[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.
Friday, September 21, 2012
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.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
T-storm Erosion
SUMMARY: Although most chem fallow fields had some visible erosion, some did not, including one field that experience 2.6 inches in one burst. All of the conventional fallowed fields showed extensive damage which included combination of sheet, rill, and gulley erosion. Erosion was inverse to the amount of residue and how fine the field was worked. A few fields were just gutted.
More Detail:
This spring/summer we have had a number of thunderstorms that resulted in spotty downpours which has caused significant erosion in conventionally tilled fallow, and some fields in spring crop that were prepared with tillage. Monday evening a wide band of damage was done all along the northern boundary of Whitman County from an intense thunderstorm moving from east to west. We received word that our Thornton operation received 2.6 inches of rain and all fallow ground, whether chemical fallow or conventional tilled fallow in the area was gutted. This morning we did a drive by to assess the damage in the area and found that all the chem fallow held up well, and our fields didn't look as if they had any water move across them. The chem fallow fields that had poor areas from past erosion did have visible erosion. Those areas though, mostly filtered out and stopped when it encountered areas with residue. That's not the story with cultivated fallow fields. All of them received heavy damage, first through sheet erosion, followed by extensive rilling, and that followed by ditching. I'm sure that many of those fields, if not all, had been fertilized, so a lot of fertilizer went down the creek along with the soil and water. The county road crews are going to be busy, and a lot of taxpayer money will go to clean and repair the roads associated with those fields. The cost has got to be staggering when you factor in: current fertilizer loss, lost future productivity from the soil that once resided in those fields, and the cost of clean up. One operation I observed got hammered Sat. evening with damage along a quarter mile of public road. Although they had recently cultivated that field and there wasn't any weeds, by Monday, they felt compelled to re-cultivate, and they got nailed again Monday evening. Some people follow bad decisions with more bad decisions, and the ground pays the price. The irritating thing about this is that if you approach them, they will explain it away as "nothing you can do with that much water coming that fast" -- and that is just bullshit! With modern farming techniques, all the soil, and most of the water can be held in place and not lost from the field, but it requires a willingness to change farming practices. For twenty six years (1980-2006) these water events, either summer or winter, were extremely rare. For the last six years, (2006-2012), these events are becoming more frequent, more intense and more wide spread. It may not happen every year but I'm guessing that the trend will continue. My farming career was mostly during drought conditions. My Son may have to survive in an environment with more extremes. I haven't taken any pics yet, and don't know if I will. It's getting boring -- same farmers, same fields year after year. The NRCS has 75 years of pics of eroded fields. One looks just like another. I wonder if there is another business in the US that still exists using the same practices they started with over a hundred years ago---- besides farming????
Tomorrow I will do a walk around. I may update this post if I find it different than expressed here.
------- 7/19/12 update: this morning I did walk the fields and took a few pics. I was happy to see that our fallow field didn't look as if it had any especially hard rain; although the neighboring fields showed quite a pounding. We surely lost some water; however, the residue didn't show dirt deposited on it. Even the "new" chem fallow fields in the area did well. Some severely eroded areas where there was no residue had some spiderwebbing. You could see the streaks of dirt where it entered areas with residue and soon stopped. Looking at the cultivated fallow fields, many areas appeared to have lost 5-10% of their surface to a depth of 3-6". That translates to many tons (50+) per acre. Many years of productive life left those fields. An example is the pic above. Recent deep cultivation, done vertically, compounded the destruction. This pic shows one of the flaws with this old conservation practice of divided slope farming. The crop filtered out a lot of dirt heading for the drainage ditch; however the cultivated top was hammered. In the 70-80's this would have been a successful practice but it isn't today. Although it shows potential water quality improvement, the sustainability of the productive capacity of the field is diminished. Technology and practices have improved and we don't have to settle for "some success" as demonstrated above.
Above is our operations chem fallow field near the eroded field above. Even though we drill vertically with a hoe type opener, I didn't find signs of water or dirt movement. This is not a good practice to rely on for the future. We could get a bigger event that may do damage. We are replacing our hoe opener with a single disc (minimum disturbance) type opener this fall. That should give us a higher level of protection from these weather events.
More Detail:
This spring/summer we have had a number of thunderstorms that resulted in spotty downpours which has caused significant erosion in conventionally tilled fallow, and some fields in spring crop that were prepared with tillage. Monday evening a wide band of damage was done all along the northern boundary of Whitman County from an intense thunderstorm moving from east to west. We received word that our Thornton operation received 2.6 inches of rain and all fallow ground, whether chemical fallow or conventional tilled fallow in the area was gutted. This morning we did a drive by to assess the damage in the area and found that all the chem fallow held up well, and our fields didn't look as if they had any water move across them. The chem fallow fields that had poor areas from past erosion did have visible erosion. Those areas though, mostly filtered out and stopped when it encountered areas with residue. That's not the story with cultivated fallow fields. All of them received heavy damage, first through sheet erosion, followed by extensive rilling, and that followed by ditching. I'm sure that many of those fields, if not all, had been fertilized, so a lot of fertilizer went down the creek along with the soil and water. The county road crews are going to be busy, and a lot of taxpayer money will go to clean and repair the roads associated with those fields. The cost has got to be staggering when you factor in: current fertilizer loss, lost future productivity from the soil that once resided in those fields, and the cost of clean up. One operation I observed got hammered Sat. evening with damage along a quarter mile of public road. Although they had recently cultivated that field and there wasn't any weeds, by Monday, they felt compelled to re-cultivate, and they got nailed again Monday evening. Some people follow bad decisions with more bad decisions, and the ground pays the price. The irritating thing about this is that if you approach them, they will explain it away as "nothing you can do with that much water coming that fast" -- and that is just bullshit! With modern farming techniques, all the soil, and most of the water can be held in place and not lost from the field, but it requires a willingness to change farming practices. For twenty six years (1980-2006) these water events, either summer or winter, were extremely rare. For the last six years, (2006-2012), these events are becoming more frequent, more intense and more wide spread. It may not happen every year but I'm guessing that the trend will continue. My farming career was mostly during drought conditions. My Son may have to survive in an environment with more extremes. I haven't taken any pics yet, and don't know if I will. It's getting boring -- same farmers, same fields year after year. The NRCS has 75 years of pics of eroded fields. One looks just like another. I wonder if there is another business in the US that still exists using the same practices they started with over a hundred years ago---- besides farming????
Tomorrow I will do a walk around. I may update this post if I find it different than expressed here.
Monday, July 9, 2012
NoTill Guidlines from Dakota Lake R.C.
The Dakota Lakes research station is a great source of information that can be used to formulate your Direct Seed system. This 30 page primer should be a "must read" for anyone considering Direct Seeding.
The caution here is: -- keep in mind that this station is in a 14-16" rainfall zone, but most of it comes during the growing season. When their spring "breaks", they have few cold (freeze or frost) nights that retard plant growth, where we are plagued with them. They have very cold winters but they get a lot of heat units during the growing season. With Direct Seeding, they have been able to bring high yielding winter wheat varieties normally grown south of I80, to north of I90. C4 crops like corn can be successfully grown. Prior to Direct Seeding the region was based around spring wheat. The principals that are stated in the guide are sound, but they have to be applied with knowledge of our climate. Don't try and shove a square peg in a round hole -- look for alternatives that follow the specific principal you are trying to achieve. The by-word for Direct Seeding has got to be: rotation--rotation--rotation. Successful DS starts with the combine and it's spreading of chaff and straw. Mats are difficult to manage. Beginning DS requires more applied N until the soil microbes adjust to the new system. This can be years. When tillage is stopped, destruction of organic mater is drastically slowed or stopped, which decreases N that is produced from these operations. Weed species are associated to a specific rotation of crops. Changes in rotation will change some weed species. Rotations with a mixture of high residue and low residue crops will diminish seeding issues. Chopping high residue crops creates a mat on the soil that helps hold moisture close to the soil. The down side to that is; cold, wet soils and tough surface mat to seed into.
(my comment: -- for us, the lack of markets and related value of the product for alternative crops have been a major stumbling block for us. Hopefully the future will be better for crops like dry peas, canola, mustard which we would like in our rotation. Another issue that has become clear is that everything is site-specific. Within a field, soils vary and micro-climates exist.)
One profound statement you will find in this guide is: pp.13--"Grossly understated is the detrimental effect of soil erosion on soil fertility. Preventing............................."
The caution here is: -- keep in mind that this station is in a 14-16" rainfall zone, but most of it comes during the growing season. When their spring "breaks", they have few cold (freeze or frost) nights that retard plant growth, where we are plagued with them. They have very cold winters but they get a lot of heat units during the growing season. With Direct Seeding, they have been able to bring high yielding winter wheat varieties normally grown south of I80, to north of I90. C4 crops like corn can be successfully grown. Prior to Direct Seeding the region was based around spring wheat. The principals that are stated in the guide are sound, but they have to be applied with knowledge of our climate. Don't try and shove a square peg in a round hole -- look for alternatives that follow the specific principal you are trying to achieve. The by-word for Direct Seeding has got to be: rotation--rotation--rotation. Successful DS starts with the combine and it's spreading of chaff and straw. Mats are difficult to manage. Beginning DS requires more applied N until the soil microbes adjust to the new system. This can be years. When tillage is stopped, destruction of organic mater is drastically slowed or stopped, which decreases N that is produced from these operations. Weed species are associated to a specific rotation of crops. Changes in rotation will change some weed species. Rotations with a mixture of high residue and low residue crops will diminish seeding issues. Chopping high residue crops creates a mat on the soil that helps hold moisture close to the soil. The down side to that is; cold, wet soils and tough surface mat to seed into.
(my comment: -- for us, the lack of markets and related value of the product for alternative crops have been a major stumbling block for us. Hopefully the future will be better for crops like dry peas, canola, mustard which we would like in our rotation. Another issue that has become clear is that everything is site-specific. Within a field, soils vary and micro-climates exist.)
One profound statement you will find in this guide is: pp.13--"Grossly understated is the detrimental effect of soil erosion on soil fertility. Preventing............................."
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Cold Soil and Direct Seeding
I've happened on to a project (1994-2009) called the Alberta Reduced Tillage Inititive (ARTI). This project had many partnerships, including private, public, and education. They studied many aspects of Direct Seeding (DS) including effects of cold soils. The following URL access' their site.
http://www.reducedtillage.ca/about.aspx
This is a big site. One study indicates that tall standing stubble (stripper header) warmed faster than the short stubble mat left by regular platform header, and allowed better seed/soil contact with disc type opener.
I will update this post as I have time to read other studies.
http://www.reducedtillage.ca/about.aspx
This is a big site. One study indicates that tall standing stubble (stripper header) warmed faster than the short stubble mat left by regular platform header, and allowed better seed/soil contact with disc type opener.
I will update this post as I have time to read other studies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)