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.                                                                                

FULVIC vs HUMIC ACID

In our Biological Farming Group there has been a lot of references to Humic, Fulvic, and Folic acids for plant growth.  There is a lot of information online, and it gets very confusing.  Below I am providing a sample and possibly a summary of the past three years of meetings and internet searches boiled down to what basics I want to keep in mind about Fulvic, Humic and Folic Acids.

Below, --two image inserts giving information, are from Earthgreen Products.  A good synopsis of the organic acids.  More information can be obtained at < Fulvic / Humic >, and are a source for "humin" products.  Folic Acid is used for plant nutrition, but normally referred as a source of vitamin B in human health discussions.  The bottom image insert on Folic Acid is from ResearchGate. < Folic Acid / Grain >.

VERY short summary:   ---Both acids are essential for plant health.  ---All three organic acids are useful and show success in many plant growing environments.  ---Fulvics are soluble at all pH levels.  ---Humics are only soluble in alkaline solutions.  ---As stand alone products, Humics have a large molecule and are best used for soil application.  ---Fulvic has a small molecule that enters plant tissue more easily and is best used as a foliar.   ---Best performance however is with a combination of Fulvic / Humic.   ---Humic increases the permeability of cell walls, making it easier for fulvics to carry nutrients into the plant.   ---While Fulvic is the carrier for nutrients, humics make nutrients more available in the soil.   ---They also work in tandem to increase water holding capacity and stimulate root and shoot growth.  

---Folic is generally used as a foliar.  Foliar applications at several specific stages of growth showed significant plant and grain benefit; however, applications at one or two stages of growth didn't make much difference.

 

There are several studies at ResearchGate about Folic Acid.  I chose this one because of being done on a grain.

FARMING NATURES WAY

USDA is a great resource to start the process of improving soil health on the land we steward.

 

LETS BUILD HEALTHY SOILS (pt1of 2)

For the last 10 years our operation has been working on acquiring the capacity to build soil health.  We have needed knowledge on how to approach the subject, and the equipment to apply that knowledge.  Prior to 2010, we were working to stop the destruction of our soils.  We now have the pieces to improve our soils natural productivity and` make a serious attempt to reach our goal of a sustainable cropping system with reduced synthetic inputs. 

    How do we reach our goal?  My video and document search, along with our limited experience, shows that it is imperative that soil organic matter be increased.  I list several points, not necessarily prioritized, that I have found to be important.   1--manage our cropping system with an eye on ways to reduce herbicide, insecticide, and fungicide applications.   These all have components that negatively influence the development of soil organic matter.    2--we need to do minimal ground disturbance.  This minimizes soil structure damage, keeps roots intact to help hold soil in place and leave root and worm channels exposed at the soil surface.  This also minimizes loss of surface cover.  This also maximizes any mycorrhizal network we may be able to develop for a nutrient/moisture transport, and communication pathway between plants.   3--develop and maintain surface residue.  Residue protects the soil surface, reduces compaction from equipment, feeds the soil macrofauna along with some microfauna, and helps moderate the soil temperature.   4--minimize compaction.  This will help improve soil structure.  Compacted areas have poor soil structure and promote anaerobic soil conditions that increase the types of fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases and insect predation.  Aerobic soil conditions, on the other hand, increase fungi and bacteria types that promote healthy soil organisms, and reduce pathogenic organisms that negatively impact plants     5--we need to change our fertilizer practices, to minimize the lowering of soil pH,  minimize harm to microbes, and reduce nutrient antagonism.   6--develop techniques to extend the time living roots are in the ground, --preferably all year long.    7--increase microbes and fungi, in our soil.  With our history of a monoculture wheat system, our soils are extremely bacterial.  Soils would perform better if the Bacteria to Fungi ratio was closer to 1/1.   Fungi are important to soil and plant health.  They convert nutrients into more plant available forms.  When available, mycorrhizea fungal networks are an important transporter of moisture and nutrients to plant roots.  Fungal mycellium serve as a line of defense for plant diseases.  Fungi can be promoted by doing all of the (1-6) points discussed above which boils down to, --providing fungi food for as much of the year as possible and stopping the destruction of their hyphae and mycelium.  The chart below shows the relationship between plant types and the bacteria to fungi ratio.  The chart shows there is not much on the "left" of our wheat monoculture other than weeds and rocks.

    For the past 2-3 years, I have participated with a group looking into soil and plant testing, organic forms of fertilizers, and ways to manipulate soil biology to increase soil health.  This has been a valuable experience, and there is more to learn.  

    During this time I have come to the conclusion that we can build healthy soils by proper crop management without amendments.  This requires absolute minimal tillage, keeping the soil surface covered, replacing chemical fallow with green fallow, diversifying our crop cultivars, extending the time we keep a living root in the ground, and paying attention to the synthetic inputs we apply to our crops so as to not destroy the positive gains we make from other practices employed.  The use of animals is not mandatory, but it has been shown that grazing animals speed up the positive soil health processes when properly managed.   

    I feel our operation has the equipment and basic knowledge to begin the process of building soil health.  We now need to develop management skills to make it all happen.  

    As a final note to this post:  Absolute minimal tillage by itself works well too stop erosion and establish a base from which to develop practices that will improve our soils natural productivity.  However, actual improvement of our soils natural productivity comes by managing soil biology through growing diverse plant cultivars.  The intensity, meaning the time with living roots in the ground, and the time taken to mitigate negative components to soil biology, such as synthetic amendments, sets the pace for improving our soils natural productive capacity.

Building Soil Resilience

 

  < Loyal to the Soil >     1:02:07

Above is the link to a presentation (3/3/2020) by a young progressive farmer, Derek Axten, about his journey of building soil health and a sustainable agriculture operation in the challenging environment of Minton, SK.  It's amazing to see what can be done in a relatively short time at a location with low rainfall, short season, on shallow soils with low infiltration.  Even though the Axten operation is a long way from St. John, WA, in an entirely different growing environment, I found several ideas that are food for thought. 

    Axten's operation centers around five principles:  Keeping the soil covered at all times, minimize soil disturbance, diversify plant species, keep a living root in the ground as long as possible, and incorporate livestock when possible.  The presentation tells their story of how they try to carry out those principles.  They also show ways they are adding value to the crops they raise.

    Their operation includes intercropping.  Flax and Chickpeas planted in alternate rows works well for them.  Flax and lentils work for them although others say this doesn't work.  Flax with another forb works.  Flax and mustard or canola works.  Flax and peas work and they don't have to be standup peas.  It's important that the crops mature fairly close together.  They don't normally add fertilizer with their interseeded crops except for a starter with micros.  They haven't found a companion crop that works well with their cereal crops.  They are doing some interseeding with a planter that seeds a companion when the grain is at flag to heading.  They are not finding a yield drag by going out to 15" with the planter, and also, with singulation, they have cut seed rates back giving a substantial cost saving.

Regenerate the EcoSystem

    Regreening the desert [47:30min]  This link is a video that I found interesting and gives hope to those of us attempting to rebuild what has been lost through 100+ years of destructive, misguided farm practices and programs.   John D. Liu, the photographer and narrator, made a couple of compeling statements in this video.  

    One:  The source of wealth is the functional ecosystem.  The products & services we develop from that are derivatives.  It's impossible for the derivatives to be more valuable than the source, and yet, in our economy as it stands, the products & services have monetary value, but the source, the functional ecosystem have zero. [38:38-39:32]  This is not sustainable.  It promotes the destruction of our ecosystem.

    Two:   Money is a belief system.  There is nothing wrong with money.  The problem is, what is money based on.  If money is based on a functional ecosystem, the future will be beautiful.  If we continue to base money on goods and services, we'll turn everything into a desert. [40:40-41:28]   Unfortunately, this has been the path mankind has taken over human history resulting in the destruction of great societies; however, we now have the communication capability and the knowledge base to improve the outlook for the future.

EFFECTS OF FIRE ON SOIL HEALTH

     Fire has always been controversial.  In the past I have used it, and may, in a rare circumstance use it again.   With the equipment we have available to us now, fire is an outdated, archaic practice.
     It has been obvious to me for many years that fire was destructive to soil health.  Denuding a field by any means, negatively impacts soil.  Fire not only removes the litter that, at some point in time will become part of the organic component of the soil, but it also burns some of the SOM already present.  The soil, losing its cover, is exposed to the natural elements and become warmer in the summer and colder in the winter.  Bare soil effects natural processes, some associated with temperature extremes, that impact moisture available to the soil as well as moisture in the soil.  This in turn effects the soil biota, that effects nutrient cycling, which has an effect on raising crops.  This is not linear as the statement may insinuate, but is a complex interrelationship of many elements.  We are slowing gaining the understanding that processes resulting from less tillage, and more cover is basic to improving soil health.



   
   

AMAZING CARBON

     Recently I have become aware of Dr. Christine Jones, a soil scientist from Australia.  Her schtick is (CMN) "common mycorrhizal network" and (SC) "soil carbon".  She has a website:  amazingcarbon.com.  She is a popular conference speaker and has a compelling message of hope that our depleted soils can be restored in a short period of time.  She has youtube presentations going back more than 10 years; however, her more recent work (<2yrs) is probably more useful because of the rapid increase of the knowledge base of the soil biome the last couple of years.
     Dr. Jones' presentations and articles put a lot of pieces together that I have been having difficulty linking.  Although my knowledge base is wanting, I now have a better understanding about how to improve soil health.

<---Pic of a wheat field in Australia.  This field was originally grass, divided by a fence, and has never been tilled.  For the past 30 years the field was no-tilled with a rotation of fallow/wheat.  The fence was recently removed along with it's diverse cover of mostly weedy species cultivars.  The old fence line shows no drought symptoms where the remainder of the wheat field is dead from moisture stress.  This indicates that no-till, and good soil structure by themselves do not provide sufficient moisture for a monoculture crop in times of drought.  An intact mycorrhizal network in the old fence line provided sufficient moisture and nutrients for that strip of wheat to successfully mature with grain.
A FEW POINTS / STATEMENTS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST: (from her presentation)
----life on earth is carbon based.  (a reminder statement)
----as farmers, we first and foremost harvest sunlight.  (a true statement but who thinks that way)
----all life centers around photosynthate, a simple sugar manufactured in the chloroplasts of green leaves. (I think there are a few exceptions to this statement, --but I accept as generally true.)
----building soil carbon depends on quantity and efficiency of harvested sunlight.
----diversity of cultivars improve efficiency of harvested sunlight. (just starting to be understood)
----many of the processes that take place in the soil are either not known, or not well understood.
----all fungicides, herbicides, synthetic fertilizers - particularly N, and synthetic seed treats, lower the efficiency of harvested sunlight and result in being detrimental to soil biota, making it more difficult to restore our depleted soil carbon.
----soils can be either a source or sink for CO2.
----all cultivation, and bare soils are sources for CO2 in the atmosphere.  Farming practices, world wide, contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than all the fossil fuel burned. (an astounding statement)
----in the last 150yrs, the worlds prime ag lands have lost between 30% - 75% of their carbon to the atmosphere.
----mineral depletion in food between 1940-1991 is significant: Today, we need twice the meat, three times the fruit, and 4-5 times the vegetables to equal the nutrition of 1940.  (This is astounding to me, and until recently, -- simply unbelievable.  It takes time, and a lot of reading to get ones mind to accept new ideas.)
----carbon conversion efficiency (CCE) is much higher in root derived, than in top growth derived biomass.
----mycorrhizal networks transport, water, nutrients, and carbon.
----mycorrhizal networks increase resistance to diseases and insects increasing plant vigor.
----mycorrhizal networks improve soil biological health.
----the magic number for a cover crop seems to be eight or more cultivars for vary rapid development of soil carbon.

<--In New Zealand a field consisting of volcanic ash that has been no-tilled 30yrs to a rye/clover mix for grazing cattle.  The pic shows ~5" of dark soil formed over ash bed in that time frame.  The dark color is indicative of carbon.

<--5 acres of that field, shown above, was seeded with a mix of ~12 cultivars.  FIVE MONTHS later, this spade depth of dark soil showed the result.  There is > 8"of dark carbon rich soil that developed over that entire 5ac plot.  (The finger points to the light colored ash ground below the dark carbon rich soil.)  I wouldn't expect this dramatic result in our climate, but I think an important part of the puzzle is expressed in these pic's.


JONES'   ---  FIVE PRINCIPLES FOR SOIL RESTORATION        --- Light Farming ---
       1----Green is good!  (Year long green is better )
       2----Microbes matter!  (Plant/Microbe bridge is being increasingly recognized)
       3----Plant Diversity is not Dispensable!  (Every plant have different Exudates)
       4----Limit Chemical Use!  (All synthetic chemistry harms the soil Biome)
       5----Animal Integration!  (Not imperative but highly beneficial)

SOIL TESTING - Simple/Useful/DIY tests

    Through a Twitter post, I discovered the following website that gave 20 various tests for evaluating soil health.  Most are useful for both pasture and cropland, with visual observation tips and evaluation sheets/parameters to track progress to improved soil health.  Many only require taking a spade depth and width plug of soil (I use a trenching shovel for it's long narrow blade), and a number of these tests/observations can be made with the same sample. [ variety of useful DIY tests soil health ]

EARTH WORMS and RESIDUE

   
     It is becoming more common to see articles and presentations referencing the presence of earth worms as an indicator of soil health.  Does that mean you have reached the goal of returning the ground back to it's original self sustaining condition that was present prior to man's intervention?  NO, --it is one of many indicators!  The compaction layers, low pH, low SOM, and high erosion can be present and still have a significant population of earth worms, both horizontal movers and vertical movers.  I'm not convinced that every acre of ground has a native population of earth worms, --they either were never there, or conditions became so bad over time that they disappeared.  I am convinced that earth worms will move into an area if conditions change that will allow them to survive.  I have always been able to find earth worms in the early spring in the low areas where moisture was plentiful, even prior to no-tilling, --just not very many.  I soon learned as a kid that it took a lot of spading in the crop ground to find enough worms for a day of fishing, where, if I went to an area that had a lot of residue and was pretty wet, it only took a few spade full of dirt to fill my needs.
       What will encourage earth worms to inhabit cropped fields?  They need food, and shelter just like any other living thing.  If their homes and food are not destroyed on a regular basis they will be there or move there.
       The recent No-Till Farmer magazine had an insert titled "12 UNRIVALED BENEFITS OF EARTHWORM ACTIVITY IN YOUR SOILS".  When I first read them, several seemed to be repetitive, but they were different, but had similarities.  These 12 points come from various university studies throughout the US.  I'm going to paraphrase a two page article to shorten this post.  1--Improve Water infiltration:  Pencil thin burrows allow rainwater to penetrate deep into and throughout the soil profile.  2--Improve Soil Aeration:  Burrows are conduits for air moving into the soil profile and CO2 movement out to stimulate plant growth.  3--Increased Hardpan Penetration:  Earthworm tunnels once bored through the hardpans stay and improve root access.  4--Reduced Soil Compaction:  Burrows both vertical and horizontal encourage root growth, which helps breakup compacted areas.  5--Mix Surface Residue Into Soil:  Some species pull residue into the soil.  63000 worms per acre will make about 18 tons of castings.  In ten years they are capable of complete renewal of 2" of topsoil.  6--Release Of Crop Growth Stimulants:  Earthworms break down crop growth inhibitors, phenols and formaldehyde from decaying residue and lace the material with growth stimulants, auxins and cytokinins.  7--Bring Minerals Up From Subsoil:  Earthworm castings contain 5-10 times the soluble plant nutrients of the original soil.  8--Neutralization of Soil PH:  Earthworm processed soil is always closer to neutral pH.  9--Rapid Growth Of Beneficial Microbes:  Earthworms carry around and deposit beneficial microbes as they go.  These thrive and help decompose residue.  10-- Improve Soil Tilth:  Earthworm castings contain sugars and enzymes which help build soil aggregates.  Fields bulk up being more sponge like.   Fields with high worm populations have 4 times infiltration rate of fields without earthworms.  11-Improved Nematode Control:  Earthworms eat harmful nematodes and leave  soil conditions that limit nematode numbers.  12-- Increase Micronutrient Chelation:  Earthworms link micronutrients, such as zinc and boron to other nutrients for easier uptake by plant roots.  13--Reduce Erosion:  I'll add this one to the list.  The surface residue required for the listed benefits above, along with the earthworm tunneling to the surface slows water loss, hence, reduces erosion.
      Earth worms are truly natures plows, only they do a much better job by leaving a less erosive soil, cycling minerals through the soil, and improving moisture infiltration.  The higher the population the better.  Earth worms are a great indicator of which direction your soil is headed, --to a healthier state or to DIRT.
      The Take Home Message Here Is:  DON'T TILL AND DON'T REMOVE RESIDUE!
   

?? HOW TO USE A COVER CROP ??

 This is a cleaned up version of an earlier post that will be deleted.  I've concluded that the first step in using cover crops is to know what your soil needs, and that means, take, and develop an understanding of the biological test for the field.  This will satisfy the first rule of cover cropping, --know your objective.  I've also learned that with "new" fields, take the complete test, --there are options given by the lab.  Following, --I will go section by section with comments relating my current understanding of the test  (example pic below).  The test result from Earthfort has basically three sections: top-middle-bottom.
--Description area:  When submitting your sample, give complete info on your applied fertilizer, farming method, cultivar to be grown.  Follow the sampling instructions, and don't delay sending them, after they have been bagged.  Failure to name a crop will result in a default category of perennial grass, and this can skew the result.
--Top Section:  Dry Weight, -- can indicate several things about a soil like structure, and location.  A high number (low water content) may indicate soil structure issues.
         Bacteria/Fungi/Hyphal dia., --best when Bacteria and Fungi are high in both total and active, and they are somewhat balanced in numbers.  Hyphen dia. less than 2.5 may indicate harmful or problematic conditions.
--Center Section: Protozoa/Nematodes/ Mycorrhiza.  Protozoa, --best with high numbers for Flagellates and Amoebae and a balance between the two. Flagellates move fast and like large pore spaces.  Amoebae are slow and like small pore spaces.  Balance with high numbers indicates your soil structure is probably good.  Ciliates are anaerobic.  High number indicates water logged soil, --zero is best.
           Nematodes are mostly good.  Root feeders are the problem.  The following numbers are best.   Bacteria/fungal feeder numbers (>4), fungal/root feeder numbers (<2), root feeder numbers (<1), predatory feeder numbers (1-2, they eat root feeders).
           Mycorrhizal Colonization can be measured if a plant root ( > 10") is included in the sample.  I'm confused as to what crops can benefit form mycorrhiza.  There is conflicting information.  My understanding is that Brassica's don't use mycorrhiza, and our wheats have had the benefit bred out of them, --mostly from lack of understanding of it's importance.
--Bottom Section: Organism Ratios, --indicate the relative balance between the organisms.
       Nitrogen Cycling Potential, -- calculated mostly from the numbers and balance of Flagellates and Amoebae.  These both eat bacteria and fungi and convert their nutrients to plant usable form.  Nematodes do a little of this also but play a minor role.  This potential is calculated for three months activity.
       All the above statements are subject to interpretation and an understanding of interacting properties.   I have attended four, one hour webinars, and I will attend more in the future to develop a better understanding of what is going on in the soil biosphere, and how we can exploit it.
       The lab provided me with a summary or their findings on twelve points of this test.  This soil has been cropped more than 100 years, mostly with wheat, barley, and fallow.  This test indicates that the field is in poor condition:  It needs organic matter.  The fauna is starving, they need food.  Nematode numbers are low, but diversity is OK.  Total fungi/bacteria ratio is too low for most plants.  Active fungi to bacteria ration indicates soil is dominated by bacteria and becoming more bacterial.
        This field is capable of 100b/a of wheat when moisture is available.  There is a lot of potential for the future.

                                    SO, TODAY, HOW DO WE PROCEED??
       ---All the literature recommends that you select cc cultivars for a specific goal you wish to reach. There seems to be mixed opinions on the number of cultivars needed in a mix from 5 - up.  With each cultivar having it's own signature about the exudes it leaks, and the depth it roots, in my opinion you ought to plant as many different cultivars as you can find and afford. 
      In 2015 we planted two different mixes.  One was a (10 cultivar) mix for biomass, nitrogen, and nutrient recovery as a goal.  The second mix (5 cultivars) was a recommendation to us for what goal (?).  We planted cultivars with a mix of seed from very small (cabbage) to very large (pea).  All was seeded with the CrossSlot and emerged, so that was a favorable outcome.  The large seed was planted through one rank and the small seed through the other rank.  Is it important to do it this way, --probably not, at least with a CrossSlot!  We had great emergence of tiny seed placed many times deeper than recommended.  That is one of the benefits of the CrossSlot, --it's ability to bring up a crop in adverse conditions.
      ---The bio. tests last year identified: --tight soil, no mycorrhiza, poor balance between bacteria, fungus, protozoa.  That was surprising to me considering the top 4" of soil was made up of worm castings.  Hopefully we addressed the tight soil this year with the radish, cabbage, and mustard cultivars in the cc mix.
       ---This spring we'll take three biological tests.  One from the 10 cultivar cc mix, and one from the 5 cultivar mix area to see if differences can be identified, along with one from the adjoining CF field that was part of the original CRP field.  This, hopefully, will show some differences that we can react to.
       ---Since these fields are planted to WW for 2016, options are limited, but not stopped, in the attempt to improve soil health.  We're looking  at slow developing and low growing legumes to inter-seed that possibly will thrive after harvest of the cereal grain (ww) and leave a live root growing after the cash crop is matured. 
       ---If weather cooperates, after harvest, consider planting radish, cabbage,+, into the legume cultivars.  We'll try to matchup cc cultivars to match the soil needs identified in the biological tests.
       ---Late fall 2015, there was a huge emergence of radish.  What to do about them this spring,--if anything?  There are a lot of large Graza radish plants surviving to this point in time after some cold temperatures.  Our biggest problem is Rush Skeleton Weed.  If the crop and cc stand doesn't compete it out, we'll have to rethink it's management.
       I'll be updating this post from time to time as the 2016 crop develops and differences express themselves.

SOIL HEALTH - HUMAN HEALTH

      Last evening I watch 2 hours of PBS titled "IN DEFENSE OF FOOD", and another hour on a related subject "FAT vs SUGAR".  Fascinating.   There were so many parallels to what I have been viewing on soil health, how complex the system, and how little we know.  Bottom line: --eating less is the only real way to lose weight.  The food processing, the marketing methods, and our culture encourage eating in excess.  Neither a high fat or a high sugar diet by itself was a problem for weight gain; however, the combination of fat and sugar hits all the pleasure receptors in the brain making it nearly irresistible to control over eating.  Microbes in our digestive system react to the food they are exposed to.  In an unhealthy diet, certain microbes dominate, unbalancing the digestive system,  and this leads to health issues and shortened life span. What is a healthy diet?  What I got out of the information was:  Increase plant foods, decrease processed foods, decrease meats, eat everything in moderation.  Be aware of the fat/sugar relationship in the processed foods.  If you look at the labels on food items,  nearly all processed food has fat, --and added sugar.
      I saw many parallels to what I have been learning about soil health.  Primarily, an unbalance in the soil microbial community creates weed and disease issues above the levels found in a soil with a balance in the microbiological community.  Like our human health, we have the ability to effect soil health.  All we need is the knowledge, and the willingness to make appropriate decisions.

TIMING NITROGEN APPLICATION

     I recently participated in discussions centering around fertilizer and timing of application.  Here are a few points that peak my interest.
1--A recent study I came across stated that our crops, on average, only utilizes 40% of the applied nitrogen.  Question? --what happened to the remaining 60%???  I don't find any excess N in my soil tests.
2--Brassica tap roots are severely damaged when deep banding nitrogen with the seed.  Roots will grow around the banded N and not through.  The remedy is to apply N prior to seeding, or after the plant is established.
3--A farm operation I am familiar with uses a CrossSlot drill, and Uran for an N source.  The soil structure of this operation is quite good with high infiltration capability.  They indicate their conventional tilling neighbors are out yielding their winter wheat.  I suspect that the neighbors use NH3 as a N source.  They further state that they, on the other hand,  dramatically out yield their conventional tilling neighbors growing spring crops.  Why? --it's speculation on my part; however, I think that possibly the uran is working against them with their winter wheat, and working for them with their spring crops.  Reasoning: --These operations are in an annual crop area and they are seeding fall wheat and banding their N into dry ground following the harvest of a spring crop.  When the rains come, the nitrate portion of uran is being driven below the roots and the wheat plant is catching what it can from the ammonia form which is not transported in the soil solution.  In effect the winter wheat is shorted nitrogen in the early development stage.   In the spring, with a large portion of the useable soil profile filled from winter moisture, the nitrate from the uran is not moving through the soil profile as fast, or as far, allowing the plant access to the full amount of applied N.
     A potential solution then for the operation mentioned above, may be to fall apply nitrogen in the ammonia form(NH3, Urea, or NH4), and apply Uran(Solution 32) to spring crops with it's half nitrate half ammonia form.
4-- Expect significant loss of N from any nitrogen source if it is surface applied in our environment.  If you have to surface apply I would do it in the rain or as close to a rain as possible.
5-- For adding additional nitrogen to a crop that is established I am thinking that the Spoke Wheel Applicator  would be something to look into.  It's been around for about 20 years, and it places liquid fertilizer up to 4" below the soil surface.  The videos I have seen places it in ULD category.

SOIL HEALTH

[Update--12/29/14]----A clarifying point for me:  Compost is a great product to add to our cropland for increasing O.M.  However, it is termed "very dead"meaning that it will not support the biological life in our soils.  It enters our soils as "humus" and supports soil structure and, hence, water holding capacity of the soil.  That's logical when you think about it.  All the energy is burned out in the composting process, making the "dead" into the "very dead".  Interesting terminology for plant and animal material -- living, dead, and very dead.

        "BUILDING SOIL for BETTER CROPS".  One needs to study this as a bible for soil health.  It is the best and most concise publication I have seen in relatively easy to understand language.  This is not a "HOW TO" direct seed book.  It's more basic than that.  Don't get caught up in the details.  Learn the concepts.  An understanding of the interrelationships of the soil fauna and flora will stimulate your thought process for designing a successful management plan to build soil, and reduce commercial fertilizer and pesticide input.  

          It appears evident to me that the first priority for us is to get more diversity, and more biomass on our cropland -- a lot of it.  For those of us that have been direct seeding for several years and have experienced some soil improvement, the time required to improve soil health to the point of sustaining crops will be quicker, than those starting from tilled ground.  

          Dirt is basically dead.   Soil is a live, breathing organism.  For most of our lifetime we have been tilling soil to dirt (death).  We have to have a "thought transplant", before our life sustaining organ (soil) completely stops providing.  As our hilltops and sides lose productivity, we will be left with bottoms, until they are farmed out in another generation or two. To continue down the tillage path means that our crops will eventually be grown with 100% commercial inputs.   Dirt will be for holding the plant upright in place.

           You can download the pdf. file at:   < http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Building+soils+for+better+crops&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 >   (copy and paste the URL, or google "Building Soils for Better Crops"        

       Below is a pic from a soil pit at the Aeschliman farm SW of Colfax, Wa. showing Carbon strings reaching deep (3-4 feet) in the soil profile following what appears to be root channels or worm holes.  To me this is amazing. [The white (washed out) area at the bottom is the surface vegetation of the near bank of the soil pit.]

Organic Matter After 25 Years of CRP

Attempts to quantify the gain in OM have been elusive, and the subject is full of ambiguity, so this post will basically be antidotal.  There are no records showings OM content on this property for cropping years prior to CRP.  The top picture is of soil from the 25 year old CRP recently seeded to spring barley with the CrossSlot.  The bottom pic is ≈ 100' away, across a property line seeded to spring barley.  This soil has been one pass, DS for 20 plus years.  The soil in the bottom pic is in poorer condition because it had less makeup soil available than that represented in the top pic during it's cultivated years.  This spring we took a 4 foot sample and ran a series of tests for various nutrients and soil conditioning factors.  The pics are fair representations of what I saw.  The following stats are:  Top pic -- pH of 5.8 and OM of 3.20.  Bottom pic -- pH of 6.35 and OM of 3.12.
         Commentary on top pic:--- This soil is heavy with worm castings.  When turning the soil it breaks up into small clumps -- very friable.  It has a sweet pungent aroma.  It has a high moisture level (wet).  High density of fine roots.
         Commentary on the bottom pic:--- This soil is clumpier, showing more stickiness, less friability, and a lighter color.  Good moisture, but not like the top pic.  Not as sweet aroma as the top pic.  Fewer roots.  Note the pH is higher and OM is a little lower.  The pH is probably higher because of more subsoil mixed into the top layer, also, giving it a lighter color.  The OM is lower because, even though this area has been DS for 20 plus years, it has been in a three year rotation, and fallow is part of that rotation.  Oregon State research shows that the fallow year lowers soil health more than the two DS crops can build up. We are lucky to have as good a number as we have.   Both sets of numbers are in line with what I would expect.  A couple of hundred feet away, a neighbor conventionally tills his field.  I don't have any numbers from him but I would expect they are similar to the bottom pic -- maybe slightly less for both pH and OM.  If the CRP had been managed like a crop, with added fertility, more biomass would have developed to feed more micro-biological communities.  OM probably would have been some higher.
        OM is difficult to build.  (click OM on a label for accessing other posts on the subject.)  The Oregon study was a real downer for me.  It was the catalysis to upgrade our cropping system from high disturbance DS to ultra-low disturbance DS.  At this point, we have the stripper header (attempt to reduce evaporation), the CrossSlot drill (attempt to reduce evaporation).  Expanded crop rotation, and inter-seeding crops, and seeding cover crops will be next.  The purpose is to build bio-mass, feed the micro-biological community, hold more water, recycle nutrients that have gone below our normal root zone, and start manufacturing nutrients (like N). The short version ---Build Soil Health for future production with less dependency on commercial inputs, and remove fallow from the rotation.
         

bare patches

 

This is a dramatic visual example of what is happening to our hills under a "conventional cultivation system" of crop production.  Over the 100+ years that this field has been plowed, disc'd, cultivated, weeded, and harrowed, with some of these operations being done repeatedly in any one crop year, the thin mantel of top soil has been removed from the area shown, leaving these bare patches in the winter wheat crop.  The following website gives information on soil and it's value to crop production. <ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0443e/a0443e01.pdf>.   Without the [O and A horizon] crop production is limited.  The "O" horizon is the surface crop residue.  The "A"horizon is  the mineralized organic layer below the "O" horizon.  These two layers, O and A, make up the spongy layer of the soil that is biologically active, and resists the erosive action of rain droplets, and the scouring energy of the wind.  The deeper the layer, the higher the nutrient production capability and water holding capacity.  The "A" horizon is the "engine" that is the future for crop production in a Direct Seed System.  It has the potential to be manipulated, to make and redistribute nutrients for crop production. With todays technology, this erosion process(pic above) can be stopped and the soils rebuilt; however, the rebuilding is a very slow process.  NRCS considers a loss of 10,000 pounds per acre as sustainable.  That is a little less than 3mm depth of soil.  The field above, as an example, receives a number of rain and wind events over the course of a year along with several tillage operations.  It's anyones guess as too the amount of soil that has moved off the surface of this field, but my guess is that it is in excess of 20mm over the course of the two years that it took to raise this crop.  To add insult to injury, that exposed  poor soil ["B"horizon] is eroding down and overlaying the better producing ["A"] soils.   Those soils then, tend to produce at a lower production level.  So, over time, the bare patches enlarge and field yield average shrinks.  These areas will become more prevalent and larger until all tillage stops and residue is considered an asset instead of a liability on the hilltops and hillsides.