SHELBOURNE CVS32 vs AGCO 8200 Header

This a reconstruct of a 2019 post that I lost in an attempt to update after I recently noticed that the videos would not run.  This is four years out of sync with the post, (below), titled " STRIPPER HEADER -- YES/NO", August 6, 2023.

Because of CANOLA we upgraded our combine from a 1985 Gleaner N7 to a 2013 Gleaner S77.  The N series did not have enough room in the threshing area to allow canola stems to pass through blocking the area leading to the accelerator rolls.  The S series has an enormous amount of room allowing free flow.  S77 came with a 30' AGCO 8200 flex header with a Crary Air Reel.  The auger has exceptionally deep flighting and retractable fingers the full length of the auger.  It is very aggressive in moving bulky crop material to the feeder house of the combine.

When mounting the Shelbourne 2012 CVS32 on the N7, we upgraded the feeder house mounting that included tilt control.  This allowed us to direct mount the header on a 28 year newer combine.  To this point in time we have been harvesting canola and mustard with the CVS32 and putting up with the blockage issue because the standard head on the N7 did not move bulky material well.  Since we now have the 8200 with the ability to harvest bulky crop material we decided to compare the two headers for harvesting canola.  We liked the CVS32, but had some concern about rotor finger wear from processing the branch material associated with canola/mustard.

The 20 second video above is of the AGCO 8200.  The 38 second video below is of the CVS32. 

 The results of our comparison are:  The measured AGCO 8200 loss was 60% of the CVS32.  There are caveats to this however.  First of all, I was surprised how little seed was in the catch pan with the AGCO even though the reel was deep in the crop as shown in the video.  On the other hand the AGCO was missing a significant number of pods on low branches that didn't show in the pan.    These pods were being pushed down under the cutter bar.  Adjustments probably could have been made to catch those pods.  OK!, I'll accept the idea that the AGCO header has less header loss than the CVS header in canola.   What other comparisons can we make?  The CVS does not strip green material and put it through the processor like a sickle head.  This includes green crop pods/heads, and weedy material.  There was more growling of the processor with the AGCO.  Obviously more material was being processed.   --cleaner sample with the CVS because of less processing of green material.   --faster cutting with the CVS.  The CVS will fly through canola compared to the AGCO.  Speed is limited only by shatter from the pods impacting the nose of the hood.   Less material laying on the ground with the CVS.  Although most of the branching is processed, the stalks along with some branches and weed residue are left standing.  This leaves a better field condition for low disturbance single or double disc drills to seed the following crop.   --less tire wear/damage with the CVS.  The stalks are left longer, hence tires/tracks bend the stalk over instead of spearing.   --better moisture retention.  Long stalks, although not nearly as dense as wheat stubble, does a good job of trapping snow and leaving it in place on the field.

    This year we experienced some rain while harvesting winter wheat.  Even though the amounts were light, the humidity was high and delayed harvest.  With the CVS we were able to start several hours earlier than those with sickle heads.  This condition left the standing stubble with a different look, more head material left on the stalk, but I didn't find one kernel left in a head.  The following pic's are examples.

These heads were picked from the ground.  All the kernels were removed, although they look pretty much intact.  

    We love the Shelbourne heads and use it almost exclusively; however, there are conditions where it won't work as well as a flex head with sickle cut.  Being rigid over 32' is definitely problematic with short crops in our hilly topography.  I drove the combine for the first time in years and found it difficult to keep the header leveled with the crop.  I'm surprised that Kye hasn't complained louder about the need for auto header tilt and height control.  It's critical for the crop hit the nose of the hood at the proper height, and manual tilt adds operator stress to maintain that optimum contact.  Header height is critical for hood height.  We will add the auto control for these two functions next harvest.  Auto header control for the CVS is significantly more expensive than for a regular sickle header.  We were told that more ticklers and faster data processing was needed to avoid ground strikes at speeds operators drive the CVS. 

STRIPPER HEADER --YES/NO

Harvest is upon us and we have had two inquiries about our Shelbourne Stripper Head, so I'm making a post about it.  For more head detail visit the following link.   Stripper Header

 Does a stripper head have a future in your operation?  That will depend on what you want to accomplish. 

PRO's:  --tall stubble is great for snow catch.  Tall stubble will hold yours in place and catch some of your neighbors passing by.   --tall stubble reduces air velocity across the soil surface for potential moisture savings by reducing the replacement frequency of the surface boundary layer.   --there is a significant reduction of material that the combine has to process resulting in less overall machine wear.         --there is a significant reduction in dust at the throat of the feeder house resulting in better operator vision in the evenings with calm conditions.   --generally there is an increased speed of harvesting.    --generally, heavy single disc drills work better because there is less residue laying on the soil surface.   --if you intend to remove the straw, stripper headed stubble is great for swathing and baling.    

CON's:  --stripper heads can leave the field more challenging to seed.  Hoe drills will likely be problematic.   --stripper heads are less adaptable than a conventional cutter bar head for some crop types (crops with deep podding and crops with fragile seed coats).  The adjustable hood over the rotor of the stripper head is restricted to approximately 18"maximum opening for efficient crop intake.  An example, winter canola will set pods ~24"  down the plant compared to wheat at ~8"-12".    --ground hugging crops like lentils subject the rotor to more potential damage from ground strikes.  The stripper head rotor will fling rocks long distances with great force.  --there is a greater concern of starting a fire from vehicles in tall grain stubble.

NARRATIVE:    The Shelbourne Reynolds Company make three models of stripper heads (RX, CVS, RSD) that range from 12' to 42' wide.  Our head is a 2012 CVS32.  They all require an adaptor plate specific to the type of combine it is being mounted on.  We have found that auto tilt and auto height control are good investments to lower crop loss and reduce operator fatigue.  Hood position and rotor speed is operator controlled.  Correct settings of both are important to minimize crop loss, and may need adjusting to match different field conditions through out the day.  Notice that the rotor fingers have an elevated edge forming a cup like shape.  When that elevated edge is gone we consider the finger worn out.  We change out the fingers more frequent than Reynolds representative's told us.  When we inquired about the wear, we were reminded that wear is a function of volume processed.  Our crop yields generally are significantly higher than midwestern yields where the data is developed.

    The WSU dry land research station at Lind, WA. shows no advantage in moisture saving with the stripper head.  This 8"- 12" rainfall site has very little crop residue to work with on light (near powder) soils, exposed to a lot of wind on a relatively flat open landscape.   That station is a challenging site, so I'll revise any statement I may have made on earlier posts in this way, --soil surface armor (cover) is very important for moisture savings when compared to bare soil.  Any crop residue height that can be developed or maintained beyond soil surface cover will have beneficial effects on saving additional moisture.  Thin standing residue with no soil surface cover under it, exposed to blistering sun, will pull moisture fast.

    The stripper head excels in small grains (wheat & barley).  We have harvested wheat-barley-garbs-spring canola-mustard and dry peas.  We currently own a Gleaner S77 and it came with an model 8200 30' auger header with an air assisted reel.  We use the 8200 head for dry peas and brassica (mustard and canola) crops.  With brassica's, most of the plant is processed, hence we found excess wear on the rotor fingers compared to small grains.  Although stripper head loss is low when harvesting brassica's, loss was still approximately twice that of the 8200 air assisted head.  We had excessive seed coat damage when harvesting dry peas.  That may have been do to bad rotor speed adjustment, but the Gleaner 8200 head also has a floating cutter bar for closer cut to the ground, along with deep flighting on a full fingered auger to mover bulky crop material to the feeder house.  We have never harvested lodged wheat that hugs the ground.  We are told that it will recover that type of lodged grain very well.

Stubble can end up taller than the crop after harvesting grain with heavy seed heads .  We mostly notice this phenomena with barley where heads with heavy grain pop up when the grain is removed.  I don't recommend leaving a patch of unharvested crop in the field unless you have the capability of machine mapping to show where you have cut, and where you haven't.

A sign of a farmer with a stripper head.  Avoid going into stripper headed fields when conditions are conducive for fire.  

At the right side of the blog click on "stripper head" under "label".  This brings up all postings on the Shelbourne Reynolds Stripper Header that I have made over the years.

Below are two videos from 2019 showing the Shelbourne stripper head and the AGCO 8200 harvesting canola.  These videos wouldn't play on the 2019 posting and I tried to update, and I think I have botched the whole posting, and maybe more.

2023 WSU Dryland Research Station (Lind, WA)

        WSU's Dry Land Research Station at Lind, Wa. is recognized as having the lowest annual precipitation of all the State and Federal dryland research facilities in the US.  It has a 105 year existence.   The 101 year average is 9.61" per year.  The lowest annual rainfall was 4.36 in 1977, and the highest annual rainfall was 22.71" in 1948.  The 2023 crop year (Sept--May) total is 7.42".  The take home points for me this year (June 15th) are the following:

    --Staff:  The Lind Station has a new Director, Dr. Surendra Singh, a new scientist, Dr. Shikha Singh, and a new Technician, Steven Jaurez.

     --Winter Peas:   There is an attempt expand the normal rotation of (winter wheat - fallow), by introducing winter peas into the rotation.  Current research has shown:  -- providing inoculant increases the yield an average of 6.6%, --discovery of a bacterium that surpasses diseases in peas,  -- discovered a bacterium that develop super sized nodules on pea roots,  -- pea pod weevil are present with no past history of growing peas in the area.  As a result research is ongoing to find resistant varieties to the pest, -- the plots were very short on residue.  The researcher stated that even a small amount of residue in row with the pea made a significant improvement in winter survivability, -- the microbial community was different for different pea varieties,  -- all variety trials were moment seeded in late October.

    -- Endangered Species Act (ESA):  New forms of regulation are being foisted on farming activities in the state.  Some of them may effect agriculture in our area.  I'm including two pic's of a brochure handed out offering some explanation.  It includes a website that we need to become familiar.  

-- Russian Thistles:  are a major pest in low precipitation growing areas.  Currently all control applications of Spartan, Charge, Fierce, and Metribuzin on the plots looked good.  Researchers will be looking for control differences when rain arrives.

2023 McGregor Research Tour

    I always find this to be an interesting tour.  Cat and her crew do a good job.  Take home points for me this year (June 13th)  are the following:

    --Canola:  A large trial plot with a number of different cultivar from different companies.  The plots all looked good, well into flowering.  The plots, visually, looked significantly better than the canola field that bordered the plots.  The field was streaky with, generally, thinner stand with fewer flowers, and the streaks being shorter and flowers turned white, and I didn't notice pods developing.  The cooperator prepared the field and plot area the same, applying 80ppa N, 10ppa S.  The field was seeded at 5ppa of canola seed.  The plot was seeded a week later and had an additional 5gpa of Kickstart for fertility, and was seeded at 6ppa of seed.  That is a lot of seed.  My preliminary information indicates that the Kickstart was the only difference, other than the type of drill used.  I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of Kickstart showing that much difference, but it was obvious right to the border that encircled the plot site.  Maybe waiting a week later helped the plot site.  Foliar feeding has shown some potential benefit, with the best timing being early rosette stage before rapid biomass increase.   [ Earlier, I conversed with Brian Caldbeck, of Caldbeck Consulting.  A couple of useful comments were: --1) he likes 6-7 established plants/sf, and not to count emerged plants because some will not survive.  --2) space the seed out.  When seed clumps together only one or two seeds will germinate.  The others just sit there doing nothing.  --3) hybrids tend to divide out as tall with slender branch spread and shorter with wider branch spread.  He prefers tall/slender on 7"-10" spacing and short/wide on 10"-15" row spacing.

--Wireworm:  They infest a lot of crop acreage and can do damage to yield.  Wireworms are the larva form of the Click Beetle.  They emit a clicking sound, and are highly attracted to the color of white.  An easy check is to park a white pickup in/by the field you are scouting, --if they are there, they will be all over the pickup.  Wireworms prefer soil temperatures in the 55-75ºF range with moisture.  They dive deep when soil temperature reaches ≥ 80ºF.   McGregor has found that a lot of perceived chemical damage is actually wireworm damage.  Wireworms are more widely spread then we realize.  Click Beetles survive in grasslands and crop residue.  Natural predators are: rodents, birds, bats, frogs, lizards, predatory beetles, predatory wasps, predatory mites,  Lacewings, spiders, and preying mantises.  Seed treat with Terassa is quite effective for control.  

--Seed Treats:  Terassa seems effective for wireworm control.  Systiva seems effective for Rhizoctonia.  Relenya seems effective for Bunt Smut.   The Guardian Blend controls 20 diseases, but not wireworm.

--Fertility:  Zinc is best applied to seed compared to in row, side band, broadcast.  Zinc is the #1 limiting micronutrient in Pacific Northwest.  Nitrogen applied at Tillering stage is best timing; however, stabilized N applied at time of seeding has given best yield.    Use foliar feed for needed elements found through SAP testing at flag leaf stage.

--Wheat:  Early-Late seeding.  Best yields appear to develop when seeding early with a late maturing cultivar, and when seeding late, choose an early maturing cultivar.  Winter wheats:  Shine is highly susceptible to dryland foot rot while Blackjack is tolerant to dryland foot rot.  M-Pire has high tolerance to grassy herbides.  --with an awned wheat, awnes indicate developing kernel.  A stubby(short) awn is questionable for development.  An exercise Cat had us do related to early-medium-late seeding of winter wheat.  Seeding dates for the same cultivar was Sept. 15th, Oct. 15th, Nov. 15th.  In all cases the heads were very similar in development.  The main difference was the number of tillers.  The lesson here was, plant higher seed rate as you go farther into late fall to compensate for lack of ability to tiller.

--Herbicide treatments:  This trial consisted of some common herbicides with different mixes and sprayed across several cultivar types to see the crop reaction.   Effectiveness of the treatments varied.  It was pointed out that Clethodim, Paraquat, and Glyphosate needed water conditioning to improve effectiveness.

--RO Water:  Like last year, I think Cat used distilled water in 2023 and called it RO (reverse osmosis) water, but it's not!  McGregor's interest in RO water came about because of the buzz around a few operations using processed water and cutting chemical rates.  The trials looked poor and their warnings about escapements and potential for developing resistance are valid.   In 2023,  there are 9 active water processing units serving ~ 14 farm/ranch operations in eastern Washington and northern Idaho.   Since 2020 a group of us have been looking into the Pursanova Water System.  This system first filters the water, then run it through a reverse osmosis (RO) unit, and then on through "structure" tubes containing beads of specific types of ores.   These are not random rocks.  For more information about water see my posts on "Pursanova -- RO/S Water" by clicking on the "water" label.  There is a lot more to water than we generally recognize.

DWAYNE BECK - CROP DIVERSITY & INTENSITY

      THESE  SHOULD  BE  VIEWED  SEVERAL  TIMES  FOR  AN  UNDERSTANDING

Click on the URL for topics of  NEW AG!    ---->    D. BECK 55:34 Presentation

 No-Till Guru  (Dwayne Beck)  55:34min presentation at the 2019 National No-Till Conference is a great audio/video on making new agriculture practices profitable.  I brought this up from a December 2020 post.  Everything said in this presentation is current today, June, 2023, and more meaningful for some of us who are trying to follow the principles for successfully regenerating our soils and maintaining yields.  The first ~ 18 minutes are about South Dakota, and the Pierre Research Farm.

Click on URL for, "Cover Crop Estabishment and Grazing".  --->  D. BECK 48:08 Presentation  

        No-Till Guru (Dwayne Beck) 2017 presentation talks about Cover Crops and factors to consider when raising them like purpose, and cultivar selection.   Some repeated information in different words.  If I would have found this earlier, I would probably have done better, and be farther along with cover cropping.                                                                                

6/6/23 WHEAT COLLEGE

    Mostly an interesting meet.  It would have been better if the venue (Palouse Empire Fair Grounds Community Bldg) had better acoustics-sound system for those of us with hearing issues.  Sound is slightly off, reverberating, making a lot of words indistinct.  

    --Ted Labun from Canada speaking on "successfully growing dryland wheat".  My main interest was his comments on canola, after his talk.  Points he made: --different hybrids with, some growing tall with narrow branching, and others growing shorter with wider branching.  The first he likes seeding in 7" rows, and the latter in 10-14" rows.  --he likes plants every 6-7" along row.  --where a clump of seed drops, only 1-2 seeds will germinate.  The others do nothing.  Spacing out seed allows for reduction in seeding rate.  Instead of 400,000spa, you can go down to 250,000spa.  --he likes the wheat-canola rotation.  --his pics showed a lot of residue (flat) on the ground.  --he likes a black slot where residue has been moved to the side for seed to emerge.  He could not tell me if there are issues with growing canola in tall standing stubble (possible light interference).  His talk indicated he was more familiar with minimum till practices, compared to no-till. 

    --Pic below:  Aaron Esser promoted his color coded crop/field chart with chemistry groups used by year.  

This is a great tool for quick one page visual reference of chemistry when endeavoring to reduce weed resistance.  The problem I see is that his colors don't show enough contrast for some crops he has assigned.  We should develop this for our operation.  He likes using Liberty Link canola instead of RR canola.  It is an opportunity to reduce one or more applications of glyphosate in the rotation. I think it is a given that most of us use too much glyphosate and should look for alternatives where possible.

    His studies show that cultivar genetics was a better tool for disease control than applying fungicides.  From my biological farming study, fungicides are particularly bad for beneficial soil fungi, so it's preferable to avoid them when improving soil health is a goal.

    A new management tool he unveiled today was charting by field weed species, ranking them by worst as they impact crop yield.  *This suggests that we should not try to kill every weed in the crop/field.  *Changing that mindset toward weed management programs will likely reduce chemical applications, reducing potential weed resistance, by targeting weeds that impact crop yield.

    --Rick Wesselman from Syngenta talked about plant roots.  Roots are the foundation for the plant.  Healthy root system makes for better yield.  Seed coatings are being developed that enhance root growth early in root development.  Our operation is looking into these type products.  This year we have applied biological material to all our seeding either by seed coat applications or in-row with the seed.

    --Rachel Wieme from WSU gave information and demonstration about soil pH and why it matters for crop production.  She showed how varied the pH is by taking readings along a 12" soil probe sample.

       Several people in the group remarked that they were introducing cultivation back into their no-till operations because of their finding soil stratification of nutrients and pH.  *From a soil health aspect this is going backwards.  In our environment, growing sufficient biomass to move the needle on soil health in a positive direction is difficult.  *No-till, in and of itself, is not sufficient.  *No-till dramatically reduces the loss of SOM, and corresponding, slows the rate of deteriorating the soils health.  *Cultivation in any form accelerates the loss of soil organic matter, surface biomass, and soil structure.  *Natures plowmen (worms) disappear with cultivation.  *They need food on the surface, and in the form of soil organic matter.  *Along with food, they need undisturbed ground for reproduction.  * Worms, both vertical borers and horizontal borers breakup soil stratification by moving material around in the soil profile.

    --A spokesman from Altitude Agri Services gave a talk, and demonstrated a T30 agriculture drone.  This is new technology to agriculture and there are a lot of questions.  He stated that a drone set up with two extra batteries, charger and generator) costs between $30-40 thousand dollars.  I didn't hear him talk about licensing.  We have been looking into this technology since January. 

  *The T40 (pictured here) became available in the fall of 2022.  Licensing for legally flying these heavy drones is a pretty straight forward process, but is time consuming and can be expensive depending on how you go about it.  *There are individuals and companies scrambling to set up training/licensing programs.

(*my thoughts interjected into the info. presented.)

PURSANOVA - RO/S (part 2)

      The information here describes the equipment purchased, and our experience one year later.   Some of the following information will be familiar from the earlier post. 

      Why did we purchase the Pursanova system?  The short answer, --reading, listening, experience, and seeing the potential for taking a big step toward Regenerative Agriculture on the land we steward.   In February 2020, our bio group was introduced to the technology, and although outlandish, it intrigued me.  2020, I read a couple of books on water, and talked to growers back east who have used this equipment for a number of years.  Most of my contacts started out with just the (reverse osmosis) RO unit, but all gravitated to the Pursanova Disc's and Structure Tubes over time.  No one said they would quit using it.  No one could give me research data showing it's value.  Everyone had a lot of antidotal evidence supporting their use of the Pursanova water.  Most use the water year around on the farm and in the house.  Vatche' has some big fruit grower accounts, but they are secretive about it's use.   Our first experience using the Pursanova water technology, the fall of 2021, was good enough that we wanted to continue, but was concerned about getting the (Spokane Conservation District) SCD's unit when we needed it, so chose to purchase our own.  The "water structure" technology is separate from the RO equipment.  There are a lot of RO equipment outlets.  They each have their sales pitch, and it can be confusing.  We decided to stay with Vatche, and purchased his complete setup, except for the water softener equipment.  We chose a descaler by US Water Systems in place of the bulky water softening equipment.   The pic below is our unit mounted in an insulated 6x6x12' box trailer, consisting (ccw) of a 300gal supply tank, a Pursanova disc and bank of three big blue filters mounted on the wall, a 60g Pursanova water holding tank (not shown), the four tube RO unit, the 15gal tank holding the descaler mixture, an electrical panel, a recirculating pump, another Pursanova disc, and two Pursanova 40" structure tubes mounted on the trailer wall.  The RO unit is very sensitive, needing water immediately when called for.   A float controlled supply tank is preferred over a direct connection to a hose bib.   There are a total of four large blue filters, each with a different function.  The users I contacted, stated that when leaving the unit idle for lengthy periods of time, they ran Pursanova water through the system and left it full.  They found leaving the unit idle with the treated water lengthened the life of the RO membranes.  Our unit requires ≥10gpm water supply and 220V electrical service.  This size unit produces ~4-5gpm of Pursanova water and wastes ~3-4gpm for a daily total of around 5500-7000 gal/day of treated water.  The RO unit has a water recycling capability that brings the efficiency up to about 65-75%, to lower waste, but we found the feature quickly fouled the RO membranes.  Sufficient supply of Pursanova water will probably require additional storage tanks.   Minimize Pursanova water contact with metal.  Store in plastic.  Stainless steel is not as bad as iron.  How long you can store "structured" water without providing some circulation is a moving number.  Two years ago we were told 2 weeks, then 2 months, and I recently heard that the "structure" could be maintained for 5 months, and maybe indefinitely.  Stay tuned!

                  2022 Experience: 

  2022 started out looking a lot like 2021, --short on moisture and the prospect of high summer temperatures over a lengthy time.  We knew we needed to cut costs in expectation of another year of disappointing yields.   In February, 2020, when our Bio group started looking into the Pursanova technology, we were warned to reduce our chemistry rate 35% to avoid damage to the crop.  That seemed a bit far fetched at the time.  However, our experience in the fall of 2021 with reduced rates of glyphosate was encouraging.   All of our 2022 applications of chemical or fertilizer, had Pursanova water used as the carrier.  The McGregor Company is our main supplier of crop inputs, and we pay them for agronomy services.  In 2022, for most chemical applications, we took McGregor's recommendation, and cut it in half.   We were gambling that our fields were clean enough that we could survive one year if the concept proved wrong.  There were three exceptions;  (1)- Imazamox (Beyond) for goatgrass control in winter wheat.  We did a test area at half rate with Pursanova water, but the remainder of the field was at full label rate with well water (2)- Paraquat (Solera) application was used at the full label rate and 25gpa water, and (3)- Pyroxasulfone (Anthem Flex) soil application for grassy weed control in fall seeded winter wheat.   We intended, but didn't make any foliar applications, other than adding fertilizer to our normal spring chemical application.  Pursanova water was used for fertilizer dilution that went through the drill.  As the year progressed we tweeked the adjuvants used with the various chemistries.  Glyphosate was our main target chemistry, and Rattail Fescue was our main target weed.

        RESULTS:    We had no disasters, and no chemical messes from the Pursanova water.  Chemical efficacy  appeared as good, and I think better in most areas, with the half rate used in the crops.   With goat grass, imazamox has been a disappointment in the past, and was again, both, half rate using Pursanova water, and full rate with well water.  Paraquat was very good.  It took all the color out of volunteer canola quickly,  --much better than in the past with well water.  We messed up by not putting out a strip at half rate with half the water.  Rattail Fescue has become an issue on a couple of fields.  Rattail blew up on us this year.  We decided too use a new tactic, --applying multiple low rate applications in our fallow fields using Rt3@12oz & 10gpa along with one pound of granulated sugar/ac and 1oz/ac of McGregor's "conform" adjuvant.  The first application looked very good, except in the extremely dense patches where a scattering of sickly green areas remained after ~2wks.  This prompted a second application, --this looked really dead; except we could find a few tiny scattered pale green leaves in those dense patches, which prompted a third application in those areas.   We could find no hint of green following the third application.  We ended up with ~36oz/a of Rt3 over a ~8wk period, but the rattail appeared dead.  We will know by this coming fall, after harvest, how successful we were.  In the past we have used 20-32oz Rt3 with a full load of recommended adjuvants and 12-15gpa of well water, and only got to the "mostly dead looking phase".  With the Pursanova water, we have moved away from all adjuvant type chemistry and replaced them with one pound of white granulated sugar per acre and either one or two ounces per acre of "conform" depending on how droughty the weeds appear.  Conform is used primarily for drift control at 7-11oz/ac, but we are seeing it as an excellent spreader at 1-2oz/ac when using the Pursanova water.   For equipment, we are making our spray applications with Pentair's GuardianAir Twin jet nozzles, and like them very much.  Earlier, we were using TeeJet Turbo TwinJet nozzles.   Next year we are going to look at lower rates of application, --less than half the chemical rate and less than 10gpa total solution.  I see no reason to change the sugar-conform rates.  It's cheap and appears effective at this point in time.

       To keep this momentum, and maintain or increase the value of the Pursanova water, we will have to up our game of soil health and no-till practices: --reduced disturbance, soil cover, soil sanitation, crop rotation, diverse species, and keeping a living root in the ground longer.  Some of these we are currently doing, some we are not.  Assuming these gains are permanent and slacking off these principles could prove detrimental.

        CONCLUSION:        This has been a fantastic year for our operation.   Besides the good yields and reasonable commodity prices, we had a significant cost reduction of crop inputs.  We are seeing results that we never expected to see in my lifetime.  The Pursanova technology is, I think, another step to advance us down the road to yield parity with lower inputs, and improving soil health.  We have used the Pursanova water with all our fertilizer applications, but I don't have any commentary at this point in time.   From reading the books mentioned below, we gained a rudimentary understanding of some of the mechanism that may be allowing us to reduce chemistry.  The same forces will probably allow more efficient use of fertilizer, both foliar and root uptake.  I hope to address this in a year or two with some antidotal material to report.

    I don't understand WATER.   University of Washington professor Gerald Pollock's book and videos on "Exclusionary Zone (EZ) Water" is a great read and introduces one to the fact that there is more to water than meets the eye.  Yang OH and Gil Ho Kim's book the "Miracle Molecular Structure of Water" was a difficult read for me, but reenforces the fact that there is more to water than meets the eye.   Vatche' Keuftedjian's website  <www.pursanova.com > has a lot of interesting information (when you work your way through the sales portion of the website).

      I will conclude this post by stating that I am very pleased with the purchase of the Pursanova system.  It has been the best ROI (<8m) of any equipment I have purchased in my farming career. 

        

    

Pursanova -- RO/S Water

 

(This post is a year late in publishing.  Following soon will be another post with updated information on our experience with RO/S water in 2022)

     Reverse Osmosis-Structured water (RO-S)!  Is it a hoax?  Well, we are finally going to get a hands on experience to determine it's value, beyond just the printed material that's available.  It's taken about two years since the concept was originally discussed in our Bio Farming group, to reach the point where we are starting to use the water product on our operation.  The unit is designed to be set up at different operations where there is a water source (~10gpm)  and 240v, single phase, three wire electrical service.    Water enters the system through a garden hose, goes through a filter bank, a Pursanova disc, and into a 500gal holding tank which feeds the four tube reverse osmosis (RO) unit. Once the water passes through the RO unit, it passes through another Pursanova disc and through two Pursanova structure tubes, then the water proceeds to it's final destination tank.   The water being held in the destination tank can then recirculated back through the Pursanova disc and structure tubes until the treated water is used, or the unit is shut down.  The unit is ~50-60% efficient, meaning that 8-10gpm goes into the unit with 4-6g going into the storage tank and 3-5g is wasted to other purposes.  Early on we were told that we could recycle the waste for more efficiency but found that the RO membranes quickly fouled with the concentration of minerals we were removing from the water.  We are now adding a small dose of scale inhibitor to the RO unit for the purpose of extending the life of the membranes.   We were instructed to clean our equipment and holding tanks by filling them with the RO structured water and storing for 24 hours, then draining them out to remove the built up deposits, --then refill for use.  The unit has safety/float switches, so, once running it will shutoff/turn-on as water is used from the supply and holding tanks so you don't have to sit with the unit while processing.  Our net production is about 5gpm, giving ~7200g of processed water in a 24hr period.  We have been told that this processed water will hold it's "structure" for about two weeks without any circulation.  Beyond that time some small water movement should be incorporated to hold the "structure"in the destination tank.  

     Why are we even considering using this RO/S equipment.  There is ~$50K in this unit, and annual maintenance will ≥$1K.  What is the payback?  In our case we have hard water ranging 136-207mg/l, with a 7.5-8.0pH depending on which well we use.  This hardness is termed moderate to high, and the high pH can compound the problem of chemical efficacy.  The literature includes enticements of more effective weed control from half to two thirds the chemistry, along with better crop response from foliar applications.  If results even come close to the reported savings, the return on investment will be a year or less for us.  I haven't had that kind of ROI since we purchased our Raven AccuBoom system for the sprayer back in the 1990's.

    We are just starting to get too know the system.  The equipment is cleaned and we are starting our fall spraying operation under some very bad conditions of excessive heat 95-105ºF for ~ 30days, no rain for 60 days, and low humidity.  Our deep soil moisture is keeping the targeted plants growing but they are hardened off.   I have spent some time checking out our water quality, spray surfactants,  and AMS replacements, to determine the coverage we may expect.  A few things are showing some direction, (or maybe a change in direction).  

     Anateck Lab test on the RO/S sample showed non-detectable for Al, Fe, & Mg.  A low level of Ca remained.  I did not have the "hardness" test done, --a mistake!  I expect it would have been very low, but I don't have a number for comparison.

    I have a HACH Test Kit for fish farming that I use on rare occasions to check our pond water.  I found it useful for this project to get numbers for pH, and hardness.  Elements that are important for fish health were not of interest to me for this project.

     The question that does interest me though is RO/S relationship to surfactants and other additives we use to make our chemistry work.  We put a lot of money into these additives.  I mixed up various rates of M90 (surfactant) and Downrigger (a AMS replacement-plus), in well water (WW), RO/S, and RO water to see if there was a difference.  The pic to the left shows from left to right, WW, RO/S, and a light rate of Downrigger in RO/S, and a light rate of M90 in RO/S.  Enlarge this pic and you will see that the surface tension on the WW (left) is greatest and the M90-RO/S (right) has the least.  What I don't understand, is that 8oz/100g mix showed less surface tension than 32oz/100gal of M90.  I did that test 3 times with the same result.  That's weird to me.

     The pic to the left show results 20+ minutes after droplets were deposited.  Until I was doing this narrative I didn't recognize the discrepancy in labeling in the pic.  All SW should have RO attached, and Outrigger should be Downrigger.  I find the slide on the right side interesting as relates to spread and drying.  At this point, this is the only instance where I have seen a difference between RO and RO/S water.  This pic is 20min after the droplets were deposited and it shows that the M90 at 2pt/100g dried similar to M90 at 8oz/100g mix.  High magnification does show a little difference.