Soil Field Condition vs Lab Tests

These pics are examples of WW crops from two different tillage systems.  Both of these crops look pretty good as of April 13th, 2021.

<-----  Pic on the left is an example of 2021 WW on long term conventional ground.  This  crop was seeded on chemical fallow grnd.

<---- Pic on the left is an example of 2021 WW on ULD grnd.  This area was seeded too shallow and got a late start.

        This winter/spring I had a unique opportunity to run a lab test on two soils that have very different history.  One soil has ~30 years of no-till, with the last eight years being ultra-low disturbance no-till.  The other field, a couple hundreds yards away has a history of one hundred plus years of conventional tillage/cropping, with no no-till history.  Both locations were fairly level with low erosion from weather, although a difference in tillage erosion would be apparent.  The no-till field has a large amount (mat) of residue, and the tilled field has a small amount (a lot of open ground) of residue.   I had high expectations of seeing a dramatic difference in OM, EC, BD, Respiration, and some differences of several macro and micro nutrients.  WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT!!  Some numbers were the same, and some showed slight differences, but all in all, no revelations.  This lab is not the general run of the mill type that we are all accustomed to.  I have used this lab for a couple of years for different projects. 

    Physically there is a world of difference between these two fields.  April 13th with no measurable rain since March 23rd the ULD grnd was soft to walk across, where the tilled field was hard under foot.  Sinking a 1"diameter soil probe into the ULD field was easy, down the full 4 ft length of the probe, where the conventionally tilled field was very difficult down to ~18", where resistance eased up (maybe even softer than the ULD field in the lower 2'.

        Why didn't the lab show differences as expected?    Two things come to mind.  1)- In my mind this was such a no brainer that I was careless taking the samples.  My process of taking an undefined slice of soil using a narrow trenching shovel was bad technique.  A lot of possible error could result.   2)- This supports my comments on earlier posts about lab testing, and difficulty in trying to show value of no-tilling through our long recognized lab protocols. 

     I'm convinced that no-till deals primarily with the physical component of soil health, but secondary to other processes like biological diversity and nutrient recycling.  Biological activity has to be helped with cover crops and possibly reintroducing microbiological species through well prepared compost and compost teas.   No-till is significant in improving soil drainage, and it reduces destruction of soil organisms community life.    No-till is the first step required for us (in the Palouse) in developing a healthy soil.  With few exceptions, our environment will not support tillage and develop a healthy soil.   Comparing infiltration rate, wet aggregate stability (SLAKE test), visual soil structure, and earthworm count is easy to do and shows dramatically what no-till brings to the table relating to soil health.  Bulk density should be an easy comparison, but the penetrometer is effected by moisture content, soil type and other factors that vary from point to point.   So, what do I conclude?  As many of my earlier posts mention, a no-tillage farming system, is very effective in building soil structure over time.  A no-tillage farming system, when coupled with high surface residue (soil armor) is very effective in controlling erosion from tillage, water, and wind.  A no-tillage farming system is helpful in slowing evaporation when coupled with a protective mat (soil armor) on the ground, and even more effective if also coupled with standing stubble.  Moisture is lost principally through evaporation, not crop production.  Keeping soil surface temperature down, and a low wind velocity along the soil surface, saves moisture that can be used by the crop.  Another benefit to a no-tillage system and heavy mat of residue is reduced competition from weed species, either broadleaf or grasses.  We see it consistently year after year when comparing our neighboring fields with either conventional tillage or high disturbance no-till.  Unfortunately, we still have to apply herbicides like everyone else.

Value of low disturbance Direct Seeding

I had the opportunity to compare a field with long term low disturbance direct seeding history with a bordering field having a 100+ year history using a conventional tillage system. 

The pic on the left represents the field with the 100+ history of tillage.  The pic below (middle) represents the field with a long history of low disturbance direct-seeding.  In 2020 both fields were in chemical fallow.  The field in the top pic was chem fallow on spring wheat stubble. and seeded with a high disturbance drill.  The field in the middle pic was chem fallow on spring canola stubble.  It was seeded with a low disturbance drill.

  Observation:  Both fields were thawed.   This condition followed 10 days of hard freeze that provided ice sufficient to skate on our pond.  A quick thaw followed.  The field (top pic) was squishy, wet underfoot.  The near-surface was well above field capacity for moisture.  My loafers were mucked some when walking over the field.   The field (middle pic) was firm, indicating water moved down into the profile leaving the near-surface soil near field capacity for moisture.  Along with the surface armor, there was no danger of mucking up my loafers anywhere in the field.  I could have driven my F150 over this field.    

     The pic to the left (bottom) shows a part of the same fied that has a long history of conventional tillage.  Shown is winter wheat stubble that is cut very short.  This field is likely to be chem fallowed in 2021 and seeded to winter wheat in the fall of 2021.  This stubble area is soft and mucky on the top 2" and frozen below 2", making it difficult to walk.  The recent 0.29" of moisture (snow/rain) that helped thaw the surface is held in that top 2".  I was able to compare this condition with a field on it's border with tall standing stubble that has a long history of low disturbance direct-seeding.  That field was thawed and firm underfoot indicating that the 0.29" of moisture (snow/rain) had moved deep into the soil profile leaving the surface firm and near field capacity for moisture.

     These field areas are close together and likely received the same weather, so what is making the difference in field conditions?   Two possibilities come to mind.

    1) there is no question that the soil structure is improved providing more porosity (lower bulk density) in the long term direct-seeded field compared to the long term conventionally tilled field.  The slake test would easily prove that; however, in winter, with freezing or frozen conditions, soil structure with more porosity isn't the full answer.  

    2) There has to be a temperature factor involved.  How does this factor in?  Well, --there is 34 years where our direct-seeded fields have reduced or eliminated erosion compared to conventionally tilled fields.   That's nearly a 1/3 of the time since native grass was removed from the landscape.  That time has to have an impact on soil organic matter loss (SOM).  Add to that, the time that SOM may have been building since 2010 with the introduction of our ultra-low disturbance no-till system, which includes the stripper-header, expanding our rotation to add more crop diversity, and beginning the introduction of cover crops.   My bet is that we have been able to improve our "soils health" to the point that we are getting more biological activity.  More biological activity results in more heat which in turn warms the ground resulting in faster frost melt, and along with increased porosity, allows moisture to enter deep into the soil profile drying down the surface soil to field capacity.

    I have yet to followup by doing some simple tests, and I have missed the timing for the temperature component of my theory.  My HOBO's should have been in the ground last fall and left until now.  There are several simple physical in-field tests that can be done now that indicates a comparison of bulk density and soil porosity.  I hope to get them done this spring/summer.

    

    
   

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.

Succeed with No-Till

 < Dwayne Beck presentation>    55:34

In recent years I have observed a number of no-till operations that do not look as if the operators understand that there are some basic fundamentals that need to be followed to be successful.  I fear these operations will get into trouble, or revert back to their comfortable position with tillage.  I recommend and encourage farmers to open the above link and learn from it.

This image of Dwayne Beck, a researcher at the Dakota Lakes Research Farm near Pierre, SD, is from a presentation he gave at a meeting sponsored by the SD NO-TILL ASSOCIATION, March 11, 2019.  I have had the privilege of meeting with him and listening to several presentations over the years, starting in May of 1995 at the Dakota Lakes Research Farm.  I would say that Dwayne is the GURU of gurus when it comes to no-till.  Back in the early 1990s, he established the basic fundamentals for successfully no-tilling and the reasoning behind them.  His interest and mine are the same,  --manage water better.  He needed to stop soil erosion in SD, and I needed to stop soil erosion on my operation.  No-tilling was key to that goal.  Unlike so much information available through media, his basic fundamentals on Sanitation, Diversity, Intensity and Competition to successfully no-till works anywhere on the globe.   My first trip (1995) to the research station was prompted by complaints I had using Glyphosate for weed control.  My second trip was prompted by complaints I had about applying his fundamentals to my operation.  The take-home message from that trip was his statement to me, "I earned my Ph.D. developing those fundamentals, now, you will earn your Ph.D. learning how to apply those fundamentals on your farm".  He was so right!  I knew back then that everything about farming is site-specific, but didn't think about it in this context.  Soils, microclimates, topography vary across the land.  I was trying to clone his Pierre SD practices for St. John WA, and that didn't work.  When I adapted my practices to fit the FUNDAMENTALS, no-tilling did work.  We learn our trade and tend to get stuck in our ways instead of adapting to changing conditions.  Climate change and an increasing population with its political fall out are major challenges for farming, and will be more so in the future.  As we move forward to a goal of sustainable production and more nutrient-dense foods with reduced commercial inputs we will have to follow "improved" fundamentals.  Unfortunately, I don't know how to interpret "improved fundamentals" at this time, but I do have a blurred direction to follow.

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.

ROD WEEDER VS PLANT HEALTH

This post relates to an earlier post [TILLAGE VS NO TILLAGE 3/2/20].   I had a very rare opportunity to compare crop response between using the rod weeder and not using the rod weeder.  In the pic to the left, everything is the same except seeding date and use of the rod weeder.   The yellowish tint (background) is the result of the crop roots growing in a low oxygen environment created by the the rod weeder.  The crop in the foreground did not have a rod weeder used prior to seeding.  The rod weeder, a regularly used tool with conventional tillage systems, creates a compaction layer where the bar presses and smears the soil it comes in contact with under the bar, while at the same time fluffs and loosens the soil that goes over the bar.  Compaction layers slow the movement of water into (through) the soil profile which can, and in this case, did, cause the moisture content to remain above the field capacity for a significant amount of time.  This excess moisture replaces oxygen in pore spaces and leads to an anaerobic condition.  An Anaerobic soil condition increase growth of organisms normally associated with decreased plant health.  Aerobic soils increase growth of organisms normally associated with promoting plant health.

    [Feb. 10th pic]  This pic (from the yellowish field) shows a very wet root ball.  I could not remove the dirt for a decent pic of the root structure.  The roots were bunched with few roots extending deeper into the profile.   If you enlarge this pic, and compare with the one below,   you can detect more yellowing of the plant leaves associated with oxygen deprivation compared to the pic below.
     How this condition will effect overall yield compared to the crop in the pic below will be hard to assess because of so many variables inherent with two different operations and the weather from now to harvest.   An example, --two recent events of very cold nights, one on April 13th @ 10ºF and the other April 17th @ 19ºF, and since then, many mornings with temps in the mid to upper 20's.  When scouting on April 14th, the crop in the pic above was not jointing, while the crop in the pic below was jointing.   The seed head associated with jointing could be vulnerable to freeze damage.  During these events, the younger crop was showing serious leaf damage with color change and laying flat to the ground,  while the older crop showed no leaf damage.  Symptoms of cold damage in the area were reported as related to cultivar type, and plant size.

     [Feb. 10th pic]  This plant shown on the left is from the crop in the foreground of the pic at the top (dark green).  The roots are quite  damp but I was able to knock the dirt ball loose, exposing the root structure.  The roots extended deep into the profile with no root mass near the crown of the plant.  It was obvious the moisture was draining more quickly into the profile.

     There is one more point related to water infiltration that I want to make, --that is, comparing the conventional fallow based system (the three pic's above), too a bordering field with a long history of direct seeding shown in the pic below.

[Feb. 10th pic]
    The pic on the left shows winter wheat growing in a long term ultra-low disturbance direct seed field with surface armor well above the 100% NRCS residue chart.   Notice how much dryer the roots look in this pic compared to either pic above.  The wet dirt was easily removed, leaving much of the root system intact.  The roots are growing and elongating very well.

    This post brings up another subject, --fall tillering compared to spring tillering.  I'll address that subject in another post.

   

TILLAGE vs NO TILLAGE

      We have recently taken on some land with conventional fallow to seed this fall.  We have not dealt with conventional fallow for 25 years, and are no longer equipped for that condition.  This field has well over a 100 year history of tillage.  In our area, do to the geological history, that includes the Great Missoula Floods, most fields have several soil types.  [ Missoula Floods is a 3:50 minute animated video showing some history of our Palouse Hill landscape. ]  By the time fall seeding takes place, a cultivated field has had several tillage operations, and it's usual to have areas that powder and flow down slope in front of an implement.  It's hard to hold seed at the desired depth in that situation.  The pic shows a raindrop impacting bare soil.  When rain falls, soils on cultivated fields tend to seal up due to poor structure left by impacting raindrops and tillage.  With these conditions, the most successful tillage systems I have observed, are those that reduce the number of tillage passes to reduce aggravating powder development, and for the last pass prior to seeding, use a spiral packer to firm up the ground for the drill opener gauge wheel.
      A decision had to be made on how to get this cultivated fallow field seeded.  Rather then take the time to round up equipment to prepare this field for conventional seeding practice, Kye decided to take his chances with our heavy no-till CrossSlot drill, follow it with a tine harrow, and hope for the best, --expecting to do some reseeding later.  Conditions allowed the crop to emerge and reseeding was unnecessary.  Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.
       Some fields, or areas within fields, may require 3-5 years of no tillage to stop the seal over effect of the soil left from years of intense cultivation.  We hope with our no-till experience, we can shorten that time frame without giving our landlord a hemorrhage.
      When we started no-tilling there were problems that needed to be worked out.  In our early no-till years there was no path for success developed through many years of experience, as there was with the conventional tillage system.  That is behind us now, and transition can be shortened by years.
      Now, --what do I see as significant between the two systems (tillage - no tillage) that exist side by side sharing a 3/4 mile long border, in our Palouse Hills region.  We have had only a few months to deal with the cultivated ground but a few things have stood out.
      ---The no-till fallow ground is firm with good armor and operations create little or no dust.  There was no dust coming off the field during windy conditions.
      ---The tilled fallow ground has deep (2-4") soft dirt with no armor and it was very dusty from any operation performed.  The exposed surface did produce dust from wind when it blew before the surface sealed.
      ---This mild winter, allowed us to walk all over our no-tilled field without sinking.  With care, I seldom got mud up the side of my boots.  That was not the case with the tilled/winter wheat field.  Walking in that field always left your boots a mess and you left deep tracks where you walked.
      ---The no-till fallow/winter wheat ground did not seal the surface when rainfall occurs.
      ---The tilled fallow/winter wheat ground sealed over immediately from light rainfall.  Fortunately most of the winter wheat had emerged by the time measurable rain events arrived, and what wasn't emerged, was very shallow and able to push through the thin weak crust that formed on the soil surface.
      ---In early February, when scouting the fields, as I walked down our steep (20-40% slopes), there was no noticeable increased squishiness in the no-till fields.  Our no-till fields have a very high infiltration rate and no tillage pan to restrict water movement through the upper profile.  There was noticeable squishiness as I progressed down the slope in the conventional fallow/winter wheat field.  This condition is when water moves slowly under the surface, on or near the restricting tillage transition zone from high to low elevations.  Surface erosion was expected, but did not show in the conventional tilled field.
      There is much that I could say to support no-tilling over tillage; however, this post is to utilize the rare opportunity to compare side by side effects between no tillage and tillage as we experienced them.

TOO TOUGH TO SEED --(??)

      What a disappointment to have this outfit on our property.  The only thing good about this is that they came quickly and sucked up acres fast with three swathers and four balers.    They wanted this long (stripper headed) straw.  When the main field was baled, they estimated 3000#/a.  We are getting $10/t, but that's about a third to a half of the value of the nutrients that we are losing through this removal process, plus the loss of carbon from the removed residue.  We will have to put up with stacks of bales for 90 days while they age and ready for the mushroom industry.  A constant reminder of failure.

This was an extra ordinary year in many aspects.  Generally, this year, the spring crops were good to excellent for potential.  The late spring start ended up with a late harvest for many operators.  Even though most everyone has crop insurance, this is not going to be a good year for those that still have crop to harvest (now it is moving into the latter half of October).  There are thousands of acres of garbs, spring wheat, and even some winter wheat still in the field.  In my 65 years of being in the field I don't remember ever seeing harvest in this area this late.  Our spring wheat crop averaged ~65b/a, with a range of 40-130b/a across the fields.  Even the heavy high yielding areas, as pictured here, only produced  ~ 4k#/a residue, which is nothing compared to the 20k#+/a that we had successfully drilled with the CrossSlot, the spring of 2014.  We never expected to have any trouble drilling into this residue, but after several fitful days of adjustment, and even putting all new coulters on the drill, we admitted defeat and looked at alternatives, --either bale or fire.  We chose bale, as the lessor of two evils.  Fire, although the ground and surface residue was damp, may have caused more damage by burning into the soil where partially decayed residue resided.  Cultivation was never considered due to it's lasting destructive effect on soil health.  We are too far along the path to a healthy soil to revert back to that destructive practice.
     WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS TROUBLE?   We were convinced the CrossSlot was a foolproof drill capable of drilling any field condition where crops are grown without any field preparation?  One caveat we knew was that the residue needed to be dry so the notched coulter could cut at least most of the residue it encountered.  This residue appeared dry, but it was tough.  My serrated clipper struggled cutting the residue at ground level, and you could ring a shock of stubble in your hands and not break it apart.  Our rational then became, --we had never drilled into spring or winter wheat stubble that had not first gone through a winter, hence, some decomposition had taken place prior to any attempt to seed into the residue.
     THEN CAME ANOTHER SURPRISE!  The pic above is part of a 3ac, three cornered patch that was not baled.  This was one of our higher yielding areas.  The day after the remainder of the field was swathed and baled, Kye was able to drill this patch without any issues,--WHY???  The simple answer is: --The residue became cut-able!  Time had given us enough dry days to lower humidity to the point the residue could be broke apart.
     Well, we lost this years residue on these fields but it is worth the knowledge gained, being,--one, we don't necessarily have to wait for wheat stubble to deteriorate by going through a winter, and, two,  it was once again shown that the CrossSlot needs dry residue to be successful.
     What a whiplash this past week has been, --going from no expectation of trouble, to a revelation that we can't seed this field, and back to OK, it's seeding just fine.
   

WHY EVERY PALOUSE FARMER SHOULD NO-TILL

   

It seems that agriculture is besieged from all sides.  Soils are being degraded from erosion and conventional farming practices.  Pest control products, --herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and the additives that enhance their activity are coming under ever increasing public scrutiny that will eventually lead to more restrictions.  Fertilizer products and pest control products along with soil are entering the "public waters" through runoff which is triggering demand for more action to clean up these waters.  Everything we input to grow our crops is under regulatory pressure that likely will increase
      There is a lot going on behind the scenes relating to these issues.  As an example, I am part of a Washington State Department of Ecology advisory committee being used mostly as a sounding board for staff's evaluation of NRCS best management practices.  The result of this is expected to be a manual for farmers to voluntarily use to reduce pollution of state waters.  I see nothing good coming out of this for farmers or the environment unless it results in a massive education push to educate farmers on the value of improving soil health.  Erosion from farm land is much too complicated to be resolved with a cookie cutter manual.  Over the years I have discovered that farmers generally follow tradition more than science and change is verrrrrry sloooooow.  Many farm operations are the same as in the day of their grandfathers except the equipment is newer, larger and faster.
     So, why should farmers no-till?  The simple answer is, --WE HAVE TO!  Survival in the coming political climate will depend on it.    No-till is not the answer in itself, but it is the base on which to build.  Minimizing soil disturbance allows for management decisions that will build soil structure, build soil surface armor, build soil organic matter, build soil biology, and minimize soil displacement.  Continued use of cultivation in our Palouse environment can not accomplish these needed changes.   These are all critical to improving soil health and reducing environmental degradation derived from farm operations.  No-till also holds potential for sinking carbon which is beneficial to the soil and atmosphere.  Our soils are carbon deficient, and carbon is a driving force in the plant kingdom.  No-tilling is a WIN-WIN proposition.  The trick is learning to manage the no-till system to reap the benefits and avoid the pitfalls.
     Minimizing soil disturbance through no-till allows management decisions that will reduce erosion too zero or near zero.  As we gain a better understanding of soil biology we will control weed species and insect predation with less chemistry.  As our understanding increases about how fungal networks transports information, nutrients, and water throughout the plant community,  and how soil microbes extract nutrients and make them available to plants from organic matter, dirt and rocks, we will be able to manage our crops using ever lessening synthetic inputs.  The more minimal the soil disturbance the better the environment for these natural processes to develop.
     Many issues surrounding SOIL HEALTH are not well understood, but there is intense research going on by private and public institutions, and farmer experimentation since around 2000.   I read/listen/look at a lot of material and find myself discounting information that is more than 3-5 years old.  One researcher told me that if your education in soil biology was prior to 1985 it was mostly wrong.   I'm long in the tooth, but find it exciting to be part of the process.  The way things are progressing, I think I will be able to experience some of the fruits associated with improved soil health before I fade away.  In fact, I'm already seeing some of this happening through farm test plots but it's going to be a while before the processes are understood well enough to apply field wide.  Five years ago, if someone would have asked me when we would start seeing some positive results from improved soil health I would have said, maybe my children or grandchildren.

Two Pass vs Single Pass No-Till

        Two pass no-till is an oxymoron; however, it is a term used, and a BM practice (in our area), allowing participants to access USDA and Ecology money as an incentive to try no-till for erosion control.  I have never been a fan of the practice, feeling that success would be erratic and it may be an inoculant against no-tilling.  That question is still not answered.

       For nearly 40 years I have listened to researchers talk about what it takes for maximum yields, whether it be a conventional tillage, or no-till system.  There are many factors that go into high yields but two are always part of the list.  They are:
                ---Place seed in soil (not residue).  Most crop cultivars grow through and among residue without any growth issues as long as the seed is placed in soil.  All the issues I have heard about have been with seed being in close contact with decaying residue.
                ---Cotyledons need to emerge within three days of each other.  Thirty-five plus years ago I first heard a speaker (and several since), mention that seed can lay in the ground for some time; however, when conditions allow the seed to germinate, cotyledons emerging within three days of each other comprise 90% of a crops yield.  You can imagine how this be the case.  All plants compete for sunlight, nutrients and water.  If one gets a jump start of four or more days, that plant develops roots and leaves before the other plants in it's sphere of influence, and takes the lion share of everything.  The plants emerging later will be starved to some extent, and can actually degrade the overall quality of the crop.
       Operations associated with 2 pass no-till systems in our area just don't meet the two parameters mentioned above, of seed placement for timely emergence.  A lot of N is lost in a surface application of fertilizer unless the operation can be timed with a rain, --this results in most fertilizer being shanked 4-6 inches into the ground.  Shanked fields are rough and cloddy and residue, if there is any, is left clumped.  Drills normally used for conventional tillage systems are then rolled over these rough fields dropping seed erratically in/on the ground and residue.  If the stars line up right you can get a decent looking crop started; however, most look bad.  To improve emergence, harrows or packers have been allowed and still qualify for two-pass operations.  In my mind these operations then become reduced tillage operations.  Reduced tillage systems do reduce water erosion in a lot of cases, but still, they are not nearly as effective as a high disturbance one pass no-till drill system, in either plant emergence or soil erosion.

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!
   

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.

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".

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 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.

A little Tillage Ruins No-Till

      [update 10/6/16]  I have no comment related to the cover crop aspect; however, the tillage part supports my experience, and my contention that using "no-till" as a rotational practice, in CT is not sustainable.  It takes time for ground to re-develop soil structure, and channels from earthworm activity, and decayed root channels.  Any cultivation will destroy the surface connection for moisture to rapidly enter the soil profile.  Many will argue that moisture goes two ways as a reason to till and make the dust mulch in the fallow year.  Yes! --CF with little cover, can dry down the seed zone moisture.  I haven't found that it dried deeper than CT; however, it's harder to reach.  In our operation moisture has improved through increased surface residue, --it's a priority for us.  Moving to ULD (ultra low disturbance) is helping.  Using the stripper header where possible is helping.  The main factor in making winter wheat a high yielding success for us is to seed for early emergance in the fall.  Don't wait and let seed zone moisture escape.  That may mean seeding in August.  We have not gone that extreme yet, but some have.  No-till takes different management thinking to be successful. 
     FARM JOURNAL, Oct.2016:  Article by Darrell Smith reports on experiment done by Farm Journal's field agronomist, Ken Ferry.  The experiment compares two fields, --one with 4 years of no-till and the last two years featured cereal rye as a cover crop.  The other field had three years of no-till with the fourth year either having one or two tillage operations.  The implements used were, a soil finisher, moldboard plow, chisel plow.  There were several conclusions made by Ferry.  Among them, --cover crop (rye) did little to improve infiltration, --top few inches were dryer than the no-till prior to termination, but wetter after termination. --tillage hurt soil structure resulting in less infiltration, --the moldboard plow sole restricted water percolation into lower soil profile, --in their soils, more water ran off the surface with that one tillage year in four, compared to four no-till years.  Consider what those conclusions mean for us in the Palouse Hills when translated from the flatlands of Missouri.

Mixing DS and CT

     In recent years there has been a lot of money available to farm operators encouraging the use of direct seeding in the Palouse.  I am seeing more direct seeding, DS drills are being bought, but many of those operations are still including cultivation as a farming practice.  Why? --are they continuing to compare DS with CT? --are they expecting to use DS as another practice in the toolbox?

     I'm not a proponent for either, --if either are the reason.   The more I learn about building healthy soils, the more apparent that DS is only the starting point, and ULD has to be employed to reach that level.  DS may stop the bleeding from water and wind events depending on the amount of surface cover, and disturbance done by the seeding operation, but building soil health requires more.  We all know how destructive CT can be from water and wind events, but, I'm finding out that there is a real lack of understanding among farmers about the destruction that tillage does to the soil without any water and wind events.  Every tillage operation degrades soil structure by breaking soil aggregates into ever finer particles.   Tillage accelerates OM loss, reducing moisture holding capability of the soil.   Every tillage operation slices and dices the environment that supports the biological life that makes soil out of dirt.  The effect can be somewhat compared to a bulldozer being run through your home.   Every chemical application, every fertilizer application, every tillage operation, fire or other natural event that denudes or moves soil degrades the biological life of that soil.  So, everything we normally do to raise our crops has a negative impact.  The more we add, or do, the worse the damage.   Our various technologies allow increasing  yields even though our soils continually degrade through current cropping practices, --that includes most DS operations.  As our soils degrade to dirt, it's ability to partially support our yields is also reduced.  It doesn't take soil to raise crops.  Proof is the thriving business of hydroponics where all plant nutrition is supplied by applied chemistry.  As our soils degrade we will find ourselves applying more plant nutrients with their associated cost.  This needs to change!  The challenge for us is to learn how to reduce these negative impacts, and promote an environment that builds soil structure and soil biological communities, and still maintain reasonable yields during the transition.  At this point in time, that means reducing soil disturbance, increase crop diversity, use covers for our specific soil needs, and probably apply compost or teas to jump start the soil biology.  Don't bother adding compost or teas that don't have the specific elements needed by your soil.  They will be a waste of money.  Soil biological tests from Earthfort in Oregon will give you the information you need about the condition of your soils, though finding compost that will meet your specific soil needs may not exist at this point in time.  I'm looking into that now to see if any composting facility can analysis the compost for bacteria, fungi and protozoa, nematodes, and if they can make compost to a specific proportion of these elements.

      Dr. Elaine Ingham, a soil microbiologist, will be a featured speaker at the 2017 Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Conference in January.  She has an interesting message that will blow your mind about soil health and what healthy soils are capable of producing on their own without commercial inputs.  She is the lead scientist at the Rodale Institute and has a consulting business "The Soil Food Web".  She is featured on several Utube videos.   Dr. Ingham's website