Showing posts with label soil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label soil. Show all posts

Sunday, December 30, 2018

2018 Wheat University

I recently attended the WSU Wheat University.  They had  a diverse agenda of subject matter, with presentations from researchers at Washington State University, Oregon State University, and University of Idaho.  Concurrent classes were going, and I didn't get to all the presentations.  From those that I did attend there were several things that I found important, hence, chronicle here.
     Water Movement:   --Soil type effects rate of moisture infiltration, shown by a demonstration using Walla Walla and Ritzville soil types.           --Soil particles are quickly transported by surface water and block passages into the soil profile, sealing the surface.  Runoff begins at that point.  No-till fields have more channels into the soil profile than cultivated fields and usually more surface residue.   --Surface residue retards water flowing across the soil surface.  The more residue the better.       Even though some moisture is trapped and evaporated from the residue, more residue translates to more moisture in the profile.   --The demo. in the pic above, shows a Ritzville soil with two containers of soils from a cultivated field.  One container had surface residue, the other did not.  The third container of Ritzville soil is from a no-till field.  The no-till container had no water loss from the simulated rain event.   The cultivated containers both had water loss but the container with residue had less loss and notably less soil loss.    --Water is held under tension until a path or condition breaks the tension.  Water is attracted to surfaces, going down the sides of channels into the soil profile.

      Nutrients in straw:   --A ton of wheat straw ranges from $10-$19 in nutrient value.  Straw nutrients vary depending on nutrient level found in the soil plus the  amount applied, and the value placed on the various nutrients.    --Rough estimate for straw residue is 100# per bushel of grain.    --Swath and bale removes approximately 50% of the residue.  Feeding baler directly from combine increases the loss of leaves and chaff raising the total loss a  couple of percentage points.  (A 100bu/ac yield translates to ~$25 to $47 per acre loss of nutrients).     --When a field is burned, you lose nearly all the C-N-S, and less of the remaining elements if the ash has not blown away.    --K & P can be washed out of the residue from rainfall or irrigation.
        Crop Insects:   
              --Wire worms: come in three species (Great Basin - Western - Sugar beet).    --The are identified by the shape of the little pincer type protrusion on their tail.    --The Western feeds actively in April & May.     --Sugar beet variety feeds later in the season.   --You may not encounter the Great Basin variety at economic levels.   --Seed treatment works pretty good on the Western.     --Check edges of bare areas for dead and dying new leaves on cereal plants, then dig around plant crowns.      --Wire worms prefer spring wheat over winter wheat.  It is probably a worm life cycle issue.    --They are found mostly in bottom land and may not need treating on hills.   --Wire worms are attracted to cereal grains, with the exception of oats.      --They have little attraction to Pulses, Brassica's, or chemical fallow.    --Wireworms may feed in chem fallow fields but they will not lay eggs.                    --Proximity to CRP fields will likely increase wireworm pressure.    -- ≥ 45ºF worms will be active.
             --Hession Fly: The female population is what does the damage.  She lays the eggs in the stem.   --The fly does not move far.     --The fly overwinters in grain (not oat) residue.    --Cereal plant resistance to Hession Fly is declining.  We need to pay attention to cultural practices like expanding crop rotation to help keep losses from this fly to a minimum.
             --Weevils:  Pea Weevil (not a true weevil because it has no elbow in it's antenna), Pea Leaf Weevil, Cabbage Seedpod Weevil are the three main types that cause economic damage in peas and canola.  The pea weevil scallops the lower leaves weakening the plant making it more susceptible to aphid attack.  These don't seem to be as prevalent as the pea leaf weevil.  The cabbage seedpod weevil lays eggs in the pea and canola seedpods.  In canola the pods become misshapen when attacked.
            --Aphid:  They tend to attack weakened plants/stands due to nutrition deficiencies or weevil attack.    --Scout field edges for infestations.  It's possible you will only have to treat the border which will minimize damage to beneficial insects.    --When possible spray late in the day to minimize impact on beneficial insects (specifically bees).

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

"DIRT" and more

David R. Montgomery has recently put out the third book of a trilogy about soil.    
     [ --DIRT, --HIDDEN HALF OF NATURE, --GROWING A REVOLUTION ].      

Event Photo: 



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

Friday, February 28, 2014

VALUE OF ORGANIC MATTER

      Organic Matter and it's value in crop production was the topic of a recent Direct Seed meeting.  I've known about OM since my school days of long ago.  I didn't take it seriously until well after the Horse Escaped the Barn -- if any readers are old enough to remember that phrase.  Current research puts a little different twist to what I remember from 1960.  Organic Matter can now be divided into two basic types -- Stable OM where it is highly decomposed with very little biological activity, and Active OM that is being used, and worked on, by living plants, animals and microbes.  Food to feed these communities associated with Active OM needs to be continual and not intermittent.  Good soil is alive and needs nourishment.  I'm starting to think that production from these soils have the potential for sustainability without costly inputs.  Bad soil is dead dirt.  These soils will always require massive inputs of fertilizer and chemistry to raise a crop.  I use to poo-poo organic farming, but not anymore.  Thanks to those people, research on our micro-biological soil life and how to develop and exploit sustainable farming has taken off.  Speaking of dead dirt -- is there anything deader than fallow, and we do this intentionally.  We need to give more thought to this subject.
      When the Palouse Prairie was first put under the plow it was roughly 20% of Stable OM and 80% Active OM.  Nutrients were manufactured, and recycled by organisms in the Active OM.  Some plants are capable of tapping into a variety of nutrients deep in the soil profile and transport them to the surface where other plants can use them. Today, after a 100 years of cultivation the Active OM and the Stable OM are reversed.  The Active OM has been lost primarily through cultivation from two factors.  1)--Cultivation stokes the fire of mineralization.  By mixing air, moisture, and residue(fuel), organic matter is converts to nitrogen and carbon dioxide.  Nitrogen is released and growing plants use it for food, and Carbon Dioxide is released into the atmosphere.  Does Carbon Sequestration and Global Warming strike a bell?  Our farming practices are taking us in the wrong direction on these subjects.  I include our commonly accepted DS techniques in this statement.   2)--Every cultivation pass breaks down soil structure into ever decreasing particle size.  This results in less residue to protect the soil surface, allows soils to seal off when it rains, and increases compaction, and starves the biological communities in the soil.  One visual symptom is droughty high ground and waterlogged low ground.  There are numerous visual examples east of State Highway 195.  Should we lose the technology of fertilizer and chemistry either by availability or price, all our operations would be at risk.  In the past, civilizations have disappeared when their political and cultural practices destroyed the soil.  Professor, Jared Diamond has written three books on the subject.  The book "Collapse" is an interesting read, and a bit sobering.
      Where do we go from here?  First, move away from farming practices that deplete the soil.  A careless practice can cost you an inch of soil in one major weather event.  It takes nature approximately 1000 years to replace that one inch.  This happened in a major production area in Australia about 20 years ago.  Starting with 7"of productive soil, these farmers made a quick change.  One year they were tillage based farmers, and the next year, and since, they are DS.
       Second, start incorporating practices that will build soil structure and reestablish the soil biological communities.  There is a lot of good research on the subject and more in the pipeline.  Land Grant Universities and private laboratories are ramping up programs to meet the need.
        Third, it appears that we need to get out of fallow.  Current research by Oregon State indicates that one fallow year loses more than we gain in the two crop years of a three year rotation.  That was a real downer for me.  For years I thought I was building soil by DS.  A better understanding of soil biology and  interaction from/with different crop cultivars is going to be necessary to break traditional mind sets.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Cultivation vs Direct Seeding

      Following harvest of 2012, our "Cs" field had a boundary realignment with our neighbors.  Spring seeding in 2013 allowed us to compare ground that has been continually cultivated for 100+ years with ground (across the old property boundary) that has been Direct Seeded for the last 20+ years.  The purpose of this post is to state the physical difference between the two properties.  There will be no attempt to update this post comparing yields or crop vigor.

SUMMARY:-- Custom operators struggle in providing adequate service to Direct Seed system operations.
        The ground that has been Direct Seeded for a lengthy period of time moves moisture from the surface and into the soil profile much faster than ground that has been continuously cultivated for many years.

DETAIL:-- The ("Cs & Cc & D")fields were not prepared well for spring cropping in 2013.  The "new" property was not sprayed.  We seeded into heavy volunteer wheat which will likely cause disease to the spring barley crop.  The main field, "Cs", which the "new" property is attached was sprayed with Gromoxone by a custom operator.  The job ended poorly,--- likely, too little solution for adequate coverage.  It's possible that the tall, wind blown stubble interfered with the coverage.  This field should have been sprayed last fall (the custom operator never showed).  The field is a mess!!
       This custom experience is another example of our need to have our own equipment.  Five attempts resulting in five failures.   On one hand, our system is very simple (spray and plant, and harvest); however, simplicity is replaced by time sensitivity and chemical selection.  Time sensitivity is something that custom operations will continue to struggle with.  Spraying, for a Direct Seed system is very "time sensitive", and a problem with a specific application has to be dealt with quickly.  Once the custom operator leaves the property, good luck getting him back for cleanup.  Custom drilling has similar issues.  We have been lucky for the most part getting the drill when desired; however, as more demand develops for this service, timeliness will become an issue.   Farming operations using a cultivation system have issues of timeliness as well; however, they have a much wider window.
        When we drilled the Cs field, it was obvious when we crossed the boundary between old and new property.  Although both sides of the old boundary was left in stubble from harvest 2012, the side that has been cultivated for 100+ years was wetter on the surface and did not support the Direct Seed Equipment.  Ruts were left in the ground, particularly when turning.
         It was obvious that the moisture was held higher in the soil profile on the ground with a history of cultivation.  Decayed roots and macro-fawna has made channels that has allowed the surface water to move deeper into the soil profile in the Direct Seeded ground.   Improved soil structure also plays a role in helping resist soil compaction.

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Cold Soil and Direct Seeding

I've happened on to a project (1994-2009) called the Alberta Reduced Tillage Inititive (ARTI).  This project had many partnerships, including private, public, and education.  They studied many aspects of Direct Seeding (DS) including effects of cold soils.  The following URL access' their site.
                          http://www.reducedtillage.ca/about.aspx
     This is a big site.  One study indicates that tall standing stubble (stripper header) warmed faster than the short stubble mat left by regular platform header,  and allowed better seed/soil contact with disc type opener.
     I will update this post as I have time to read other studies.