This past year, 2015, I had the opportunity to contribute my thoughts to two subjects that I have some passion for. The first, in the August edition, 2015, (volume 44, No. 8) I responded to the question of how do you handle crop residue. These thoughts and a pic show up on page 90 in the section titled "No-Tillers Tackle Residue Issue From Every Angle", along with the thoughts of twenty other people.
The second opportunity came as a feature item in the November edition, 2015, (volume 44, No.11), titled "Overcoming No-Till Stumbling Blocks", starting on page 22. This article was written from a telephone interview with Martha Mintz along with some material I submitted to her. Martha is listed as a Contributing Editor and regularly writes articles under the logo " What I've Learned From No-Tilling...". It came out pretty good if I do say so myself. < Eriksen interview >
While looking up what Martha Mintz contributed over the years to No-Till Farmer, I came across an article where she interviewed Guy Swanson for a piece titled "Bringing No-Till To The Palouse". Mort Swanson, Guy's father, is the name that everyone in the Palouse remembers as THE inventor-early practitioner of No-Till. This article was posted in the November edition, 201, < Bringing no-till to the Palouse >. It's a great read for someone interested in the background of no-till in the Palouse. Mort is no longer with us but Guy is hail & hearty and manufacturing/selling EXACTRIX systems for applying liquid anhydrous ammonia fertilizer.
No-Till Farmer has been around since 1972. I was a subscriber for a while in it's early days, but found that it was a midwest and east magazine that I couldn't relate too. Today, No-Till Farmer is still primarily an east of the Rocky Mountains publication but I am finding that even though we are in two different climatic zones, Continental vs our Mediterranean classification, the same problems exist. Practices and Research done east of the "divide" has concepts that apply here,--our task is to adapt that knowledge base to our climate limitations and strengths. With our Stripper Head, self propelled sprayer, and CrossSlot drill, we have all the practices available for controlling soil erosion; however, we still have water loss. Soil health has improved, and it will continue to improve to some extent; however, that improvement will be limited until we get more plant diversity, and remove fallow. Cover Crops and Interseeding crops potentially hold the answer to these questions. The trick is, how to apply.
The Koppen Climate classification model designating the Pacific Northwest as mostly Mediterranean does not fit very well. We don't fit the Continental or the Coastal either. Our climate diversity is likely to be a topic of discussion for a long time as to what classification we really fit.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Soil Temperatures with Direct Seed
General consensus by farmers in our area is that tillage warms up the ground early in the spring. In the late 90's early spring soil temperatures were taken across the Palouse, and the result was reported to be only 1-2 degrees.
The October 2015 edition of NO-TILL FARMER (p.2) had a short article on temperature comparisons. A summary of this particular article stated that shortly after planting the soil temperatures moved quickly to the same level whether tilled or untilled. Twelve hours after seeding there was a 5 degree difference. Twenty four hours after seeding there was no difference.
There was no mention whether the no-till was low or high disturbance.
This is potentially good news and we will try and verify using our ultra low disturbance system this coming spring. We have conventional tillage all around us for a good comparison. We do know that surface cover and standing stubble moderates soil temperatures, --both winter cold and summer heat.
The October 2015 edition of NO-TILL FARMER (p.2) had a short article on temperature comparisons. A summary of this particular article stated that shortly after planting the soil temperatures moved quickly to the same level whether tilled or untilled. Twelve hours after seeding there was a 5 degree difference. Twenty four hours after seeding there was no difference.
There was no mention whether the no-till was low or high disturbance.
This is potentially good news and we will try and verify using our ultra low disturbance system this coming spring. We have conventional tillage all around us for a good comparison. We do know that surface cover and standing stubble moderates soil temperatures, --both winter cold and summer heat.
Friday, October 16, 2015
GLYPHOSATE - A Recent Study
Last year we were contacted to participate in a glyphosate study. Interest in us came from the knowledge that we have land that has had many gallons per acre (≈20+)applied over the last 30 years, and also land that has never had glyphosate applied. The researchers were looking for changes in the soil that could be attributed to Glyphosate. There are six locations with different operators in the project that extends across the greater Palouse area. This year they are expanding the research project to look more in-depth at each of the microbiological communities.
To date, the short simple answer is that they have found no evidence that glyphosate is impacting our soils beyond normal variations found in soil types, crop cultivars, and location.
In our discussion it was brought out that the glyphosate molecule is of a fairly simple structure that has P, S, and C as part of it's makeup. With these elements, arranged as they are, this molecule should be a good food source for the soil microbiological community. Part of the study is to identify which communities use glyphosate as a food source. One characteristic of glyphosate is that it has an affinity for mineral soil, and is held very tightly. This does have an impact on what microbes use this product as food.
Several times I have done an internet search on glyphosate. It's amazing how many hits are out there, and the vast number are negative on glyphosate and Monsanto. Even though I know that most of these "THE TRUTH ABOUT GLYPHOSATE", and the like, articles, are garbage, --occasionally there will be a statement that gives me pause. In these situations, I go back to trusted, peer reviewed articles for the answer, --and sometimes, there is no answer. What I have noticed, is that Monsanto's detractors work on emotion, with few facts to support their claims. They will make unsupported statements like, --40 researchers from around the world support the truth that glyphosate creates "Super Weeds". Statements like this is not a a total lie. A grain of truth normally can be found in these proclamations, but they are always, "over the top", miss leading. Any one in the business of production agriculture knows that every class of chemical we use is becoming less effective in killing unwanted plant cultivars, --including glyphosate (Roundup). This gives rise to a reference of "Super Weed". We have run out of known "modes" of action on which to attack a plant cultivar, so now we are using mixes of chemicals that combine different modes of action. Rarely is a single chemistry recommended to assure a clean crop.
One disturbing question (for me) that I am now working on finding the answer too is: does multiple applications of Roundup (on Rt tolerant crops, GMO's) build up in the food supply (seed, forage)? The followup question is: if so, is that a problem for human or animal health? I think the answer to the first is NO, if used according to the label! --which, sort of says that it could if the label is not followed, (which I am sure occurs). I'm unsure on the second question. Early research said no, but I'm not sure what more recent "peer reviewed" research says. There is plenty of junk science that will say that Roundup causes grotesque cancerous warts, and is the root of every imaginable disease known to mankind.
Groups like Earth First and EWG(Environmental Working Group) have as much credibility with me as televangelist's do. They both live through their greed, and peoples fears they skillfully nurture, and/or create!
To date, the short simple answer is that they have found no evidence that glyphosate is impacting our soils beyond normal variations found in soil types, crop cultivars, and location.
In our discussion it was brought out that the glyphosate molecule is of a fairly simple structure that has P, S, and C as part of it's makeup. With these elements, arranged as they are, this molecule should be a good food source for the soil microbiological community. Part of the study is to identify which communities use glyphosate as a food source. One characteristic of glyphosate is that it has an affinity for mineral soil, and is held very tightly. This does have an impact on what microbes use this product as food.
Several times I have done an internet search on glyphosate. It's amazing how many hits are out there, and the vast number are negative on glyphosate and Monsanto. Even though I know that most of these "THE TRUTH ABOUT GLYPHOSATE", and the like, articles, are garbage, --occasionally there will be a statement that gives me pause. In these situations, I go back to trusted, peer reviewed articles for the answer, --and sometimes, there is no answer. What I have noticed, is that Monsanto's detractors work on emotion, with few facts to support their claims. They will make unsupported statements like, --40 researchers from around the world support the truth that glyphosate creates "Super Weeds". Statements like this is not a a total lie. A grain of truth normally can be found in these proclamations, but they are always, "over the top", miss leading. Any one in the business of production agriculture knows that every class of chemical we use is becoming less effective in killing unwanted plant cultivars, --including glyphosate (Roundup). This gives rise to a reference of "Super Weed". We have run out of known "modes" of action on which to attack a plant cultivar, so now we are using mixes of chemicals that combine different modes of action. Rarely is a single chemistry recommended to assure a clean crop.
One disturbing question (for me) that I am now working on finding the answer too is: does multiple applications of Roundup (on Rt tolerant crops, GMO's) build up in the food supply (seed, forage)? The followup question is: if so, is that a problem for human or animal health? I think the answer to the first is NO, if used according to the label! --which, sort of says that it could if the label is not followed, (which I am sure occurs). I'm unsure on the second question. Early research said no, but I'm not sure what more recent "peer reviewed" research says. There is plenty of junk science that will say that Roundup causes grotesque cancerous warts, and is the root of every imaginable disease known to mankind.
Groups like Earth First and EWG(Environmental Working Group) have as much credibility with me as televangelist's do. They both live through their greed, and peoples fears they skillfully nurture, and/or create!
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Cover Crop PAGE
A while back I noticed that there was significant interest in the Cover Crop Page, and I had nothing except a statement for future development. I decided to remove the PAGE until I have something to say that is a positive direction, --which may be years.
---On further reflection, I've decided to re-post the Cover Crop PAGE, using a different approach. I will, as time allows, start posting my thoughts on potential ways to introduce interseeding, and cover crops, and solicit feedback and others ideas on how this can be accomplished. The whole subject is so foreign to us that, where to start is a big decision in it self.
---I know that most farmers in the area are of the opinion that, IT CANT BE DONE!
CAN'T, never did anything! That leaves the few with a vision, to figure out how to get it done.
---SO! we'll see how it goes. My audience is few, but I hope some have an idea or two, --or more!
---On further reflection, I've decided to re-post the Cover Crop PAGE, using a different approach. I will, as time allows, start posting my thoughts on potential ways to introduce interseeding, and cover crops, and solicit feedback and others ideas on how this can be accomplished. The whole subject is so foreign to us that, where to start is a big decision in it self.
---I know that most farmers in the area are of the opinion that, IT CANT BE DONE!
CAN'T, never did anything! That leaves the few with a vision, to figure out how to get it done.
---SO! we'll see how it goes. My audience is few, but I hope some have an idea or two, --or more!
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Cover Crop Summary -- 2015
Review the Aug. 5/15 post, titled "Cover Crop"for details of the seeded cover crop.
What did we learn. First, with only one year experience nothing can be said with any certainty.
---Our attempt to include a legume for N was, in my mind, a failure. Neither the peas, vetch, or clover grew to the extent that N would be increased for the following crop. The peas were small, podded quickly, developed seed before any of the other cover crop cultivars were ready to make their contribution, thus using all the N they produced. The vetch and clover are slow growing and didn't develop any significant biomass, and this would limit their production of N.
---The brassica's (mustard, radishes, cabbage did well. Two varieties, Annaconda and Nemaflex, bolted quickly and seeded out. They did develop good tubers. The third variety, Graza, stayed green all season without bolting and developed good tubers. The Graza grew close to the ground, where the other two grew more vertical. The mustard did OK, but didn't make any big statement for cover. The cabbage grew good leaf cover.
---The grains (winter triticale, millet) were a waste, and may be a problem. The millet cooked out quick, and only in the dips did it have enough moisture to make a head. The winter triticale may become a problem in the fall wheat that was seeded. We didn't see any cultivars growing, so, did it not germinate? We'll see next June.
---The cover crop took 3" of our profile moisture. What will that mean for 2016 winter wheat? Skeptics are sure they know! I'm not so sure. Will the boring of the brassica's allow for better water infiltration with frozen ground this winter? Those tubers, once they die, shrink rather quickly, leaving a big hole that will probably extend below the frost line. My hope is that we will lose no water from runoff as we did in Feb. of 2014. We have seeded the winter wheat, but it won't grow until we get more moisture this fall or winter. We are getting some of our chem fallow emerged next to the cover crop, but I think we will still be able to make a reasonable guess of the yield hit between the two areas next July. I can see these hole drillers need to be used timely, and with purpose, because of their ability to move water both directions in the soil profile.
---The experience showed that cover crop cultivars need to be tailored for the following cash crop, and timing of seeding tailored to give the desired results (this is as advertised). Two examples: One, -don't seed small grain cultivars in a cover mix in front of a cash grain crop. With small grains being our bread and butter, we don't need this cultivar for crop diversity, and it is not needed to scavenge N or P for water quality as they do in the midwest or east. Second, -vetches need to be seeded in late summer or early fall to establish themselves for early spring growth, to give desired results. How do we make this work?? This is the fourth time I have attempted growing N, and the results are not impressive. We'll try again next year. I am a long way from exhausting the potential methods.
---We are thinking of resurrecting our 1980 Crustbuster Soybean Drill with it's leading edge double disc openers to inter-seed covers with the cash crop, and possibly seed our cover crop areas. It's light, can be pulled fast, and will place seed shallow. It will however degrade our residue mat. My thought is too seed a light rate of (either/and/or) vetch, clover, Graza radish to grow with our spring small grain cash crops. The vetch, and clover are slow developing, making them non competitive with the cash crop. The Graza will potentially compete for sunlight so needs to be sparse. My hope would be that it grows fast enough to grow a long slender tuber before we hit it with our broadleaf chemical application in the cash crop. I think the clover will survive. I'm not sure about the vetch. If some of these cultivars do survive, it will leave a live root system in the ground to feed the biological herd and help soil quality after the cash crop matures. We aren't going to bet the farm on this, so it will only be a few acres in these trials.
What did we learn. First, with only one year experience nothing can be said with any certainty.
---Our attempt to include a legume for N was, in my mind, a failure. Neither the peas, vetch, or clover grew to the extent that N would be increased for the following crop. The peas were small, podded quickly, developed seed before any of the other cover crop cultivars were ready to make their contribution, thus using all the N they produced. The vetch and clover are slow growing and didn't develop any significant biomass, and this would limit their production of N.
---The brassica's (mustard, radishes, cabbage did well. Two varieties, Annaconda and Nemaflex, bolted quickly and seeded out. They did develop good tubers. The third variety, Graza, stayed green all season without bolting and developed good tubers. The Graza grew close to the ground, where the other two grew more vertical. The mustard did OK, but didn't make any big statement for cover. The cabbage grew good leaf cover.
---The grains (winter triticale, millet) were a waste, and may be a problem. The millet cooked out quick, and only in the dips did it have enough moisture to make a head. The winter triticale may become a problem in the fall wheat that was seeded. We didn't see any cultivars growing, so, did it not germinate? We'll see next June.
---The cover crop took 3" of our profile moisture. What will that mean for 2016 winter wheat? Skeptics are sure they know! I'm not so sure. Will the boring of the brassica's allow for better water infiltration with frozen ground this winter? Those tubers, once they die, shrink rather quickly, leaving a big hole that will probably extend below the frost line. My hope is that we will lose no water from runoff as we did in Feb. of 2014. We have seeded the winter wheat, but it won't grow until we get more moisture this fall or winter. We are getting some of our chem fallow emerged next to the cover crop, but I think we will still be able to make a reasonable guess of the yield hit between the two areas next July. I can see these hole drillers need to be used timely, and with purpose, because of their ability to move water both directions in the soil profile.
---The experience showed that cover crop cultivars need to be tailored for the following cash crop, and timing of seeding tailored to give the desired results (this is as advertised). Two examples: One, -don't seed small grain cultivars in a cover mix in front of a cash grain crop. With small grains being our bread and butter, we don't need this cultivar for crop diversity, and it is not needed to scavenge N or P for water quality as they do in the midwest or east. Second, -vetches need to be seeded in late summer or early fall to establish themselves for early spring growth, to give desired results. How do we make this work?? This is the fourth time I have attempted growing N, and the results are not impressive. We'll try again next year. I am a long way from exhausting the potential methods.
---We are thinking of resurrecting our 1980 Crustbuster Soybean Drill with it's leading edge double disc openers to inter-seed covers with the cash crop, and possibly seed our cover crop areas. It's light, can be pulled fast, and will place seed shallow. It will however degrade our residue mat. My thought is too seed a light rate of (either/and/or) vetch, clover, Graza radish to grow with our spring small grain cash crops. The vetch, and clover are slow developing, making them non competitive with the cash crop. The Graza will potentially compete for sunlight so needs to be sparse. My hope would be that it grows fast enough to grow a long slender tuber before we hit it with our broadleaf chemical application in the cash crop. I think the clover will survive. I'm not sure about the vetch. If some of these cultivars do survive, it will leave a live root system in the ground to feed the biological herd and help soil quality after the cash crop matures. We aren't going to bet the farm on this, so it will only be a few acres in these trials.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
DIRECT SEEDING WITH THE CROSS SLOT -- FALL 2015
The drill worked well. The ADF was flawless, and new blades kept the seed depth more uniform. The scrapers would probably hold seed in the slot even better if we could figure out how to keep them from plugging with heavy surface residue. It will be better yet when we get the tool bar leveling system mounted and debugged. Currently the rear toolbar openers tend to shallow up when going over a ridge.
However, for the second year we failed to get the field drilled timely to get 100% emergence.
2015 has been unusually hot with weeks instead of days in the high 90's and low 100's. There was no measurable rain from late May until September 5th when we received a half inch. The moisture met in our chem fallow ground. Because drill parts were unavailable we didn't get started drilling until the 18th, and the seed zone moisture left. I was very surprised. With all the residue cover we have on the field I never thought we would lose seed zone moisture that fast. The above average temperatures this fall had to be the reason.
Again, the lesson here with chem fallow is, --don't miss the seed zone moisture for fall seeded wheat. We likely will take a 15-20 bushel yield hit for missing that window.
See the post of 5/3/14: "New CrossSlot Drill", for a problem discovered and the resulting fix.
However, for the second year we failed to get the field drilled timely to get 100% emergence.
2015 has been unusually hot with weeks instead of days in the high 90's and low 100's. There was no measurable rain from late May until September 5th when we received a half inch. The moisture met in our chem fallow ground. Because drill parts were unavailable we didn't get started drilling until the 18th, and the seed zone moisture left. I was very surprised. With all the residue cover we have on the field I never thought we would lose seed zone moisture that fast. The above average temperatures this fall had to be the reason.
Again, the lesson here with chem fallow is, --don't miss the seed zone moisture for fall seeded wheat. We likely will take a 15-20 bushel yield hit for missing that window.
See the post of 5/3/14: "New CrossSlot Drill", for a problem discovered and the resulting fix.
Monday, September 21, 2015
2015 Harvest with Stripper Header -- Chickpeas
We left a lot of chickpea pods on the ground. Was this unique to the stripper header or was it the year? To get a comparison I visited two operations, one using a new MacDon 40' draper header with all the bells and whistles, and the other using an older 24' International auger header equipped with a pea bar. Both of those operations were complaining about the amount of chickpea pods that were left on the ground. To me, it appeared that those operations had similar losses, and they were less than our losses.
Things that were apparent:
-- After observing the two other operations that were in a higher rainfall, if we had not had the 28 degree night June 12th, I think we could have had a pretty decent crop. The frost devastated the low ground.
-- The 40' draper did an amazing job of getting close to the ground without picking up dirt. That big header was light on its feet, and the flex in the middle allowed it to follow the ground contours quite well. The ground was smooth and soft. The terrain was fairly consistent with few sharp slope transitions. The vines were tangled and some branching was on the ground.
-- The older 24' pea bar equipped auger header was on harder soil surface and still had difficulty with pushing dirt. It had no auto header control features. There were a lot of low pods on the vines. Many vines were not standing erect.
-- Our ground had more sharp slope transitions than the other two operations which makes for more challenge. Our ground also has a rougher surface. It has been 20+ years since we have leveled the surface with cultivation or even a harrow. Our stand population was a little less and the vines appeared to stand a little better than the other two operations, but there were many low hanging pods.
-- A 32 foot ridged stripper header is too long for this short statured crop in our hilly terrain.
-- Since pod drop was the main loss observed in all three operations, and all operations had some bare seed on the ground, I don't think the stripper head shelled and spit out seed any worse than the other two header types.
-- I don't think the stripper header processing is any harder on the chickpea seed than the other header types.
-- We were able to leave a lot of chickpea residue standing following harvest, and very little old residue was reprocessed. The other operations clipped the crop at ground level and processed all the residue, leaving a fast degradable, low carbon surface cover.
-- Our heavy residue may be a problem with other header types. A least, much more would be reprocessed. This in turn will degrade our surface cover.
-- I think a 20' Shelbourne stripper header will work just fine for this crop in our terrain, --and even better if you include the auto header control features.
Things that were apparent:
-- After observing the two other operations that were in a higher rainfall, if we had not had the 28 degree night June 12th, I think we could have had a pretty decent crop. The frost devastated the low ground.
-- The 40' draper did an amazing job of getting close to the ground without picking up dirt. That big header was light on its feet, and the flex in the middle allowed it to follow the ground contours quite well. The ground was smooth and soft. The terrain was fairly consistent with few sharp slope transitions. The vines were tangled and some branching was on the ground.
-- The older 24' pea bar equipped auger header was on harder soil surface and still had difficulty with pushing dirt. It had no auto header control features. There were a lot of low pods on the vines. Many vines were not standing erect.
-- Our ground had more sharp slope transitions than the other two operations which makes for more challenge. Our ground also has a rougher surface. It has been 20+ years since we have leveled the surface with cultivation or even a harrow. Our stand population was a little less and the vines appeared to stand a little better than the other two operations, but there were many low hanging pods.
-- A 32 foot ridged stripper header is too long for this short statured crop in our hilly terrain.
-- Since pod drop was the main loss observed in all three operations, and all operations had some bare seed on the ground, I don't think the stripper head shelled and spit out seed any worse than the other two header types.
-- I don't think the stripper header processing is any harder on the chickpea seed than the other header types.
-- We were able to leave a lot of chickpea residue standing following harvest, and very little old residue was reprocessed. The other operations clipped the crop at ground level and processed all the residue, leaving a fast degradable, low carbon surface cover.
-- Our heavy residue may be a problem with other header types. A least, much more would be reprocessed. This in turn will degrade our surface cover.
-- I think a 20' Shelbourne stripper header will work just fine for this crop in our terrain, --and even better if you include the auto header control features.
The weeds we encountered were nearly all Russian Thistle. They are a problem when large and green; however, if they are dried down, they were not any real issue. They do slow up your ground speed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)