EARTH WORMS and RESIDUE

   
     It is becoming more common to see articles and presentations referencing the presence of earth worms as an indicator of soil health.  Does that mean you have reached the goal of returning the ground back to it's original self sustaining condition that was present prior to man's intervention?  NO, --it is one of many indicators!  The compaction layers, low pH, low SOM, and high erosion can be present and still have a significant population of earth worms, both horizontal movers and vertical movers.  I'm not convinced that every acre of ground has a native population of earth worms, --they either were never there, or conditions became so bad over time that they disappeared.  I am convinced that earth worms will move into an area if conditions change that will allow them to survive.  I have always been able to find earth worms in the early spring in the low areas where moisture was plentiful, even prior to no-tilling, --just not very many.  I soon learned as a kid that it took a lot of spading in the crop ground to find enough worms for a day of fishing, where, if I went to an area that had a lot of residue and was pretty wet, it only took a few spade full of dirt to fill my needs.
       What will encourage earth worms to inhabit cropped fields?  They need food, and shelter just like any other living thing.  If their homes and food are not destroyed on a regular basis they will be there or move there.
       The recent No-Till Farmer magazine had an insert titled "12 UNRIVALED BENEFITS OF EARTHWORM ACTIVITY IN YOUR SOILS".  When I first read them, several seemed to be repetitive, but they were different, but had similarities.  These 12 points come from various university studies throughout the US.  I'm going to paraphrase a two page article to shorten this post.  1--Improve Water infiltration:  Pencil thin burrows allow rainwater to penetrate deep into and throughout the soil profile.  2--Improve Soil Aeration:  Burrows are conduits for air moving into the soil profile and CO2 movement out to stimulate plant growth.  3--Increased Hardpan Penetration:  Earthworm tunnels once bored through the hardpans stay and improve root access.  4--Reduced Soil Compaction:  Burrows both vertical and horizontal encourage root growth, which helps breakup compacted areas.  5--Mix Surface Residue Into Soil:  Some species pull residue into the soil.  63000 worms per acre will make about 18 tons of castings.  In ten years they are capable of complete renewal of 2" of topsoil.  6--Release Of Crop Growth Stimulants:  Earthworms break down crop growth inhibitors, phenols and formaldehyde from decaying residue and lace the material with growth stimulants, auxins and cytokinins.  7--Bring Minerals Up From Subsoil:  Earthworm castings contain 5-10 times the soluble plant nutrients of the original soil.  8--Neutralization of Soil PH:  Earthworm processed soil is always closer to neutral pH.  9--Rapid Growth Of Beneficial Microbes:  Earthworms carry around and deposit beneficial microbes as they go.  These thrive and help decompose residue.  10-- Improve Soil Tilth:  Earthworm castings contain sugars and enzymes which help build soil aggregates.  Fields bulk up being more sponge like.   Fields with high worm populations have 4 times infiltration rate of fields without earthworms.  11-Improved Nematode Control:  Earthworms eat harmful nematodes and leave  soil conditions that limit nematode numbers.  12-- Increase Micronutrient Chelation:  Earthworms link micronutrients, such as zinc and boron to other nutrients for easier uptake by plant roots.  13--Reduce Erosion:  I'll add this one to the list.  The surface residue required for the listed benefits above, along with the earthworm tunneling to the surface slows water loss, hence, reduces erosion.
      Earth worms are truly natures plows, only they do a much better job by leaving a less erosive soil, cycling minerals through the soil, and improving moisture infiltration.  The higher the population the better.  Earth worms are a great indicator of which direction your soil is headed, --to a healthier state or to DIRT.
      The Take Home Message Here Is:  DON'T TILL AND DON'T REMOVE RESIDUE!
   

ROUNDUP -- (Good or Bad ??)

UPDATE 2/24/18:  I recently received a critique on the book "Whitewash", a bash piece on GMO's and Glyphosate by Carey Gillam.  The timing and purpose of the book was to educate the public on the cancer causing effects of glyphosate and pressure the EU to not re-register glyphosate for use last fall.  The critique by Karl Haro von Mogal shreds the book and shows how, through the misuse of data,  and using partial truths, the anti-glyphosate crowd is misleading the public for the benefit of the "Organic" movement.  It's a bit difficult to read.  Because of the mirth employed, I had to read it twice to get the straight of the message.  The critique can be read at: < "Whitewash" is hogwash>

    Glyphosate was introduced to the public in 1974 following it's discovery by Monsanto chemist John E Franz in 1970.  Since it's discovery, Glyphosate has been under constant scrutiny with research trying to prove what glyphosate does or does not do.  What we do know is that it has been a very effective herbicide.  We also know that there are some resistant cultivars, and more will become resistant to the effects of glyphosate.  There is no revelation here, all our chemistry has developed resistant cultivars, --it's merely a matter of time.
     Our operation has used a lot of glyphosate and we have been comfortable with knowing that research proved over and over that it is safe for humans and animals.  At times we seem to bathe in the stuff.  We try not to ingest the chemical, but that has probably happened as well.  The first real concern over safety I'm aware of came around 2010, when Purdue professor emeritus, Dr. Don Huber dropped a bomb, stating that Glyphosate and GMO's are harming human, animal and earth's health.  The research that he based his conclusions on has never been duplicated.  With his continual repeating the claim, and the inability to duplicate the results at Purdue and other universities, Purdue disavowed him.  He is the darling of the anti-GMO crowd and continues to lecture world wide on the evils of glyphosate and GMO's.  The next big hit on glyphosate was when the World Health Organization (WHO) through the International Agency for Research on Cancers (IARC) published a statement that glyphosate "probably" is a Group 2a carcinogen.  The label "probably" can be used on a lot of chemistry and preservatives used for growing and processing our food.  Forty three years of research should be able to determine yes or no, --not a "probable".   However, if you want it to be a carcinogen but can't prove it then the next best thing is to damn it with the adverb "probably".   In fact,  Reuters has an investigative arm.  They state that the IARC research conclusions were changed from no evidence of being a carcinogen in the draft version, to a neutral or positive conclusion of being a carcinogen in the final published version.   The < Glyphosate Battle > is an interesting read.   Reuters has been stonewalled by both WHO and the researchers of the IARC on the reasoning for changing their position, --it wasn't apparently the science.   Since WHO's pronouncement, anti-Monsanto/Roundup/GMO activists, using all available media upped the public concern to the point where several countries are considering removing glyphosate from the register of approved herbicides, along with the State of California.
      In the November 2017 edition of No-Till Farmer there is an article on glyphosate titled,  Is Glyphosate Harming Your No-Till Soils?  The article states that the glyphosate molecule is hanging around longer than anticipated.  Glyphosate is negatively effecting some soil microbe communities.  Glyphosate is encouraging some plant diseases.  Glyphosate is interfering with nutrient uptake.  And, glyphosate is effecting mycorrhiza.  Some serious stated findings.
       I have been working with WSU researcher, Tim Paulitz, for several years on glyphosate interaction with soil biota, --principally bacteria and fungi.  Over the years I have gained a lot of respect and confidence in his work and knowledge of glyphosate.  He heads up a lot of glyphosate research and reads journal entries about glyphosate research worldwide.  His own research projects have found no statistical difference in either the bacteria or fungi communities, between ground that has never had glyphosate applied, and ground that has had a lot of glyphosate applied.  He is doing this study over a wide area of the Palouse and is working in three rainfall zones, ---high, medium, low.  I asked him why this study was in conflict with his findings.  His response:
       Tracy, ---- I looked over the No-Till article.  There is nothing new in this article, except the work from Cornell. The rest of the article refers to old work by Robert Kremer. As I mentioned before, he did not have the molecular tools to really address the questions about microbial communities.  He was only working with the small fraction of fungi and bacteria that can be cultured-  less than 1% of what is out there.  Kind of like trying to paint a picture of the world by only looking through a small narrow slit. Rather than trying to rebut his work, I think it is more useful to look at the new work we have done.

        But I will comment on the article from Cornell by Aristilde.  By the way, this article was reviewed by Kremer.  First of all, the No-Till article was misleading in talking about this work, when it said that “beneficial Pseudomonas… decreased when glyphosate seeped into the surface soil layer by leaching or release from glyphosate treated plants”.  In the Cornell paper, they did not work in the soil, or with plants.  All their work was done in the lab in culture. There may have been other work that they did in soil, but I could not find it published.  They took 4 biocontrol strains of the bacterium Pseudomonas and tested them in culture to see how sensitive they were to glyphosate.  Three were relatively insensitive, but one was completely inhibited at 5 mM.  It was also slightly inhibited at 0.5 mM. This is well known- some bacteria have a form of the enzyme that is sensitive to glyphosate, others are insensitive.  Nothing new here. In fact, the original gene that was used in Roundup Ready crops came from a bacterium, Agrobacterium.  But when I converted the molar concentrations into ppm, it came out to 84 ppm and 845 ppm.  Bacteria in the soil environment will never be exposed to these concentrations, unless there is a chemical spill on the soil. So I would say that this study is not really relevant to the real world.  Many things we do in the lab are useful to develop theories and basic understanding, but the key question is, --does this really happen in the real world? If you hit just about any microbe with a high enough concentration of a chemical in culture, growth will be inhibited.  Also remember that bacteria and fungi may behave in culture very differently from in the soil.   In the study they used high tech state of the art metabolomics to show that the shikimic acid pathway and aromatic amino acids were inhibited.  This has been known for 40 years.  These are the target of glyphosate, --an enzyme in the shikimate pathway that plants, bacteria and fungi use to make aromatic amino acids, which are essential.  They also showed you could supply these amino acids to the bacteria and overcome the growth inhibition. Again, this is nothing new.

         Let me address a few other points in the article. The work on Roundup ready soybean and Fusarium was not done with isogenic lines, so the difference could have been inherent differences in the genetic background of the two lines, There is a picture  of petri dishes with bacteria in the article, and says he can tell by looking at them that there are mostly non-beneficials in the glyphosate treatment.  You cannot tell by looking at cultures.  He talks about gene issues, and having transgenic DNA in the soil, --DNA is quickly broken down in the soil, and there is no evidence of these genes being transferred to other bacteria.  He talks about nutrient complications, --again, a non-issue for us since we do not have GMO wheat, --and others from Purdue have rebutted this argument.  The amount of glyphosate in the environment is so small, it does not play a role in chelating nutrients in the soil, which are in much larger concentrations.  He also cites a study on his farm of taking out fescue and then planting soybean, and noted higher levels of fungus on the roots of soybean in the glyphosate take out.  This is classic green bridge effect, and we have known about this risk for 30 years.  

        So, in summary, I think the main risks of glyphosate that our farmers in the PNW have to worry about is the green bridge effect of carrying over root pathogens to a new crop (and we have known this for 30 years) and the risk of developing glyphosate resistant weeds by overuse, --as has happened in the Midwest.  In the end, farmers have to weigh risks with benefits.

        Timothy Paulitz,USDA-ARS,Wheat Health,Genetics and Quality Research Unit,Washington State University, Pullman, WA, Phone- 509 335-7077, 
email: timothy.paulitz@ars.usda.gov

      The Green bridge referenced by Tim P. was discovered and studied by Dr. Jim Cook of WSU.  Root diseases can be carried over from one cultivar to another when planted into a  dying cultivar.  The recommendation is to not plant within 20 days of a Roundup application. Time is part of the recipe for sanitizing a field along with cultivar rotation and cultivar diversity.

HOW DO I SEE THE FUTURE!

         Regardless of  glyphosate or any other chemistry's fate, --they are all under attack, we have to get smarter about raising crops with fewer chemical inputs.  That means we have to learn how to manage cover crops for the purpose of suppressing weed competition and supplying nutrients to our cash crops.  This is a challenge, and the "How-To Book" is just starting to be written for the Inland Pacific Northwest.

WHEAT U --- 2017

      There was a good attendance and age diversity at the Wheat U in Spokane, Dec. 5th.   All the presentations will be available on < Wheat U > in the near future.  An earlier Conference in Kansas can also be viewed on that website.   I'll limit my comments to two parts of the agenda that most interested me, --the luncheon speaker,  Dr. Pete Berry (Crop Physiologist for ADAS,UK Ltd.), and Cat Solois' (McGregor's Director of Research & Technology) presentations.
        Berry:   Dr. Berry's presentation described the Yield Enhancement Network (YEN) which is part of the ADAS (stands for ??).  The YEN links producers that share information on how to enhance yields.  They have a competition that is broke down to several categories that include soil capability.  Fields are ≥5ac, with the average size ≈10ac.  Many of the participants have relative small acreages, or small fields for their farm operation.  Out-of-the-box ideas are encouraged.  Berry shared a lengthy list of ideas, some sounding ridiculous.
        I didn't have much interest in this presentation until it dawned on me that this concept may be useful to gain experience and ideas on cover crops, --how to use plant cultivars to replace commercial inputs.  The idea here would be to solicit participation of farmers around the region to devote a small acreage to a project where all plant nutrients and weed control would be done through the use of plant cultivars, whether they be cash crop or cover crop cultivars.  The only rule for a participant would be that no applications of commercial inputs would be allowed on that acreage.  A business plan with more detail of the project needs to be worked up along with rewards/awards that participants may expect.  This is an idea in early development stage.
        Solois:  Cat started by showing the locations around the region of McGregor plants.  She stated that they have 2 years of data taken in fields they service to baseline soil fertility levels.  These are taken in three locations within each field indicating high-medium-low management areas.  In the midwest, when you pull up a fertility map of a region it is very detailed about what the usage is and what element is short.  In the west it is a grey page with no data.  Her general topic was plant nutrition.  She talked about factors that effect the efficiency of plants taking in various nutritional elements like, N-P-K.  She also showed that the Inland Pacific Northwest (IPNW) soils were very complex and pH varied dramatically in short distances.  Inadequate levels of K are showing up in low and medium management areas.  These are basically the eroded areas.  Taking core samples need to be done with care about location.  An example she shared, was where one core from a low management area included in a 10 core sample from a high management area moved the K from a high level to a marginal level.
      All in all, a day well spent.  These events are great for exchanging information with like minded people, along with the event presentations.

"DIRT" and more

David R. Montgomery has recently put out the third book of a trilogy about soil.    

     [ --DIRT, --HIDDEN HALF OF NATURE, --GROWING A REVOLUTION ].      

Event Photo: 

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

List of posts

I notice that I took the page off-line to update and never did since 2/17.  It's back online and updated.

Comparisons using Rain Simulator

     There are a lot of rainfall simulators on the net; however, this one is one of the best.  It's a clear demonstration of differences with five types of management, and well narrated.  The comparisons are, --conventional tillage, no-tillage, mixed species cover crop, compacted overgrazed rangeland, and well managed rangeland.  Watch for the water splash on the conventional tilled ground.
     This video was taken in the North Central part of South Dakota about 10 miles east of the Missouri River in a 16" rainfall zone, in a slightly rolling landscape.
                                      Rainfall simulator in SD (17:46min)
     All the simulators I have observed applies rain in a short amount of time on terrain that is relatively level.  Simulators have application rates of 1.5"-2" of rainfall in 10-20 minutes.  Many areas in the world would find these rates as moderate, but for our hills it would be devastating.   Fields with surfaces disturbed would be washed away.  When I started this quest to improve our resource conservation ethic in the early/mid 1970's that's what I envisioned.  At the time, we were receiving a lot of snow on frozen ground and received downpours from summer thunder storms fairly regular.  Severe erosion annually was the rule, not the exception, and no-till was a new term to be learned.  Fortunately for our fields, by the mid 80's we were designated  as in a drought condition, and erosion rates have fallen dramatically to this day.  Now, severe erosion is more the exception than the rule, even on cultivated ground.  However, this fall, our area has received two events that have left some fields in an eroded state.  The pattern is set for serious erosion on unprotected land in 2018, as it was in 2017.  Is this going to be a new trend, ?????, time will tell.  The fields that we steward are prepared, --bring it on!

Conservation from different "No-Tills"

     Over time "No Till" has taken on different meanings for different people.  I'm hearing the term no-till linked with as many as three operations on a field.  Mostly the tools are identified as, drill, shank fertilizer applicator, harrow and/or packer.  Whether one or three pass, the ground is left in better condition than a conventional cultivation system, --HOWEVER, there is a significant difference in the potential soil health between 2-3pass "no-till", high disturbance no-till and ultra low disturbance no-till.   Conditions where water is allowed to move across the ground surface is erosive, regardless of residue volume or ground firmness, --it's only a matter of the degree of erosion.  Water flowing across the ground will contain particulates of dirt, pesticides, and fertilizer.  These in turn overload low areas of the field or go off site into the public domain.

      What can we do to minimize this loss?   -- Farm in a manner that least disturbs the ground surface.  Surface disturbance destroys the channels made by roots, worms, and other organisms that allow rapid movement of water into the soil profile.  Also, every operation creates some "fines" that are redeposited and seal spaces between soil particles.  Harrows are notorious for "fining up" the ground.

 --Every operation reduces the surface cover, and degrades the ability to intercept and dissipate the explosive energy of a rain drop.  Above is a  magnified pic of a raindrop impacting the ground surface with no intercepting residue.  This condition is very destructive to soil aggregates and seals the soil surface quickly.  There are a number of good online videos that show this happening.

     [Some old history] --  This story is to make the point that leaving channels undisturbed, uncovered, exposing them to the surface is very important for moisture intake.   In the 1970's, WSU experimented on ways to enhance rain moving into the soil profile.  One experiment consisted of using a baler frame, modified to stuff wheat residue into a slot.  Their experiments looked so promising that I kept an old baler to make the machine.  The machine was clever and simple.   The pickup and conveyer mechanism was left intact.   A deep ripper shank was located where the gearbox for the plunger would be, and a large wheel mechanism was mounted in the area of the bale chamber to pick off the residue coming from the opening that fed the bale chamber.   The wheel would push the residue into the slot left by the ripper shank filling the slot and leaving material at/above the ground surface.  The concept was proved do-able and was very successful.  With the slot open to the surface, rainfall was intercepted and fed into the soil profile.  The slots needed to be spaced so they would intercept the flowing water before noticeable erosion developed.  Depending on the steepness of the slope these slots could get fairly close, 5' to 20' intervals.  --THE RESIDUE IN THE SLOT concept ultimately failed because once the slots were covered from tillage operations they didn't work.    Without the slot being exposed to the surface, rainwater flowed right across the slot continuing down the slope as if it never existed.  The slots, in effect, had to be installed annually, and this proved too burdensome to be a viable conservation management practice.  

     The issue has not changed with time.  Any surface disturbance closes the natural channels made by decayed roots, worms and other organisms.  This in turn slows the movement of rainwater into the soil profile and promotes more surface water movement.  In my estimation, this is the reason we see better infiltration at 5 years than we do after one year of no-till.  Plants, worms and other burrowing organisms keep adding new channels over the years, where it takes only one pass of a farm tool to wipe them out.

     There are a lot of options available today for single pass no-till (direct seed) drills.  Everything from the maxi-disturbance (Anderson opener style), to the ultra low disturbance (CrossSlot opener style).

     I don't consider any two pass operation as no-till regardless of the drill type used.  Those operations will never move the needle from soil destruction to soil building in the environment of the Palouse.