide.  The money that was/is being spent on inefficient wind monstrosities should have been directed to advances in scrubbing and sequestering end material from burning fossil fuel.  Unlike wind, the money spent on solar technology appears to be a good investment, with efficiency and new technology being announced on nearly a monthly basis.

    [IN SUMMARY]  What I got out of this presentation is:  Human activity is contributing to our warming planet; however, it's insignificant compared to the effects of energy supplied by "Sun Spot Activity", and factors associated with the Milankovitch Cycle.  The data is starting to show a change. Is this change a flattening out, or a move to a down trend in temperature?  It may take a decade or two for that to become clear.  [My thought] --in the short term, (40-50yr), the planet will continue to warm, with some rise in ocean levels.  This is going to be devastating for population around the world living at sea level, and will effect food production.  This will, in itself, cause a lot of political unrest.  In the media there is a lot of handwringing and support for solutions based on chasing symptoms instead of solutions based on projected outcome, --moving populations and developing water storage for instance.  GMO technology will likely keep food production ahead of our shrinking productive land base.

 [ CLIMATE CHANGE PRESENTATION ]: Dr. Art Douglas has a Master's, in SST (sea surface temperature).  Three quarters of the earth is covered by water, hence, the oceans drive our weather.  Temperature change creates ocean currents and how they act.  This in turn moves temperature differentials around the globe effecting air temperature, and rainfall and whether CO2 is released or absorbed.  The oceans are the largest source, and sink, for CO2.  A little change in ocean temperatures makes a huge difference in Atmospheric CO2.   Since a significant part of his talk this year centered around climate change I have been waiting to see what would be written in the local papers.  So far, I haven't seen a word printed on the subject.  Douglas' statement at the beginning of his presentation was "he hoped we were at the end of politicizing the changing climate".  (I don't see that happening.)
      I'll go over a few points that he made and include pic's of some of his slide presentation.

      He started with three antidotal topics to set the stage.  I found these fascinating, but way to detailed to regurgitate here.  This is a snippet of his presentation.   IN SUMMARY, THERE ARE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THE DATA.  Over time each innovation has resulted in the temperature being stepped up 1-3 degrees from the previous method.  These discrepancies are enough on their own to explain the temperature rise.  The following, three sources of change/discrepancy are discussed.

        In/around his yard, he has about an 80 foot elevation difference.  He put out three thermometers, top-middle-bottom, and found several degrees difference. I have noticed that as well.  In 30 feet elevation to the hill behind my house the temperature differential ranges from 1-3 degrees compared to the house.

        The SST gained a degree when data acquisition changed.  This data collection was mandated, starting in 1860.  At intervals mariners would toss a bucket into the ocean and then put a thermometer in it.  Between WWI & WWII, the mariners started taking the SST by induction.  This is where sea water was used to cool the ship propulsion system and they put a thermometer in the induction line to the engine.  That elevated temperature over the previous method by a degree.

        The NWS (national weather service) changed out their weather stations and went to electronic remote sensing.  I believe he mentioned that this was world wide in the early 2000's.  The old stations were read by humans and placed 4.5 feet above the ground.  The new stations are placed 20 feet above ground and remotely sent to the data collection facility.  I think Douglas mentioned that this created a change of about 3 degrees difference from the old readings.  When this change out was done, Douglas was able to acquire all of the thermometers from the Nebraska weather stations.  he did studies with these and found that there was a degree difference between the highest and lowest readings of these instruments.

       You get the picture, --world wide, there is a huge data base, taken by a lot of people taken over a long span of time with different methods employed.  To me this is a perfect scenario to start a cause and have data to back it up.

       Art Douglas is a strong advocate of the power of natural phenomena that originates with the sun and the orbits of planets, specifically earth and it's relationships with the sun and planets.  He does acknowledge that human activity plays a role.  Without saying so, he left me with the impression that human activity is a minor player in the drama of climate change.   The orbit of the earth around the sun changes shape over time.  These are cyclic.   The tilt of the earth changes over time and is also cyclic. 

This graph shows that the present time is the lowest temperature and CO2 levels for the last 300 million years of earths history.  We can't take comfort in that information because a level that can be devastating for us may not even show as a bump on this graph's time frame.  It does show how fragile our hold on existence may be.

 The Milankovitch Cycles consist of earths elliptical orbit around the sun  -- The earth's tilt as it circles the sun, which changes over time --The Precession is the wobble of the earth on it's axis.  At any moment in time, these three cycles, along with sunspots, interact and produce an effect on the earth.  These forces effect the earth in totality, as well as differences in points across the earth's surface from pole to pole.

Sun spots are flares of burning gas that extend great (and varying) distances from the surface of the sun.  On rare occasions, the energy from a flare reaching the earth is so intense that it interrupts communications and has shut down a power grid in the northeast US.   Intensity and frequency of sun spots effect our atmosphere and surface temperatures.

This graph displays what has happened over the past 400 years of Sunspot observations.

These models are predicting a cooling trend for the future.  One or two years ago, Dr. Douglas mentioned that data supporting the temperature trend line was starting to show a change.  Whether that was an indication of flattening out, or moving on to trend low, I can't say.

I struggle with this chart.  What I remember being associated with it is that the current data indicates that time has been lengthened out another 50K-100K years to the next major accumulation of ice.

Dr. Douglas' presentation was ended with this statement from a team of scientists in Denmark.

2017 Spring has Sprung

I declare spring has arrived March 12th 2017.  That is the date of this pic showing the ice melt on our pond.  The morning of the 11th the pond was wall to wall ice.  By evening of the 12th the pond was ice free, --my guide that spring has arrived.  Last Tuesday, March 7th, we were slipping and sliding, with several vehicles stuck on hills or slid into ditches from falling snow and sleet.  The 11th brought 20mph wind and 55 degree sunny weather.  On the 10th we had a winter scape, on the 12th it was spring.  We expect unstable weather for the next week.  At the earliest, I predict Monday April 3rd to get the sprayer, tractor and drill in the field.
      If the old adage holds, those who cultivate won't make any real progress until after Easter, April 16th.  Those of us that DS don't worry about ground conditions, other than being too wet.  One pass and your crop is in, is a whole lot different than making multiple passes to prepare ground for conventional drilling.  The better the soil structure to drain water deep into the soil profile,and the heavier the surface residue to support the machine weight, the sooner direct seeders can get into the field.

Erosion Spring 2017

           The winter of 2016-17 has been long, windy, cold, and with significant snow.  With frozen ground, and piled up snow I was sure that we would have horrible erosion in the area.  I was sort of looking forward to how our operation handled a fast melt condition.  As it has turned out, the heavy rains predicted didn't turn up, so we had as gentle of runoff as one could hope for.  At this point in time we have lost nearly all the snow except those areas that drifted heavily.  All of the cultivated fields seeded to WW have significant sheet and rill erosion, but it could have been a lot worse.

This pic shows conventional tilled field with a long slope showing significant erosion, --pretty typical.  It's noticeably more ugly where the corner was turned and vertical seeding took place.

This pic shows our CC seeded to WW.  The WW was seeded close to freeze up so it is just emerging now.  The ground is in great shape with most of the CC dead, but the late seeding will cost us yield.  I don't see any grassy weeds at this point in time.  The radishes appear to have done their job by intercepting water and helping penetrate the frozen ground.  We were able to intercept most of my neighbors water coming off a conventionally tilled field.  The thin standing radish residue did help intercept snow.  This greatly reduced the drifting.  The snow coverage wasn't as even as in the more dense, taller grain stubble.

This pic shows erosion in our field where there is virtually no ground cover and seeded vertically.  This is WW on WP ground.

This pic is the same field (WW on WP) but in an area where the seeding was done on contour.  Even with our ULD-DS system using the CrossSlot drill, erosion will happen if you don't have good surface cover, or if you are seeding vertically.  There were no radish holes for intercepting and moving water through the frost layer.  The pic shows staining in the lower half.  You don't see the erosion tracks in the top half but they are there, --following the drill rows and breaking out, going down the slope.  The soil was redeposited down slope leaving this track, and most of the water lost had a low sediment load.  It will be a challenge to maintain adequate surface coverage when low/no residue spring crops are grown.  In this situation if we would have seeded earlier and also seeded a low rate (0.5-1.0#?) of radish with the WW, less erosion would have resulted.  I would like to see radish going into the winter about 1" diameter and ≈24" long, and ≈48" apart (it's a guess).  That's doable if seeded by first of October in our climate.  When radish freezes(dies), the tuber shrinks quickly.  I'm convinced this will be a good practice.  It's the plant population that is the unknown for me.

WEATHER FORECAST 2017

      Every year one of the highlights of the Farm Forum is to hear what Dr. Art Douglas has to say about the weather, local, national, world, and how that translates into agriculture production.  He always includes some statements on the climate and what drives our weather.  This year he went into more detail about climate change and the driving forces behind it, including human contribution.  I'll address his presentation on Climate Change in another post.  

       Dr. Art Douglas is an emeritus professor of meteorology in the Atmospheric Science Department at Creighton University, and has been part of Spokane Farm Forum since 1978, except for one year.  He is the Long-Range Weather Consultant to the Mexican Government, Cattlefax and ConAgra.

           Local Forecast:   Last year's forecast was "spot on" for our operation.  El Nino appears to be coming back.  For us in the PNW that means drying and warming trend.  It's predicted that spring and summer will be a little below average rainfall and a little above average temperatures.  Our WW should be fine.  No more arctic outbreaks are expected.  Spring crops may be iffy depending on location.  Getting WW for the 2018 crop seeded timely may be challenging do to low rainfall conditions this summer and fall.  I think we will be seeding early.
           These are the conditions that we have planned for with our ULD-DS system.  Gather, and hold every drop of rain possible, using heavy ground cover,  tall residue, and minimal ground disturbance.
           It sounded like the only places in the world that may have stressed crops for 2017 will be Australia and possibly spring crops in the PNW.

GLYPHOSATE -- NEW STUDY

              There is a lot of internet noise about the evils of glyphosate.  Trying to figure out fact from fiction is challenging. 

              Recently I attended a meeting where a report was given by a Researcher at a local University on a recent study to determine, what, if any effects glyphosate has on soil bacteria communities.  In the past, Monsanto has put out information that glyphosate does not affect soil biota, but the old research is under attack for using bad methodology.   The Researcher feels this is a very good study, it used appropriate methodology for the task, replicated, and will be peer reviewed.  They feel the study is high enough caliber to be sent on to the National Academy of Science for further review and hopefully, publication.   Soil samples from four farms scattered over a wide area (100+ miles), with different soil types, and different annual rainfall (10”- 24”)were collected.   At each location, soil was collected from ground that had little/no history of glyphosate application along with ground that had an extensive history of glyphosate use.  In our case, we had a grass area that was once conventionally farmed, —it has never had glyphosate applied.  Bordering this area is a field that has had glyphosate  applied multiple times, every year, for 31 years.  The other 3 locations, have different, but similar stories.  The testing methodology used soil DNA and next- generation sequencing.  10,000 bacteria species were identified. 

       The RESULT:  — There was no dramatic effect on the bacterial communities identified,  —out of the 10,000 species a few showed slight decreases, and a few showed slight increases from the use of glyphosate.  The populations of most bacteria groups appeared to be unaffected.  The four locations showed differences in the bacterial communities, indicating location, soils, and rainfall did have an impact on soil bacteria communities, —more so than what was identified through use of glyphosate. [ This research team was headed up by Tim Paulitz, USDA-ARS an adjunct professor with Washington State University ]

       This is very good news for those of us in the direct seeding community.

       There are plans developing to do a similar study on what effects, if any, glyphosate has on fungi species and populations in the soil.

    On Another Page:   Today I attended a meeting on soil health put together by WSU extension. Part of the agenda included a presentation on Glyphosate.  Desiccating a crop has to be done within label limits or labs can find traces of the amino acid associated with glyphosate in the end product.  Whether this is a real problem or not, it leads to poor PR in the phobia climate surrounding glyphosate.  Traces of glyphosate residue, under some conditions can persist for more than a year in the soil.  This residual material can, in some rare instances be taken up and harm the crop.  These rare instances manifest themselves with a specific  pH, soil, and moisture relationship.  THE TAKE HOME MESSAGE:  Don't deviate from the label when applying glyphosate.  We have always considered the chemistry super safe and tend to be a bit flippant with it's use.

2017 Spring Runoff --> ULD-DS vs Tillage

      This last week we have been losing our snow.  It started out with light freezing rain, turning to light rain, then, temperatures going to the mid 40's during the day and down to 29 at night.

      A couple of weeks ago, it was predicted that we were going to get 1.5-2" of rain.  I fully expected massive runoff from our fields.  It didn't happen.  We are losing some water during the latter part of the day, but no huge amounts.  The creek in front of our house has risen to < 1/2 it's capacity.

     Our ULD-DS fields are handling the thaw quite well.  Nothing seems to be displaced on our stubble ground.  We have two WW fields west of St. John.  One is seeded on CC ground that included radish, mustard, canola and other cultivars (see earlier post).  I could not determine whether we were losing water or not.  There was definitely displacement, but runoff from a cultivated field was going through our field, and I could not determine if we were adding to that flow.  It appeared that the displacement wasn't more than 20-30' before the water disappeared.  There are exceptions, --seeding vertically.  I don't think you can stop water movement seeding vertically on a slope.  Even as narrow as our slot is with the cross-slot (pic on the right).  Maybe an exception would be where stubble was plentiful enough to hairpin it into the slot to slow the velocity.  Our CC or WP ground definitely did not have that condition.  The WW on WP ground was losing some water.  There were no deep rooted, fast deteriorating radish plants in that field.
      The jar on the right was taken at our WW on WP field border.  It is nearly clear and I see no sediment showing on the bottom.   I will be sending a sample to a lab to see what polluting elements may be present.  Obviously sediment is not one of them.
      The jar on the left was taken at the outflow of a conventional tilled field, and sediment does settle out.

      At Thornton, the WW seeded into SP residue looks terrific.  Except for the drifts, which are large, the snow has pretty well disappeared.  Again, without vertical blockage snow is displaced and drifts form.   This condition is yield robbing, even if the water doesn't leave the field.  There are areas that are short ≈2"moisture, and areas that have excess moisture but losing sunlight energy.

      The pic on the left shows disappearing snow and a good WW crop exposed.  The pic on the right is Thorn Creek.  Our property is not contributing to this flow.  Our property scores very well on the Slake test which is helping us with moisture infiltration.
       I'm including a 7min (YouTube) video by Ray Archuleta explaining the Slake Test and it's meaning.