6/6/23 WHEAT COLLEGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PURSANOVA - RO/S (part 2)

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

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

                  2022 Experience: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

        

    

Soil Microbial Life -- Human Life

 

     My first exposure to Dr. Elaine Ingham in 2015 was an epic event for me.  For several years I had listened to Dr. Ann Kennedy of WSU about soil microbes and how they benefit plants, but never had I ever heard that plants communicate!   Unbelievable was my first reaction.  Fascination soon followed.  The more I learn about this subject the more I see an analogy of soil microbial life to human life .  The life humans experience today is dependent on our social interactions, manufacturing, communication and transportation capabilities.  It's the same with plants, both in-species and between species.  My following statements are gross over simplifications, but the concept is correct.   Each plant competes for space, nutrients, and water.   Some plants communicate danger to the in-species community.  An example, would be an insect biting into a leaf of a specific plant.   That plant reacts instantly to this attack, sending out a pheromone that wafts through the air.  Other "like" plants receive this signal and instantly start producing a chemical protectant to discourage predation either through odor or taste.  Another example would be a plant needing a nutrient.  If the plant supports mycorrhiza fungal networks, and most do, the plant sends notice through the network that it needs a particular atom.  The mycorrhiza network will provide and exchange that atom for a carbon atom from the plant.  This was absolutely mind blowing to me a few years back.

    Comparing human experience to plant experience:        IMAGINE, ----> how well You would thrive, if your house, along with the roads that connected you to your community and businesses were regularly destroyed.  I think you would be quickly reduced to survival mode, with little ability to produce.  We most likely would rely on a lot more government handouts.         DESTRUCTION  is what we have done, and continue doing to our soil, regularly with cultivation, by applying crop protecting chemistry, and applying fertilizer.  Depending on how aggressively we till, or apply our poisons, determines the extent of the destruction we do to our plant's supporting microbial community, communication, and transportation systems year after year.  

MORE DETAIL ON DESTRUCTION:      First of all, there is a natural fire that consumes soil organic matter through normal microbial activity, resulting in a slow leakage of carbon (CO2) into the atmosphere.           Tillage is a fire accelerator, (mixing oxygen, fuel and moisture together).  Every tillage operation over the field stokes that fire by accelerating microbial activity.  WSU did an extensive study of this in the 1970's starting with the prime tillage operation (plow, disc, chisel), than the cultivator, weeder and finally a harrowing operation.  The amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere depended of the aggressiveness of the tillage, moisture in the tilled zone, and the temperature in the tilled zone.   The result of tilling is similar to our burning fossil fuels (coal, gasoline, diesel, natural gas).       HERBICIDE applications add salts, many are chelators that tie-up specific nutrient atoms, and all react negatively with soil biology.          INSECTICIDES AND FUNGICIDES , obvious by the names, while effective on their target species,  negatively effect beneficial soil biology.  There are few pathogens compared to the number of beneficial species.           Industrial agriculture has done a good job of marketing their products, and farmers have been complicit in the development of them through their eagerness to purchase.   At the end of  WWII, around 1945,  Industry needed new markets for products originally developed for the war.  It was found that some products could be used for fertilizing plants and others would kill unwanted vegetation, insects, etc.   Industry's marketing strategy quickly convinced farmers that products in a  "jug" was easier to use than the old methods of using plant cultivars for fertility, weed and bug control.  This has resulted in the deteriorated state of our soil.   After 75 years, this destruction of natural soil productivity is being recognized and a new concept of  "REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE"  is being developed to recover this lost soil capability.  That journey if for another post.

Tillage to Reduce Herbicide Resistance

 A recent posting in "Weeders of the West" a WSU blog [https://smallgrains.wsu.edu/weeders-of-the-west/2021/06/21/occasional-tillage-and-herbicide-resistance/ ] stirred me to make this posting.  The link above will take you to their posting that I am referencing.  For about 5 years I have been hearing WSU weed scientists introduce "occasional tillage" back as a practice to reduce herbicide resistance.  For those of us that are die-hard no-tillers, that's like throwing gasoline on a fire, --it makes no sense what-so-ever.

      I could rant on this all day, but I will try and limit my comments to a few references in the posting.  I’ll start with a statement of my position.  I’m not quite as old as dirt but I was around before there were synthetic chemistry or fertilizers for our crops.  I have spent most of my life stirring dirt, destroying my little portion of the Palouse ecosystem.  For the last 30 years I have been trying to figure out how to repair that damage.  Since the year 2000, research on soil health has grown astronomically.   It's to the point where I discount (not reject) research findings that are more than 5 years old.

--What is soil health?  I find that it has many different parameters depending on who is speaking on the subject.  I can accept Huberto Blanco-Canqui’s findings for the high quality, deep soils that probably make up their research sites.  If the soil is deep, with high OM, and a near neutral pH, then, an occasional stirring probably is a minor setback to the ecosystem.  Soils with a high level of biological life have the capacity to rapidly rebuild after a destructive event.  Soils with low levels of biological life do not have that capacity, so rebuilding is slow.  The post mentions tillage to break up compaction and reduce stratification of soils.  Back in the 70's, WSU was researching ways to mitigate tillage compaction. Compaction was recognized as a problem through the use of moldboard plows, disc harrows, and rod weeders.  I had fields where four tillage pans could be identified.  Chisle plows and heavy cultivators were proposed solutions.  Compaction layers were found to be moving lower in the soil profile because chisels and cultivators broke soil aggregates into finer particles that moved deeper into the profile.  Deep chiseling and subsoiling was considered, but rejected because it was feared that compaction layers would move lower than implements could reach.  We are still dealing with compaction layers in our soils.  It has been demonstrated that we can influence compaction and stratification of our soils with plants and biology.  We need to figure out how to incorporate them as part of our cropping practice.  There are plants and macro fauna that are very good at these tasks and leave a better long term effect.  Except for small acreages, soils in the Palouse, in general, are badly degraded from erosion from years of cultivation (erosion from cultivation, water, and wind), and from being mostly a monoculture cropping system.   Any cultivation is a major setback to our ecosystem.  I compare "occasional tillage" to burning your house down every few years.  Many of the soil biological structures don’t rebuild very quickly in our climate and cultural environment.  Tillage and fallow is a real downer for soil microbe communities.  Biological networks are sliced, diced, burned, starved, --and are slow to recover from a major disruption.  

--What is “occasional cultivation”?  I have never heard a followup explanation as to what this term meant, or how it would extend a herbicides useful life.  Retracing my memory of tillage I don't think there is such a term as "occasional cultivation.  Nearly every year I see a farmer do reduced tillage, and weed escapement is always a problem, which results in more tillage, or chemistry applied with less than desirable results.  My experience is that tillage bury’s seed, of which some emerge and the remainder stay in the soil bank, safe, for later emergence.  Tillage destroys OM and emits CO2 and H2O into the atmosphere. Tillage degrades the soil through erosion, compounding our problems.  I find that, the less the disturbance, the fewer the weeds that compete with the crop.  I regularly see this in my fields.  A mat of surface residue along with no disturbance is preferable.  I often wish my equipment could levitate over the fields leaving no track.  Wheel tracks are where the weeds are.   An expanded crop rotation, and rotating appropriate chemistry will be more effective than tillage in reducing herbicide resistance in weed populations.

        --The ultimate goal will be removing synthetics from crop production.  As time passes this will happen because of weed resistance, environmental regulation, or cost.  These pressures will force us to learn to incorporate cover crops, do inter-seeding, and use companion crops in our production of cash crops.

        --Disciplines within soil & crop sciences need a closer relationship.  Weed scientists need to look for solutions through microbiologists, crop specialists, and other related disciplines.  Books like “When Weeds Talk” by Jay L. McCaman have a lot of potential for weed management, by manipulating soil chemistry and biology through plant cultivars.  Research by crop specialists working with cover crop cultivars, intercropping, and companion cropping are showing some real promise in increasing yields and reducing weed competition and diseases in cash crops.  Cropping problems need to be approached through coordinated discussion and research by cooperating disciplines instead of individual disciplines reverting back to old failed practices. 

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.

RUSLE2 -- Explanation of Use

RUSLE2 is used by USDA to evaluate a farm operation for various programs offered by the USDA.  It also can be used by individuals to evaluate practices for the purpose of improving soil health.  Following, is the link to this 1:03:34 presentation explaining the variables that make up  RUSLE2.  [ RUSLE2 explained ]   This is a very good and thorough understandable explanation of what goes into the evaluation.  It's a much better tool than I ever thought.  I knew that it was under constant research to improve its accuracy.

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.

   

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.



   
   

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.
   

MAN and CLIMATE

    I have been skeptical about man being able to influence the climate, but I have become a believer.  Increasing atmospheric CO2 and NO3 levels are just a part of what I see as being influenced by man.  Desertification appears to me to be a bigger problem, and we, in the worldwide agricultural community, are a major part of the problem, -- along with the spatial needs generated by 7.9 billion people.  (In my lifetime world population has more than tripled from 2.2b)
 
      The earth's climate is dynamic, changing continually.  Natural cycles resulting from the earth's tilt, relationship to other planets, their orbits, and earth's position to the all important sun and our moon, have powerful influence on the earth's climate.  Thirty years of lecturing by Dr. Art Douglas has left no doubt in my mind on the importance of these cycles.
      Our use of fossil fuels probably is contributing to CO2 buildup that so many are claiming to be the major cause of climate change.   It's the goto energy source for 7.9b people with an infrastructure that gradually developed over more than a 100 years, and we probably ought to change, --but to what?  I hope I'm wrong but it seems that we have taken a hiatus on working out the problems with fusion reaction, and  fission waste disposal is a nasty issue.  I view wind power  as nothing more than a scam, a money pit that has fleeced the public.  It is horribly inefficient, extremely high maintenance, and a low life expectancy (It was recently reported that 20yrs is current expectation, down from the original 50yrs), and the eventual removal of these dinosaurs will be equally expensive as when they were installed.  Solar Energy holds a lot of potential.  It is something that can be built into building construction, and not rely total on huge solar farms.  There is also geothermal, wave action, hydrogen fuel cell technology that can be improved and brought into the mix, and, who knows what new technologies the future will hold.
      Recently, all the information I access that relates to soil health makes reference to "taking cues from nature in developing farming practices", or "work with nature, not against it".  In my striving to learn about soil health I ran across a presentation that was intriguing.  It gave a pretty impressive picture and narrative on global desertification and it's implication.  DESERTIFICATION by Allen Savory.  The pic in this post is from that presentation.  Notice the light colored areas contrasted with the green areas.  The light colored areas are associated with "desertification".  The more I watch this video the more connected I become with the message.  The reasoning behind our operations move to a ULD farming system is incorporated in Allen Savory's message, but he goes farther.  Being a grain producer, I'm resisting the introduction of livestock into our operation; however, I understand the reasoning, their potential, and it's possible they will show up on our operation sometime in the future.

      My statement above, about agriculture worldwide being part of the problem stems from the fact that in any given year we leave a lot of ground in a nonproductive state that is radiating energy instead of capturing energy and converting it through photosynthesis to a crop.  Our practice of fallowing is an example of a poor land management practice.  The global increase of wild fires, along with the ever increasing number of people and their related spacial needs, are factors that influence desertification.  These man caused influences are gradually changing air currents related to high and low air cells across the globe, concentrating energy.  This concentrated energy is effecting the strength and location of storms.  Each of us, with our relatively small farming operation think that we are insignificant, so, what we do will not have any effect on the climate.  I'm beginning to realize that the mismanagement of our tiny amount of global resource combined with millions of other independent operations doing the same thing adds up to be a huge potential impact.  We need to rethink our attitude on how we manage our land so as to make a positive contribution to sequestering carbon, and reducing practices that promote desertification!!

 

WHAT IS A SOIL AGGREGATE

     This is a copy and paste posting from "Soil Matter, Get The Scoop" blog.  It's informative and pretty complete on the subject of soil aggregates, their value to us in the farming game, and suggested management for developing and maintaining these aggregates.  This post starts out with the question of what are soil aggregates, and the reply is by Nall I. Moonilall of Ohio State.

What are soil aggregates? by soilsmatter2011 The ground beneath your feet might seem like a uniform material, but it’s really a mixture of soil particles, organic matter, and other mineral/organic components. For a soil to be healthy, it must have good structure. Soil is made up of a combination of primary particles - sand, silt and clay. These particles can be bound together into what soil scientists call “aggregates.” Soil aggregates retained on a 4.75 mm sieve after wet sieving experiment. Credit: Nall Moonilall These aggregates are clumps of soil that range from the micro level (less than 0.25mm in diameter) to the macro level (greater than 0.25mm in diameter). Furthermore, they can resemble various shapes: granular, blocky, etc. These varied shapes allow for healthy soil to have pores spaces for air and water, needed for healthy plant growth. Aggregate formation is a complex process. Soil aggregates are formed through physical, chemical and biological activity below ground. They are even influenced by human factors, like tilling, walking on the surface, or even how you fertilize your garden. Formation of aggregates begins with finer soil primary particles binding together. You may know that clay particles have a negative charge. And, the fertilizers you use include salts that have positively charged cations (things like potassium nitrate, etc.) The positively charged cations allow the negatively charged clay particles to bind together creating “floccules.” The type and amount of clay minerals in the soil often plays an influential role in aggregation formation. Soil crust formation on a soil exposed to simulated rainfall. You can see the crust formation on the surface of the soil as well as how deep the crust extends. (This really is soil - not cement!) Credit: Nall Moonilall The second part of aggregate formation deals with cementation. Here, the clay floccules and other soil particles are bonded together by some type of cementing agent. (Here we mean "binding" - not cement like in concrete!) Examples of cementing agents include organic matter, and liming materials like calcium carbonate. Even types of oxides, like iron and aluminum can help cement particles together. In the case of organic matter, it is broken down by the soil microorganisms and soil fauna (earthworms, etc.) When breakdown occurs, these organisms secrete organic compounds that are the “glue” that makes cementation occur. Plant roots also play a role in aggregate formation by secreting organic compounds called root exudates. These help bind soil together near the root zone. Fungal hyphae also contribute to aggregate formation by entangling and weaving around soil particles. As you can see, aggregate formation is the result of many interactions and feedback loops occurring below ground. Soil aggregates play a major role in soil structure formation and soil health. In agriculture, the stability of aggregates is critical to how well an agroecosystem will function. The pore spaces in soil influence air and water storage, and gaseous exchange. They create habitat for soil microorganisms, and allow for plant root development and penetration. They also assist in nutrient cycling and transport. Soils that have high aggregate stability are less susceptible to erosion. They hold their shape when exposed to disruptive forces, like water, and do not easily break apart. Keep soil covered! Crop residues on the soil surface help to protect soil from erosive forces. Credit: Nall Moonilall Poorly aggregated soils disintegrate easily when exposed to erosive forces. They tend to breakdown faster, leading to soil degradation. Poor stability can lead to pore spaces being filled in and can ultimately result in the formation of soil crusts. This can lead to reduced infiltration and gaseous exchange. Poorly aggregated soils can reduce crop productivity. Soil management often influences aggregate size, shape, and stability. Favorable practices that promote and maintain greater stability include: Minimizing soil disturbance, like minimal tillage. This reduces aggregate destruction because they are not physically or mechanically broken apart; Adding organic matter enhances aggregate strength and stability; Keeping soil covered is essential to keeping soil intact. Vegetative cover on the soil reduces the impact of erosive forces; Promoting a diverse cropping system. Systems that promote perennial plants or meadows have expansive rooting systems and require no tillage. Promoting this kind of diversity within a system will ensure that soil’s function is not reduced; Managing for grazing. Grasses have strong root systems, but if animals graze too long, that can be disruptive to the forage system. There are many ways to graze animals and preserve or enhance soil stability; and, Managing for pest control. The choice of plants and how they are managed (e.g., annual vs. perennial, cover crops, rotation) are highly influential. To recap – soil aggregates are the building blocks that make up soil and their stability is extremely important in the long-term. Soils that are well aggregated exhibit greater soil health, ensure greater agronomic productivity, are less susceptible to soil erosion, and can play a role in carbon sequestration. Answered by Nall I. Moonilall, Ohio State University