Today we have finished a 5 day Road Scholar program in NE Florida on Amelia Island. We stayed in Fernandina Beach, toured Cumberland Island, Amelia Island, and the Okefenokee Wildlife preserve nearby in southern Georgia. The lectures centered around the history of the area, and the economic impacts caused, and endured by the residences since 1562. Amelia Island is known as the First Coast for it's early settlement, along with the term of, The Isle of Eight Flags, for the various political interests involved over the years. It was interesting to find out that the shrimping industry started on Amelia Island.
FRENCH Flag ----1562 to 1565. Explorer Jean Ribault was first recorded European visitor.
SPANISH Flag ---1565 to 1710. Pedro Menendez de Aviles drove French out killing 350 colonists. Several English raids took place during this time period including South Carolina's governor James Moore leading British and Indian forces in 1702.
ENGLISH Flag ---1710 to 1783. Georgia governor James Oglethorpe invades and renames island, Amelia in honor of Englands George II daughter. 1776, Spain releases all rights and land grant rights to Florida.
SPANISH Flag --- 1783 to 1812. The town of Fernandina was platted in 1811 by George G.F. Clark in honor of king Ferdinand VII of Spain.
PATRIOT Flag --- 1812 to 1813. With approval from President James Madison, Georgia's governor, George Mathews fielded insurgents called "Patriots of Amelia Island" and seized the island. After raising the Patriot Flag they replaced it with the US Flag.
SPANISH Flag ---1813 to 1817. Spanish pressure forced evacuation of US forces from island. Spain built Fort San Carlos on the island in 1816.
GREEN CROSS Flag --- 1817 to 1817. Scot born Gregor McGregor and a small force capture the island for the "Green Cross".
MEXICAN REBEL Flag -- 1817 to 1861. American irregulars and pirates plague the area for years under the Mexican Rebel Flag, until President James Monroe drives them out, vowing to hold Amelia Island in trust for Spain.
CONFEDERATE Flag -- 1861-1862. Confederate forces sieze island and Fort San Carlos (renamed Fort Clinch).
AMERICAN Flag -- 1862-present. Union forces under Commodore Samuel Dupont retake Amelia Island and raises the American Flag.
This information is a summary that comes from the City of Fernandina Beach website. All this attention over the last 350 years is due to Amelia Island having the only natural deep water port along the Florida coastline.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
The Dust Bowl (a PBS documentary)
This was an 8hr, two night presentation on the 10 year drought of the upper and lower midwest in the 1930's. Video is available through PBS.com for ≈$25.
The pictures showed unbelievable devastation! It's hard to imagine living in those conditions. Although the drought may not have been caused by the farming practices, the severity of the dust storms and slow recovery certainly can be laid at the feet of those practices and the attitude of the land owners. The program centered on the social aspect. I wish that more time had been spent on what went into solving the agriculture issues.
There is a growing consensus that the weather will become more extreme in the years ahead. Farmer attitudes expressed in the PBS program are still with us today. Many deny that they have an erosion problem, and yet, when you look at their land, they have no residue to protect the surface, and the land is worked to a fine powder. When the lands fragility is not recognized by it's Stewards, serious erosion from water and wind is inevitable.
The program stated that late in the 30's farmers wanted government to do something about those farmers who were continuing to allow their farms to blow away. The volume of dust coming off those fields was impacting crops of others that were improving their land. I see that potential today. Many no-tillers are disgusted with neighbors dirt that is deposited on their land and fill the drainage ditches. In our case it is mostly deposition from water. The only real impact from wind, that I remember, was back in Oct. of 1992 (fire storm). Some of our neighbors hilltops lost more than an inch of soil. Some of this soil was deposited in deep drifts at other locations. We experienced this. Drifted dirt was loose with no structure, and the tractors could not get enough grip to climb the hill effected. For a couple of years we had to work those particular areas from the top down.
We already see the public crying for government interference. Livestock operations across the state are being impacted by government scrutiny. The department of ecology is preparing to become more involved with crop operations. Government interference is being driven by farmers that deny they have an erosion problem and continue doing the same old practice. This past year an individual in Lincoln county was accused of polluting public waters following a rain event. His ground was ripped badly, and DOE had the pics to show. He denied the charge and presented pics to counter the DOE pics. Of course, he cultivated the fields to close up the ditches prior to him taking the pics.
I think our operation is on the right track by moving from cultivation 20+ years ago and now moving from a high disturbance direct seed system, to ultra-low soil disturbance direct seeding system. This past summer one of our fallow fields took in a reported 2.6" of rain. This field had a very high level of residue on the soil surface. There were no visible signs of soil or water moving across the landscape. The conventionally fallowed fields around us had no visible residue on the soil surface, and had been worked several times prior to the event, were gutted. Deep and wide ditches were prevalent. How much soil depth was lost to sheet erosion is not visually seen but it had to be significant. One millimeter of soil is several tons on each acre of ground.
I'm anxious to see how the tall stubble, left behind the stripper header this past harvest, fairs next summer. Will we retain more moisture?? To maximize soil health, we need to learn how to replace fallow with a living cultivar to feed the micro and macro fauna. Currently, our fallow periods create a desert for microorganisms, hence, soil building is slowed dramatically.
The pictures showed unbelievable devastation! It's hard to imagine living in those conditions. Although the drought may not have been caused by the farming practices, the severity of the dust storms and slow recovery certainly can be laid at the feet of those practices and the attitude of the land owners. The program centered on the social aspect. I wish that more time had been spent on what went into solving the agriculture issues.
There is a growing consensus that the weather will become more extreme in the years ahead. Farmer attitudes expressed in the PBS program are still with us today. Many deny that they have an erosion problem, and yet, when you look at their land, they have no residue to protect the surface, and the land is worked to a fine powder. When the lands fragility is not recognized by it's Stewards, serious erosion from water and wind is inevitable.
The program stated that late in the 30's farmers wanted government to do something about those farmers who were continuing to allow their farms to blow away. The volume of dust coming off those fields was impacting crops of others that were improving their land. I see that potential today. Many no-tillers are disgusted with neighbors dirt that is deposited on their land and fill the drainage ditches. In our case it is mostly deposition from water. The only real impact from wind, that I remember, was back in Oct. of 1992 (fire storm). Some of our neighbors hilltops lost more than an inch of soil. Some of this soil was deposited in deep drifts at other locations. We experienced this. Drifted dirt was loose with no structure, and the tractors could not get enough grip to climb the hill effected. For a couple of years we had to work those particular areas from the top down.
We already see the public crying for government interference. Livestock operations across the state are being impacted by government scrutiny. The department of ecology is preparing to become more involved with crop operations. Government interference is being driven by farmers that deny they have an erosion problem and continue doing the same old practice. This past year an individual in Lincoln county was accused of polluting public waters following a rain event. His ground was ripped badly, and DOE had the pics to show. He denied the charge and presented pics to counter the DOE pics. Of course, he cultivated the fields to close up the ditches prior to him taking the pics.
I think our operation is on the right track by moving from cultivation 20+ years ago and now moving from a high disturbance direct seed system, to ultra-low soil disturbance direct seeding system. This past summer one of our fallow fields took in a reported 2.6" of rain. This field had a very high level of residue on the soil surface. There were no visible signs of soil or water moving across the landscape. The conventionally fallowed fields around us had no visible residue on the soil surface, and had been worked several times prior to the event, were gutted. Deep and wide ditches were prevalent. How much soil depth was lost to sheet erosion is not visually seen but it had to be significant. One millimeter of soil is several tons on each acre of ground.
I'm anxious to see how the tall stubble, left behind the stripper header this past harvest, fairs next summer. Will we retain more moisture?? To maximize soil health, we need to learn how to replace fallow with a living cultivar to feed the micro and macro fauna. Currently, our fallow periods create a desert for microorganisms, hence, soil building is slowed dramatically.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Contour Buffers
SUMMARY:
For the Palouse, I view "Contour Buffers" in a similar light to landfills, a resource for the future, ---> if managed properly. From the beginning I have been a supporter of buffer strips as a practice to reduce soil erosion. Recently, I am having some second thoughts about that. I mostly see them being managed for short term economics (gov. land rental) without a vision to convert these lands back to a long term productive asset. Vertical drops at buffer strip transitions are not being addressed, and I have seen trees planted in areas that could be made into good crop production areas using D.S. methods.
DETAIL:
My concern is: a)- that land managers are not managing these buffers with the idea of bringing them back into production at a future date, and b)-the management practices being followed will result in further destruction of the hill side, and c)- even the bottom ground will be effected by being overburdened with deposits of poor soils. Those who are direct seeding are in good position to reclaim these hillsides with improved soil structure; however, most of those continuing to use a conventional cultivation system are moving those hillsides into the waste land category, and raising the potential for future problems on productive lands below them. This is demonstrated by pic #1. Grass lands of "old" have a history of shedding water. This water overloads the farmland lying below the grass and causes erosion on those lower slopes. Frequently, when conditions are right, areas of soil will shear, and slump down hill, leaving an ugly hole in the hill side and a spoil pile below. The steeper the slope, and the height of the vertical drop at the transition, the more likely this event will occur.
Pic #1: Shown is one of the oldest, and most extreme cases of hill side destruction. Originally, this hill side was farmed as part of the whole, which included the hill top and draw bottom. The original buffer on the rim of the hill was established decades ago. The second buffer strip was established many years after the first, and the newest, lighter green buffer is more recent. Notice the vertical drops that define the lower edge of each of the top two buffer strips. The top one is more severe then the second one. This may be do to a longer farmed period, or steeper slope, or both. The third, the bottom buffer strip has no visible vertical drop where is transitions to the crop land. This is probably because it is low on the hill side, and the modern plows can throw soil up the hill.
When the original (top) buffer was established, using conventional tillage, the make-up soil that was provided to the slope from the hill top was cut off. A soil berm has been developed over the years on the edge of the hill top. Without the make up soil from the top, tillage has gouged out the soil under the buffer strip. This practice has removed the thin mantel of top soil, if it existed, and exposed more erosion prone sub soils. This farming practice continued until the productivity under the buffer strip declined to the point where the operator took out another section of the hill side. And then a third. An equilibrium has probably been established below the third buffer strip where the remainder of the hill side will remain in production for years to come; however, the likely hood of reclaiming the buffer strips, other than the third (lowest) one is nil. The hill side's productivity could only be re-established by dozing top soil from the draw bottom up onto it. This would be very expensive. Dozing the berm at the hilltop will probably not damage further the production, but dozing the vertical drop from above will definitely degrade the hillside. This pic is going to become a common sight across the Palouse instead of a rarity, if land managers don't become stewards of their land instead of miners of their land.
Pic #2: Shown, is a vertical drop under a buffer strip caused by a short period (10 yrs) of conventional tillage through the action of the disc, cultivator, and rod weeder (8-10 inches). This slope is approximately 30%. This damage can be reversed using conventional tillage methods by employing the plow. With modern plows, and tractors, soil can be rolled up-hill on nearly any slope.
Pic #3: Shown, is a transition between a buffer strip and crop ground that has existed for more then 20 years. The pic is deceptive. The slope is approximately 30%. There is virtually no vertical drop at the transition (0.5-1"). Attached to this buffer strip is another section that is much older, and was established while we were conventionally tilling, and not thinking about reclaiming the property. There are areas with vertical drops of 18" or less, and are short in length, that we will be able to reclaim when the time comes. Current plans are to leave this poor producing southerly exposed slope in CRP as long as there is a program. We probably should consider putting a low rate of fertilizer on these strips annually, to increase the grass production (residue) which will help build soil and it's structure over time. When there is no longer programs that will provide some source of income from this property, we will have the option of returning it to crop production. It will never have the productive capacity that it had 100 years ago, but we will be able to call it a productive asset instead of waste ground.
For the Palouse, I view "Contour Buffers" in a similar light to landfills, a resource for the future, ---> if managed properly. From the beginning I have been a supporter of buffer strips as a practice to reduce soil erosion. Recently, I am having some second thoughts about that. I mostly see them being managed for short term economics (gov. land rental) without a vision to convert these lands back to a long term productive asset. Vertical drops at buffer strip transitions are not being addressed, and I have seen trees planted in areas that could be made into good crop production areas using D.S. methods.
DETAIL:
My concern is: a)- that land managers are not managing these buffers with the idea of bringing them back into production at a future date, and b)-the management practices being followed will result in further destruction of the hill side, and c)- even the bottom ground will be effected by being overburdened with deposits of poor soils. Those who are direct seeding are in good position to reclaim these hillsides with improved soil structure; however, most of those continuing to use a conventional cultivation system are moving those hillsides into the waste land category, and raising the potential for future problems on productive lands below them. This is demonstrated by pic #1. Grass lands of "old" have a history of shedding water. This water overloads the farmland lying below the grass and causes erosion on those lower slopes. Frequently, when conditions are right, areas of soil will shear, and slump down hill, leaving an ugly hole in the hill side and a spoil pile below. The steeper the slope, and the height of the vertical drop at the transition, the more likely this event will occur.
 |
| pic #1 |
Pic #1: Shown is one of the oldest, and most extreme cases of hill side destruction. Originally, this hill side was farmed as part of the whole, which included the hill top and draw bottom. The original buffer on the rim of the hill was established decades ago. The second buffer strip was established many years after the first, and the newest, lighter green buffer is more recent. Notice the vertical drops that define the lower edge of each of the top two buffer strips. The top one is more severe then the second one. This may be do to a longer farmed period, or steeper slope, or both. The third, the bottom buffer strip has no visible vertical drop where is transitions to the crop land. This is probably because it is low on the hill side, and the modern plows can throw soil up the hill.
When the original (top) buffer was established, using conventional tillage, the make-up soil that was provided to the slope from the hill top was cut off. A soil berm has been developed over the years on the edge of the hill top. Without the make up soil from the top, tillage has gouged out the soil under the buffer strip. This practice has removed the thin mantel of top soil, if it existed, and exposed more erosion prone sub soils. This farming practice continued until the productivity under the buffer strip declined to the point where the operator took out another section of the hill side. And then a third. An equilibrium has probably been established below the third buffer strip where the remainder of the hill side will remain in production for years to come; however, the likely hood of reclaiming the buffer strips, other than the third (lowest) one is nil. The hill side's productivity could only be re-established by dozing top soil from the draw bottom up onto it. This would be very expensive. Dozing the berm at the hilltop will probably not damage further the production, but dozing the vertical drop from above will definitely degrade the hillside. This pic is going to become a common sight across the Palouse instead of a rarity, if land managers don't become stewards of their land instead of miners of their land.
 |
| pic #2 |
Pic #2: Shown, is a vertical drop under a buffer strip caused by a short period (10 yrs) of conventional tillage through the action of the disc, cultivator, and rod weeder (8-10 inches). This slope is approximately 30%. This damage can be reversed using conventional tillage methods by employing the plow. With modern plows, and tractors, soil can be rolled up-hill on nearly any slope.
 |
| pic #3 |
Pic #3: Shown, is a transition between a buffer strip and crop ground that has existed for more then 20 years. The pic is deceptive. The slope is approximately 30%. There is virtually no vertical drop at the transition (0.5-1"). Attached to this buffer strip is another section that is much older, and was established while we were conventionally tilling, and not thinking about reclaiming the property. There are areas with vertical drops of 18" or less, and are short in length, that we will be able to reclaim when the time comes. Current plans are to leave this poor producing southerly exposed slope in CRP as long as there is a program. We probably should consider putting a low rate of fertilizer on these strips annually, to increase the grass production (residue) which will help build soil and it's structure over time. When there is no longer programs that will provide some source of income from this property, we will have the option of returning it to crop production. It will never have the productive capacity that it had 100 years ago, but we will be able to call it a productive asset instead of waste ground.
Friday, September 21, 2012
2012 Planting with Cross-Slot Drill
[Click on "CrossSlot" or "direct seeding" label at bottom of post for more posts on subject.]
In Summary:(as of 10/9/12)---- The Cross-slot opener did a good job considering our inexperience with the drill & tractor. A very complex system with GPS, mapping, variable rate for three products, seed tube monitoring, auto steer and auto boom control. We started drilling on 9/12 with the capability of 100% crop emergence, but that didn't happen. With experience we'll do better about seed depth control, and the plugging that we did encounter, although minor. The Cross-slot system has great potential, but not yet perfect. Our concerns are: 1)--Tractor horse power and weight required to push 30 straight running notched disc's 4-6" deep in uncultivated ground. 2)--Acre cost for disc and blade wear. 3)--Plugging of openers.
More Detail:--- Our chemical fallow had good moisture in the seed zone; however, the soil surface was drying and hardening do to the sun and wind. We probably should have started seeding a week earlier. The drill has an auto depth control system to keep the seed location at a desired position; however, we didn't do well at monitoring, and adjusting the hydraulic pressure for that system; hence, some of the seed was placed to shallow. Technically, this monitoring should not be required. Sensing, for instance, 40 pounds resistance on the packer wheel from the ground should have been enough to keep the opener at depth. It appears not to be that simple.
I have known for many years that a rolling disc can require an amazing amount of weight to penetrate dry hard ground. Thirty disc's working at depth, coupled with blades on each side acting like a brake from the pressure of the soil against them, create a significant draft. We have some concerns that our Case 4994 wheel tractor with 400hp and weighing 38,000 pounds is of sufficient size to pull a drill of this type with 1500g of aqua, 60bu of seed, and 350g of starter solution. These are the volumes we currently have with our hoe type direct seed drill, and it is a relatively easy pull.
A few openers were fitted with carbide inserts on the blades. They were causing rapid wear on the disc. Some of the problem is due to the spring plate that holds the blade against the disc. The current design has dense rubber bumpers glued to a plate which press against the blade, and hence, the disc, and is secured to the opener frame with a single 12mm stud. When the spring plate is secured to the opener, it puts significant pressure against the disc through the blade, even at rest. When the drill runs across our sloping terrain, the disc's bend from the weight of the drill. The upper side of the disc has increased pressure applied from the blade, and the lower side can develop a gap between the disc and blade which allows residue and dirt to enter the seed or fertilizer channels causing a plug. I believe this situation could be rectified by a slight shape modification of the spring plate allowing some rocking motion, and by putting a rubber washer under the stud that secures the spring plate to the opener body. This allows more movement of the blade, allowing it to follow the disc as it flexes (bends), and at the same time reduce the pressure exerted on the disc. This should help reduce draft as well as reduce the incidences of plugging. Reducing this excessive pressure on the disc applied by the blade should reduce the wear issue as well.
In Summary:(as of 10/9/12)---- The Cross-slot opener did a good job considering our inexperience with the drill & tractor. A very complex system with GPS, mapping, variable rate for three products, seed tube monitoring, auto steer and auto boom control. We started drilling on 9/12 with the capability of 100% crop emergence, but that didn't happen. With experience we'll do better about seed depth control, and the plugging that we did encounter, although minor. The Cross-slot system has great potential, but not yet perfect. Our concerns are: 1)--Tractor horse power and weight required to push 30 straight running notched disc's 4-6" deep in uncultivated ground. 2)--Acre cost for disc and blade wear. 3)--Plugging of openers.
More Detail:--- Our chemical fallow had good moisture in the seed zone; however, the soil surface was drying and hardening do to the sun and wind. We probably should have started seeding a week earlier. The drill has an auto depth control system to keep the seed location at a desired position; however, we didn't do well at monitoring, and adjusting the hydraulic pressure for that system; hence, some of the seed was placed to shallow. Technically, this monitoring should not be required. Sensing, for instance, 40 pounds resistance on the packer wheel from the ground should have been enough to keep the opener at depth. It appears not to be that simple.
I have known for many years that a rolling disc can require an amazing amount of weight to penetrate dry hard ground. Thirty disc's working at depth, coupled with blades on each side acting like a brake from the pressure of the soil against them, create a significant draft. We have some concerns that our Case 4994 wheel tractor with 400hp and weighing 38,000 pounds is of sufficient size to pull a drill of this type with 1500g of aqua, 60bu of seed, and 350g of starter solution. These are the volumes we currently have with our hoe type direct seed drill, and it is a relatively easy pull.
A few openers were fitted with carbide inserts on the blades. They were causing rapid wear on the disc. Some of the problem is due to the spring plate that holds the blade against the disc. The current design has dense rubber bumpers glued to a plate which press against the blade, and hence, the disc, and is secured to the opener frame with a single 12mm stud. When the spring plate is secured to the opener, it puts significant pressure against the disc through the blade, even at rest. When the drill runs across our sloping terrain, the disc's bend from the weight of the drill. The upper side of the disc has increased pressure applied from the blade, and the lower side can develop a gap between the disc and blade which allows residue and dirt to enter the seed or fertilizer channels causing a plug. I believe this situation could be rectified by a slight shape modification of the spring plate allowing some rocking motion, and by putting a rubber washer under the stud that secures the spring plate to the opener body. This allows more movement of the blade, allowing it to follow the disc as it flexes (bends), and at the same time reduce the pressure exerted on the disc. This should help reduce draft as well as reduce the incidences of plugging. Reducing this excessive pressure on the disc applied by the blade should reduce the wear issue as well.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Soil Moisture
[Update: Jan 5/15] --- Web search shows several studies, ( Canada, Nebraska, Colorado, Washington) where the 13-14m fallow period in a wheat-fallow rotation store a low of <20% to as high as 34% of the moisture received. The more I discover the more I'm becoming convinced that fallow is a loser. Even cropping environments with 6" annual rainfall would be better off developing a crop rotation that includes building biomass and growing tall residue with annual cropping. The other 66-80% of the precipitation received is lost, primarily through evaporation.
[Update: 5/22/14] --- Summary of a Summary ------ The bottom Line:
a)--Where rainfall goes (average over 10 years of a two year moisture cycle): 1% deep penetration, 4% runoff, 12% transpiration through the crop, 83% evaporation off soil surface.
b)--In a wheat/fallow rotation, the fallow year provides only 34% more moisture for the winter crop. In short, we lose the equivalent of 2/3 of one years precipitation growing one winter crop.
c)-- That long term study showed no statistical difference in moisture retention between moldboard plowing, disc plowing, para-plowing, or chiseling.
d)--Best moisture retention is attained by keeping soils as cool as possible in the summer, and the air at the soil surface as calm as possible all year long.
SUMMARY: I feel there is value in this old research project (below) done in the 1970's. The four conclusions stated at the conference need to be altered in my opinion in light of the technology available to us today. All are still valid for a tilled field, but can be improved through a DS system; and, leaving long cut standing stubble following harvest.
[Update: 5/22/14] --- Summary of a Summary ------ The bottom Line:
a)--Where rainfall goes (average over 10 years of a two year moisture cycle): 1% deep penetration, 4% runoff, 12% transpiration through the crop, 83% evaporation off soil surface.
b)--In a wheat/fallow rotation, the fallow year provides only 34% more moisture for the winter crop. In short, we lose the equivalent of 2/3 of one years precipitation growing one winter crop.
c)-- That long term study showed no statistical difference in moisture retention between moldboard plowing, disc plowing, para-plowing, or chiseling.
d)--Best moisture retention is attained by keeping soils as cool as possible in the summer, and the air at the soil surface as calm as possible all year long.
SUMMARY: I feel there is value in this old research project (below) done in the 1970's. The four conclusions stated at the conference need to be altered in my opinion in light of the technology available to us today. All are still valid for a tilled field, but can be improved through a DS system; and, leaving long cut standing stubble following harvest.
More Detail:
Above is a study that was done in the late 1970's on soil moisture and what combination of tillage operations were best in conserving it in the fallow period. There are some interesting findings and conclusions. Direct Seeding was not on the radar when this study was done. The following are a dressed up set of my notes from an education event attended in the spring 1989. Below, I make conclusions/comments on this study as it may relate to Direct Seeding. Two separate studies were conducted with this research project.
1)-- Comparison of four primary tillage operations for holding moisture.
2)-- Determining the moisture use in a two year cropping cycle that included fallow.
#1 SUMMARY----The four primary practices were: A)--moldboard plow, B)--paraplow, C)-- Chisel, D)--Disc. The great disappointment at the end of this study was that there was no statistically significant difference in moisture retention between any of the operations.
#2 SUMMARY----The statements showing on the image insert are "from the time". Using DS, --- are these still valid statements?? What has intrigued me over the years, and is the reason for me hanging onto this information is the section: -- "where rainfall goes".
With todays bank of knowledge, the use of rotations in cropping, and using DS, I am confident that we can eliminate the 1% loss through deep penetration.
I'm certain that we can eliminate, or nearly eliminate 4% loss from runoff. (this summer our fallow took in the 6.5"event reported for that area without showing signs of runoff (no displaced residue or mudded over residue. In the bottom of the drainages there were the usual small cut channel; however, I couldn't tell whether they were from the winter/spring flush of snow, or from this event.) The conventional fallow around us was gutted to the depth of cultivation[4"-6"].)
This study shows we are raising our crops on 12% of the moisture received (through transpiration). Is this still a valid number? Just think of the potential!
This study shows that, of the rainfall we receive, 83% is lost through evaporation from the soil surface. Just think of the potential here if we reduce that number.
The numbers shown for seasonal variations,-- 1st winter @+66%, 1st summer @-20, and 2nd winter @ +41% are not to be construed as netting the 34% showing for the increase of fallow moisture over that of annual cropped ground. This image is poorly expressed. The study was on a winter wheat - fallow - winter wheat crop rotation. The correct interpretation of these numbers is:
The first winter following a winter wheat crop, the ground collects 66% of the moisture of it's two year cycle. Why?--The crop just harvested depleted the moisture in the soil profile so the hydraulic pull is strong and will accept all or most of the moisture that first winter, even with frozen ground. There was probably a primary tillage operation (moldboard plow, chisel, disc, paraplow) done to the ground prior to winter. Evaporation was probably the largest user. Some transpiration from weeds and volunteer. Some runoff is possible.
The "1st" summer [fallow period], the ground loses a net of 20% of the moisture collected over the two year cycle. (Why?-- Evaporation -- heat and wind movement across the soil surface are strong forces that hydraulically pull moisture up and off the soil surface. In our climate where most of our moisture comes in the winter, any and all summer moisture is over-ridden by evaporation. Also included is tillage where each pass across the ground stirs and aerates to the depth of 4-6 inches. This accelerates the loss by evaporation for that depth of soil. Traditionally there is little or no residue left on the soil surface, and certainly no residue left standing. This gives sun and wind high access to moisture through evaporation.)
The 2nd winter, that ground only gains an additional 41% instead of the 66% the first winter. (Why?-- The hydraulic pull is less the second winter because the soil profile has significant amount of moisture. The ground has been tilled a number of times since the previous crop, and the new crop has been seeded. The natural channels into the soil have been destroyed and most fields have the look of a garden with finely textured soil and no, or little residue remain. When that 2nd winter comes, moisture encounters a soil surface that quickly seals off allowing a high percentage of the moisture to flow across the soil surface to drainages varying with climatic conditions present. There is also a growing crop, and I don't remember how that complexity was explained.
The 2nd spring/summer, the soil profile is depleted of moisture. (Why?-- early on, evaporation is significant. Later in the season, as the crop grows and covers the ground, the evaporation forces decrease; however, the Transpiration force (growing crop) is very strong and will normally take the moisture down to the wilting point for the crop.
This study has influenced me for what has been done on this farm. In the 70-80's I recognized that tillage was destroying the long term productivity of our ground and began combining operations to reduce trips over the field. I also divided the slopes where there was crop on either top or bottom, and something else on the other. This shortened the run for water compared to the whole hill being one crop. From the 90's on, we have been in one form of notill/DS mode or another, trying to take advantage of what could possibly be attained from the above study.
Where are we today?:
Deep penetrating moisture: We haven't addressed this because of the low return on deep rooted crops like mustard and canola. That appears to be changing and those crops are looking more attractive.
Runoff: We have this element mostly controled. Including canola or mustard in our crop rotation will add a safety factor.
Transpiration: I don't know where we are on that one. I think the new commercial cultivars are more efficient in the use of, fertilizer and moisture. We are not fertilizing nearly to the level that the (currently used, but old) research states we need for the yields we are getting.
Evaporation: That, we are aggressively working on. The success, or not, will show in the future. My gauge for this will be when our 15"-17" rainfall zone can be annual cropped with results mirroring our current 18"-19" rainfall zone. We are addressing it two ways:
a) We have bought a Shelbourne stripper header. The first harvest (2012) is a raving success in wheat, barley and mustard. The winter wheat stubble (Brundage 96) is 38-40" tall with good density. This is the first barley stubble we have ever left that shows some capability to reduce air velocity on the soil surface. Instead of being about 4-6"tall, it is 22-24" and some areas taller. Since the barley and mustard ground will be fallow next year, we hope this will help decrease the evaporation. We have good surface residue cover on the barley. The mustard ground has less cover.
b)--We are building or refitting our DS drill with Cross-slot openers and associated technology. This is the ultimate low disturbance opener. We hope to have it ready for spring 2013. This fall (2012), we are renting that technology to seed the fall crop, but the frame designe significantly reduces the integrity of the technology built into the opener. The frame is designed for AB line operation on a flat, rectangular field.
Shelbourne Header -- 1st harvest - 2012
[Click on the label "stripper head" at the bottom of post for more posts on the subject.]
SUMMARY: We harvested Brundage 96 winter wheat, Bob spring barley, and IdaGold spring mustard. We are pleased with the results on all three crop types. With the mustard, all of the tops are taken off and run through the combine leaving a ragged looking field with stems of varying lengths. Wheat stubble looks daunting with 38-40" remaining standing. Barley stubble stands 22-30".
MORE DETAIL:
Winter Wheat: Header was relatively easy to control even with an inexperienced operator. It will take some time to gain experience to gage hood height and rotor speed for optimum performance. Header loss was very low, but without straw in the machine, distribution across the sieve dramatically changed. Our losses are higher than I find acceptable. After about 50 hours, Kye has concluded that most of what is going through the concave is dropping onto the right side of the sieve, which is an overload. Before next year we will have to make changes in the distribution augers or the floors of the augers to move material further across the sieve. We'll need to have some adjustment capability because improvement will be through trial and error. AND-- we will have to convert back to use this machine with a standard header for some crops (canola as an example).
Spring Barley: Barley harvests much more efficiently than with a standard head. Less head loss, less green in the tank including unripe kernels. This is a great (and pleasant) surprise! Barley has never given me much self satisfaction regardless of yield, because of the associated head loss. Barley is inherently weak strawed which lends itself to lodging, and heads, if of good quality, tip over at the neck giving opportunity for catching on the reel. Between the reel tossing heads, and leaving the low heads on the ground, it is frustrating. This header is going to save 100+ pounds of barley per acre. We found that you cut patches that cut off from the main field immediately. The edge of the cut and un-cut is difficult to distinguish, even at a short distance. With barley, you break off the head stem at the crook, and the top portion of the stem is left frayed, giving a similar appearance to that of beards.
Minimizing moisture loss with barley stubble for the following chemical fallow period is challenging. Soil moisture loss is a given for the fallow period. Fallow only provides approximately 30% more moisture to the following crop than annual cropping provides (see another Post -- labeled, moisture. Barley is normally cut at, or near ground level offering little or no wind protection at the soil surface. Convection pulls moisture to the surface developing a layer with higher humidity. There is a point where that layer of higher humidity will slow convection. Air circulating at the soil surface removes this layer. The higher the wind velocity across the soil surface, the stronger the pull on available moisture. This header leaves a much better condition. The canopy (shading) is reduced when the head is removed; however, the height is not reduced. Heat will still have a drying effect; however, the higher stubble reduces the wind velocity across the soil surface reducing the degrading of the humid layer.
SUMMARY: We harvested Brundage 96 winter wheat, Bob spring barley, and IdaGold spring mustard. We are pleased with the results on all three crop types. With the mustard, all of the tops are taken off and run through the combine leaving a ragged looking field with stems of varying lengths. Wheat stubble looks daunting with 38-40" remaining standing. Barley stubble stands 22-30".
MORE DETAIL:
Winter Wheat: Header was relatively easy to control even with an inexperienced operator. It will take some time to gain experience to gage hood height and rotor speed for optimum performance. Header loss was very low, but without straw in the machine, distribution across the sieve dramatically changed. Our losses are higher than I find acceptable. After about 50 hours, Kye has concluded that most of what is going through the concave is dropping onto the right side of the sieve, which is an overload. Before next year we will have to make changes in the distribution augers or the floors of the augers to move material further across the sieve. We'll need to have some adjustment capability because improvement will be through trial and error. AND-- we will have to convert back to use this machine with a standard header for some crops (canola as an example).
Spring Barley: Barley harvests much more efficiently than with a standard head. Less head loss, less green in the tank including unripe kernels. This is a great (and pleasant) surprise! Barley has never given me much self satisfaction regardless of yield, because of the associated head loss. Barley is inherently weak strawed which lends itself to lodging, and heads, if of good quality, tip over at the neck giving opportunity for catching on the reel. Between the reel tossing heads, and leaving the low heads on the ground, it is frustrating. This header is going to save 100+ pounds of barley per acre. We found that you cut patches that cut off from the main field immediately. The edge of the cut and un-cut is difficult to distinguish, even at a short distance. With barley, you break off the head stem at the crook, and the top portion of the stem is left frayed, giving a similar appearance to that of beards.
Minimizing moisture loss with barley stubble for the following chemical fallow period is challenging. Soil moisture loss is a given for the fallow period. Fallow only provides approximately 30% more moisture to the following crop than annual cropping provides (see another Post -- labeled, moisture. Barley is normally cut at, or near ground level offering little or no wind protection at the soil surface. Convection pulls moisture to the surface developing a layer with higher humidity. There is a point where that layer of higher humidity will slow convection. Air circulating at the soil surface removes this layer. The higher the wind velocity across the soil surface, the stronger the pull on available moisture. This header leaves a much better condition. The canopy (shading) is reduced when the head is removed; however, the height is not reduced. Heat will still have a drying effect; however, the higher stubble reduces the wind velocity across the soil surface reducing the degrading of the humid layer.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Shelbourne Stripper Header
[Click on the label "stripper head" at the bottom of post for more posts on the subject.]
Summary: We are very happy with the decision to purchase the header. This old high capacity machine has a new life with more capacity, and the principal problem of poor residue distribution is eliminated. Header loss was low in all three of our crop types (winter wheat, spring barley and spring mustard).  2012 harvest |
More Detail:
This pic shows a 2012 CVS32 mounted on our 1985 Gleaner N7. This was a calculated $70k gamble. Improving yields over the years along with the poor residue distribution associated with the N7, were adding to problems associated with our Direct Seeding. We love this machine with it's low profile, wide stance, large bulk tank, high capacity, ease and low cost of repair, great horsepower to weight ratio, and the ability to harvest and save the grain on our slopes that max out around 40%. I'll give more detail on the N7 and changes to accommodate this 7000#, 32 foot header in a later post. My emotions have run the gamut, from excitement when Kye ordered it, to apprehension as I read more "tractor house" forums and Utube videos, to being ecstatic after only a few days of cutting. It handles very easy, our capacity is up, our ground speed is slower at this point in time, and I'm sure we will hit 10kbu/d before the old girl hits her 28th birthday -- although it will be a longer day and our two man operation will become three. One truck driver can't haul that much grain away from this machine in our operation. |
 |
This pic shows stripping Brundage 96 winter wheat in a small ravine at sun down. Very quiet air. Notice the thin layer of dust at the header. Since the header is basically a sealed unit using either metal or a crop wall, there is much less dust generated in that area compared to a standard wheat header. The dirt plume out the back is dense and lingering.
|
This pic shows the interaction between header and grain. As you drive through the standing grain it is pushed forward, bent down along curved nose where the rotor engages the wheat and combs through the straw, drawing it up behind the nose into the curved portion on the back side of the adjustable hood, where the kernels are pulled off the center stem portion of the wheat stalk and propelled back into a deep auger trough, where it is transported to the feeder house. This rotor rotates between 400 and 800rpm. Approximately 85% of the threshing is done by this rotor, leaving only 15% to be threshed by the combine rotor. The un-threshed tend to be the tips of the wheat head. We have harvested some lodged wheat and it did fine as advertised; although more material is put into the combine.
This pic shows the transition between harvested and unharvested wheat. The preferred rotor speed is where the center stem portion of the wheat head is not flailed off, but left mostly intact. This leaves the appearance that the stubble at times seems taller than the wheat crop itself. Our stubble in 2012 is 38-40" tall.
This pic shows the machine entering the cut on a ≈30% slope. The camera does not give it justice. We added a header tilt package to the machine which is helpful harvesting steep slopes, and dips that you angle through. Another change that proved out, was to replace our 18" outer duel wheel. We now have two 24.5x32 wheels/tires. We only added 2" extra width but the stability with more rubber on the ground is noticeable. It climbs and stays on the hill better. Where we don't level the machine, a lot of weight is transferred to the lower side.
This pic shows stripping spring barley. It's the 1st time we have ever cut barley with more than about 6" left standing. About 30 inch stubble is showing here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)