[Update - 11/2/14] Reflection -- The comments during and after the meeting expressed an understanding that techniques to keep the soil cool and the wind off the surface were important in saving moisture. The presenters from low rainfall areas agree that surface protection (cover) is important, but are struggling to raise enough biomass to make that happen.
We have limited experience (3yr) with an ultra-low disturbance cropping system, but there is evidence that we can maintain residue derived from our winter wheat crop, when it is followed by a low residue mustard crop that is then followed by a fallow period. Prior to moving to a ULD system, we had too much residue to establish a decent spring crop following winter wheat, and too little residue going into a fallow period. This spring, using the cross-slot drill, we were able to punch through 12,000#/ac residue into cool damp soil, establish an excellent stand, and suppress weed emergence. Residue manipulation (mowing, harrowing, mashing, scuffing.) and using a hoe or disc drill that kicks dirt on the residue accelerates decomposition and promotes weed germination. Most of our weeds emerge in the wheel tracks mostly places where there is scuffing and thin residue.
We feel that the stripper header should be used as part of a ULD system. It's an expensive tool to use with seeding systems that require additional residue management techniques prior to drilling.
The Colfax, WA. Direct Seed Breakfast featured four speakers that reported on their experience using a stripper header. WSU at Ralston, Wa. have 4 years experience, the Eriksen's at St. John have 3years, the Juris' at Bickleton have 2 years, and DeWald's at Lind have one year of experience.
All speakers had moisture saving as a primary reason for their use of the stripper header.
Eriksen reported on a 1970-80's study by OSU and WSU, presented by Dr. Pappendick in 1989 where : 1-- moisture received is used in four ways: 1% goes below the root zone by hydraulic pressure, 4% runs off the soil surface, 12% is transpired through the plant, and 83% is lost from evaporation off of the soil surface. 2-- the closing comment by Dr. Pappendick at the time was that we could have some effect on moisture loss from evaporation by keeping the soil cool, and maintain a low air velocity across the surface. Eriksen inferred that the stripper header is a big step toward meeting the the goal of lowering the air velocity. Eriksen's have coupled the stripper header with an ultra low disturbance (ULD) drill to further reduce moisture loss from evaporation.
Although the Pappendick and Ramig study was never published, the WSU speaker made reference to studies that supported Pappendick's concluding statements about keeping soils cool and the surface calm. WSU's study with the stripper header involves temperatures, wind velocity and moisture differences.
Both Eriksen and WSU stated that they were seeing a reduction of weed competition with the stripper header. Eriksen stated that he thought they would be able, in time, reduce the number of chemical applications.
Eriksen stated that he thought the stripper header would cut all crops that are raised in the area except canola and mustard and corn. If canola and mustard crops have a short variety, they can also be cut. The hood of the stripper header is the limitation. It will not open wide enough to capture more than 24-30 inches of seed pods without significant crop loss.
Juris commented that the header handled rocks quite will. They experienced a number of strikes this year do to short crops left in the wake of the drought. The header kicked them out with minimal damage to the rotor. An adjustable plier works well to straighten out bent fingers resulting from striking the ground or foreign objects.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Saturday, October 4, 2014
2014 Harvest with Shelbourn Stripper Header
The blog stats show that the stripper head is a topic that interests a number of people so I will add more harvest video and some commentary --- hopefully not redundant.
[SUMMARY]--We love the header! We have used it for three harvests, cutting winter wheat, spring wheat, spring barley, and mustard. I'm convinced that if the crop has seed heads confined to 24" or less on the stalk, it will do a good job. With the drivers ability to adjust the height of the hood, the tilt of the header, and vary the rotor speed with the touch of a button, header loss can be kept very low whether you are harvesting 100+ bushel winter wheat or 600 pound mustard. We haven't cut any peas, lentils, garbs, millet, or soybeans, but I don't think they would be a challenge. Auto height and tilt control would probably be nice for low growing crops to further reduce crop loss and help with driver fatigue. Of the crops I have raised over the years, sunflowers, corn, and canola are the only ones that I think would not work with the stripper head. My understanding is that if we "push" the canola, then the stripper head would harvest it. That is another $35K machine, and has to be used in a special way for a successful harvest. If we farmed flat land it would be a good option. My current thinking is that this money would be better spent on a good platform head configured for canola and tall mustard.
Should you buy a Shelbourn Stripper Header ???????????? First question is ----> what do you want to accomplish with it. Depending on how you intend on managing your fields it can be a godsend, or an absolute nightmare. Long, standing stubble cannot be easily shredded and spread over the ground. The decision on how you will seed a crop back into that ground needs to be thought out before you purchase a Shelbourn. From a practical standpoint, you will probably need to trade in your hoe or double disc drills for a new style, heavy single disc drill. There are several companies with models to choose from, including the cross-slot from Baker .....company.
In our case we had five goals we wished to achieve: 1--reduce moisture loss from evaporation. 2--improve survivability of our winter crops. 3--reduce weed competition, and 4--avoid buying a new model combine. 5--reduce the cost of growing a crop (improve our bottom line). With only three seasons experience, all statements I make here may change in the future. Being in a three year rotation, this is the first year that all our fields have had at least one crop harvested with the stripper head and seeded with the Cross-Slot drill.
--It's too early to tell if we are seeing real moisture savings. There is some indication that we are going in the right direction.
--Are we seeing improved crop surviability? Maybe, it is questionable. Our first opportunity was with the fall wheat seeded in Sept. 2013. I think there was an influence by the residue mat that helped, although, we had serious winter damage from the December 2013 weather event. There was no standing stubble, and the residue mat was not impressive. Our August 2014 seeded winter canola will be the second opportunity to test crop survivability. We seeded into very heavy residue with a lot of standing stubble. Wheel tracks associated with harvesting, spraying and seeding all degrade the standing stubble, but we probably still have 30-40% standing.
--Are we reducing weed competition? We think this is a definite yes! Broadleaf weed populations are falling dramatically. Grassy weeds appear to be more persistent but there are signs that the population of these are falling. We need to lengthen our rotation and include other crop types so we can employ different chemistry to effectively address this problem. In general we find that fewer trips over the field means less surface disturbance and this seems to translate into fewer weeds germinating. I now envision the possibility that an expensive chemical application may be skipped on occasion. This will take a "mind adjustment" to allow a few weeds to grow in the crop, and it may not be field wide (possibly more spot spraying replacing field wide spraying). This summer we only bordered the canola field with glyphosate -- come spring we'll see if that was a mistake. In years past, not applying glyphosate prior to seeding was always a mistake regardless of whether you could see weeds or not at the time of spraying.
-- Can we avoid buying a newer model combine? This is a YES! Our 1985 Gleaner N7 has been a great machine for us over the years. The one negative of this machine, is straw management. The chaff spread is good, but straw management/spread is poor/horrible. With our interest in building/maintaining surface residue, the amount of long straw on the surface from wheel smash and straw spread at harvest (straw choppers of this vintage machine, of any make, are ineffective for our purpose), the seeding operation became problematic. We have shredded/chopped stubble for many years, starting with a 15' SunMaster flail, and progressing to a 26' 5026 Schulte rotory mower. The amount of residue we were building overwhelmed this management tool. The new micro-chop technology available on some brands of combines looked like an option. That technology costs several 100k. The Shelbourn Stripper head was another option. We decided, after much discussion, the 32' Shelbourn offered us the best bang for the buck. 1--the header cost $70k including the machine conversion. 2-- it resolved our residue issues. We had already decided that the cross-slot drill would be the method of seeding whether it be owned, rented, or custom operated. 3--with the Gleaner history for supporting their older model machines we figure we can extend the useful life of the N7 another 10-20 years. The N7 had plenty of capacity. As it turns out we have gained ≈200 bu/hr in capacity with the Shelbourn. Except for harvesting canola (specifically winter canola), this header is moving us to our goals of removing fallow from our crop rotation, less runoff from weather events, and better winter crop protection, better weed control, and a better bottom line. The Shelbourn offers me the opportunity to scratch an itch I've had since listening to the report on research done in the late 70's about retaining moisture (post of 7/3/12).
This video is of harvesting on flat, low ground, our late seeded Diva spring wheat in the 18-20" rainfall zone. The flat, low ground yielded in the range of 80 to 100 bu/ac. Once you left the low ground, yields plummeted. We had three fields. 1--yield average was 50bu/ac, 2--46bu/ac, 3--43bu/ac. The puff of black is where the fingers encountered a straw pile with some dirt mixed in. See the 5/17/14 post to view drilling conditions in the area this video shows being harvested.
The volume of material going through the combine from using the stripper head is a fraction of that from a platform head. Combine adjustments need to be made to preserve grain quality and threshing efficiency. Head tips can be difficult to thresh with so little straw in the machine. Aggressive thresh can skin the grain.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
POST HARVEST REVIEW OF 2014
SUMMARY: This year started out as a great opportunity to see if heavy surface residue and standing stubble would hold moisture for crop development that normally would evaporate into the atmosphere. Recognizing that spring crops would be insurance claims from the get-go, being late in their seeding was not a big concern. As it turns out I can't make any real judgement about what heavy tall residue may have contributed to the crop. (In short, a wasted year) The abundant June rain skewed everything. As we came out of winter I expected nothing for a spring crop, and got something. Others, in some cases, did better. If June had been like January through April I think the timely seeded spring crops would have been toast and we would still be where we are. Having seeded close to the middle of May, we still had abundant stored moisture by mid June. The June rain allowed our barley to stay in the vegetative stage longer, developing more tillers. The main stem of our barley was hurt but did fairly well. The first tiller contributed a little to yield. The remaining tillers, for the most part, just used nutrients and moisture and slowed harvest with no contribution to yield. The spring wheat is less determinable. There were fewer tillers. The main stem showed some damage as well as the first tiller. The second through fourth tillers, in places, contributed to yield. It's interesting to speculate what this SWSW crop would have yielded had it been seeded timely.
Our winter wheat was very near WSU's trial average for the rainfall area. 48 sites. From what I hear our SWWW was a little better than most of the fields around me.
Our spring wheat was right at WSU's trial average for the rainfall area, even though it was planted a month later. 42 sites. We appeared to be a little lower than neighboring fields near me.
Our spring barley (no WSU data available now) was, I'm sure, low by any standard. There was no barley raised near our field for comparison.
CONCLUSIONS
--- Delete this year from mental calculations for future crop planning. I read this from several sources, and agree.
--- High rainfall areas and associated soils are much more forgiving than the low rainfall areas to less optimal conditions including seeding date.
--- Don't expect moisture, whether stored, or saved through the growing season, to recover potential yield loss from late seeding. Plants can't draw moisture fast enough, regardless of availability, in high heat environment. (an affirmation of past research and experience.)
--- It appears that even in drought years, spring small grain crops will do better with high seed rates. This deters tillering. Each tiller takes about a week to develop, so every tiller potentially delays maturity a week.
--- I think that if we would have had stubble left standing following last falls seeding of winter wheat, that would have given enough protection for the crop to have endured the December blast with less damage.
BACKGROUND:
--- The September 1, 2013 to August 31st, 2014 moisture was a total of just over 8" (that included the December/January snowfall that mostly went down the creek (check label titled moisture for details), and the nearly 2" received in mid May and the month of June. That is a long ways off our 15-17" historical average.
---The fall of 2013 was dry, causing spotty emergence of the fall wheat in the area-- including ours. We expected 100% and didn't get it.
--- Mid December we experienced high winds from the northeast with temperatures dipping to single digits for several days, and no snow cover.
--- There was very little moisture received over the winter and spring of 2014.
--- In mid February we experienced a quick warmup on frozen ground with a thin (1-3") snow cover. Within 2 hours, the snow cover was mostly gone, and nearly all the water left the fields causing creek rise and minor flooding in areas.
--- Mid May provided ≈ 0.5" rain, and June provided us with 1.54" of moisture. Most of it in three days mid month.
--- Third week of June started very warm and quickly got hot that lasted well into August without any real break. Wind accompanied the heat for many of those days.
DETAIL:
--- Winter Wheat: (15-17"rainfall area) Averaged 77 bu/ac. (Brundage 96) Most of the field was a long north facing slope. These slopes had fair residue, but very little was standing. This condition limited protection for the December event and the growing crop showed significant burn. Spring recovery and development was slow. We had an anomaly in one corner of the field. It apparently received some protection, from the cold blast of wind, behind a north facing high ridge. This rectangular area (≈70ac) had a flat area broken up with three low hills. This area averaged over 100 bu/ac and ranged as high as 140 bu/ac.
--- Spring Barley: (15-17" rainfall area) Average 3/4 tn/ac. Two fields. Both with southern exposures. Seeded at 100#/ac Lenetah a month later than optimal.
CRP field had excellent stored moisture. The field was clipped in 2013, so little standing residue, and some dirt showing.
The barley on barley field had good moisture. The previous yield was 1.5 tn/ac. It had a lot of residue on the ground and the stubble (high density) was standing. It yielded a 100#/ac more than the CRP.
We also had a separate small flat 12 ac CF field that was seeded to barley. This area had a fantastic stand, seeded at 122#/ac. It's yield was 1.25 tn/ac.
---Spring Wheat: (18-20"rainfall area) These were seeded a month later than optimal at 100#/ac of Diva.
Field-1 was embarrassing to watch the whole growing season but ended up yielding the best (50b/a). Mustard was raised last year. Poor residue cover, and little standing. Field had balanced aspects of high/low, north south east west slopes. Eroded areas got hard, so stand started out spotty.
Field-2 was primarily a long south slope with a big flat. Average yield of 46 bu/ac. Tremendous surface residue on much of the flat with dense standing barley stubble. There was some fallow ground where we did ditch work last year. The high ground also had good surface residue and dense standing standing stubble. Areas of the flat went over 100 bu/ac, but dropped quickly with elevation. The emergence looked good all over.
Field-2 was fairly well balanced with high/low, north south east west aspects. Always considered this field the poorest of the three. It yielded 43 bu/ac. Good residue on the surface except on eroded ridges. Good standing barley residue except on the eroded ridges. The emergence looked good.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
CROSS-SLOT DRILL KIT?
[Updated 9/19/14]
I have received two questions about our drill. I'll address them on this post.
---- Did our drill come as a kit?
---- Did Cross-slot help us with the design?
No!--- the drill did not come as a kit. You have the option of purchasing a complete drill unit from Baker No-Tillage Limited, or, buy a retrofit package with as many openers as you desire and put them on a locally made frame. There are many options offered in a retrofit order. Study the proposal sheet and understand the terms while working up an order. AgPro of Lewiston, ID. currently builds frames for cross-slot openers. They have their own suggested frame design, or will build to your specification.
For info about our drill see post of 5/3/14.
Yes!--- Baker No-Tillage Limited did help us with the design. The basic design(look) is one they use -- we viewed pictures and copied the look. They are very good about sharing component information. The material type, size and dimensions associated with our drill is our design decision. We sized the drill to fit our tractor. That was only marginally successful. I set a goal for a tare weight of 18K. It went out of the shop at 24K. This summer we added 1k on each wing making it 26k, --- and, maybe growing.
Gavin Porter is the company representative for the US and is very accessible and helpful. His cell number is 509-595-5782
I have received two questions about our drill. I'll address them on this post.
---- Did our drill come as a kit?
---- Did Cross-slot help us with the design?
No!--- the drill did not come as a kit. You have the option of purchasing a complete drill unit from Baker No-Tillage Limited, or, buy a retrofit package with as many openers as you desire and put them on a locally made frame. There are many options offered in a retrofit order. Study the proposal sheet and understand the terms while working up an order. AgPro of Lewiston, ID. currently builds frames for cross-slot openers. They have their own suggested frame design, or will build to your specification.
For info about our drill see post of 5/3/14.
Yes!--- Baker No-Tillage Limited did help us with the design. The basic design(look) is one they use -- we viewed pictures and copied the look. They are very good about sharing component information. The material type, size and dimensions associated with our drill is our design decision. We sized the drill to fit our tractor. That was only marginally successful. I set a goal for a tare weight of 18K. It went out of the shop at 24K. This summer we added 1k on each wing making it 26k, --- and, maybe growing.
Gavin Porter is the company representative for the US and is very accessible and helpful. His cell number is 509-595-5782
Thursday, August 21, 2014
SEEDING WINTER CANOLA- AUGUST 19, 2014
[Update 10/31/14] -- see updated to post titled "CHEMICAL FALLOW", 7/22/14
This is our first serious attempt at seeding canola (winter or spring). We have started out with Amanda. With the new ultra slow seed transmission, we have easily accomplished 3 pounds per acre. -----The crop is being seeded on 20" row spacing, using the front gang of openers. The back gang is being locked in the high position with no product being put through them.
-----We have switched the deep band fertilizer tubes with the starter and are adding ≈ 25gpa of water in the area where the seed should be. We are putting down some P in the deep band. We probably should have added B as well.
-----I have yet to find one seed. I wish the seed was dyed yellow. The yellow mustard was not hard to find. We are relying entirely on the opener position and what the electronics are telling us. The seed roll is moving too slow, and the volume to low, to be seen easily with the mounted camera.
-----We are putting the seed at 2.5" depth. The moisture is thinning out on the ridge lines. We're hoping that the added water will help emergence. The lower slopes have better moisture closer to the surface.
-----The residue is tall and heavy. The openers are maintaining depth much better than I was expecting, even though the ADF system is not working properly. Baker Ind. has to work on better reliability of that system. It's getting irritating. The residue is no problem to penetrate. The hydraulic valves for the back gang have to be upgraded. The openers slowly leak down and grab residue and quickly make an unsightly pile. Kye has had very few working openers plug and drag.
-----With only one half of the openers in the ground, much of the stubble is left standing. This should be helpful for winter survival of the winter canola crop.
-----We have divided our seed hopper into two 29bu bins.
-----We are seeding ≈ 30ac of canola (RR), on 20" spacing using the front row of openers. The back row of openers will be seeding a spring pea on 20" rows at ≈ 75 pounds per acre. The intent is to use the legume to produce N for the canola. This, as it turns out, is more complex than I imagined. It's not just growing peas to their maximum nodulation and killing them for later release of the N produced. I'll do more research and make some decisions before the peas reach bloom this fall. Right now we hope to get emergence along with the canola.
-----There will be upgrades to this post.
-----I will write another post on "GROWING NITROGEN" in the near future.
This is our first serious attempt at seeding canola (winter or spring). We have started out with Amanda. With the new ultra slow seed transmission, we have easily accomplished 3 pounds per acre. -----The crop is being seeded on 20" row spacing, using the front gang of openers. The back gang is being locked in the high position with no product being put through them.
-----We have switched the deep band fertilizer tubes with the starter and are adding ≈ 25gpa of water in the area where the seed should be. We are putting down some P in the deep band. We probably should have added B as well.
-----I have yet to find one seed. I wish the seed was dyed yellow. The yellow mustard was not hard to find. We are relying entirely on the opener position and what the electronics are telling us. The seed roll is moving too slow, and the volume to low, to be seen easily with the mounted camera.
-----We are putting the seed at 2.5" depth. The moisture is thinning out on the ridge lines. We're hoping that the added water will help emergence. The lower slopes have better moisture closer to the surface.
-----The residue is tall and heavy. The openers are maintaining depth much better than I was expecting, even though the ADF system is not working properly. Baker Ind. has to work on better reliability of that system. It's getting irritating. The residue is no problem to penetrate. The hydraulic valves for the back gang have to be upgraded. The openers slowly leak down and grab residue and quickly make an unsightly pile. Kye has had very few working openers plug and drag.
-----With only one half of the openers in the ground, much of the stubble is left standing. This should be helpful for winter survival of the winter canola crop.
-----We have divided our seed hopper into two 29bu bins.
-----We are seeding ≈ 30ac of canola (RR), on 20" spacing using the front row of openers. The back row of openers will be seeding a spring pea on 20" rows at ≈ 75 pounds per acre. The intent is to use the legume to produce N for the canola. This, as it turns out, is more complex than I imagined. It's not just growing peas to their maximum nodulation and killing them for later release of the N produced. I'll do more research and make some decisions before the peas reach bloom this fall. Right now we hope to get emergence along with the canola.
-----There will be upgrades to this post.
-----I will write another post on "GROWING NITROGEN" in the near future.
Pic above shows seeding winter canola on winter wheat stubble that was harvested with a stripper header.
Friday, July 25, 2014
HOBO Temperature Sensors
[Update 4/8/16] --Removed sensors so Kye could drill the field yesterday and replaced them today at 1:30pm. I'm down to 5 sensors in two locations. The heavy mowed residue site has three (#6@ 3", #9@1", #4 in the air near surface). The bare earth site has #7@1", #8 in the air near surface. [#8 was in tall stubble but drilling dragged all material away.
[Update 2/24/16] --Launched two sensors for air temperature just above the soil surface, --#8 in the tall stubble, --#4 in mowed area. Should have thought of this earlier, but the thought never surfaced until a farmer suggested that tall stubble may have trapped cold temperature to the point of reducing the survival of his winter canola. I have my doubts but there is no reason not to check it out. Another sensor (#11) was carried off by some animal. I found it about 30' from its flagged location (that was luck). I have no idea of how long it was on the surface but I have put it back in the ground in the tall stubble, --which is mostly been flattened from winter weather of wind and a little snow. The roots are rotting, or being eaten off and allowing the plant to tip over when the forces of wind, water, snow engulf them. This sensor in the tall stubble has not been bothered in the past as those out in the open have. Now that it is exposed it is experiencing similar attention from critters. I'm going to have to stake and tie these sensors more securely in the future.
[Update 1/8/16] -- Relaunched sensors from being pulled out in November. The sensors were set for readings every 2hrs instead of 1hr. --#1 is located under #7(bare grnd) for temperature reading ≈3" deep. # 8 was not relaunched (couldn't locate plank). #6 is under #9 (under heavy mowed residue). #3 under #10 (standing residue w light surface residue). Replaced snow cover. Soft frost found at (bare grnd) site.
[Update 7/27/15] -- #11 HOBO has disappeared. It is being replaced today with #E7. It appears that the crows/ravens are drawn by the bright fluttering flags used to mark the location of the HOBO's. They haven't bothered the flag in the tall stubble, but all flags in the mowed areas are decimated, and I can only assume they packed off the small HOBO sensor.
[Update 6/14/15] -- placed four HOBO's (#8-9-10-11) (8am, 6/14/15), in Ee field. #8 is placed under white board on grnd that had been bared. #9 is placed in very heavy residue that was mowed. #10 is placed in standing residue with little surface cover. #11 is placed in bare grnd that had been scraped clean of residue. All the sensors are placed near each other, and vertical at the surface.
Intention is to pull them for readings on the 22nd prior to the drill demo, then again this fall when the field is seeded. We'll take moisture samples at that time as well.
[Update 6/4/15] -- pulled #1 through 7 to download. No data was recovered. A wasted 6m.
[Update 10/30/14] -- pulled and downloaded sensors ≈ Oct. 23 and replaced them on Oct 30th. Units #6&7 were switched when placed back in the soil.
This past year I have been playing with temperature sensors with the intent of quantifying the impact that the stripper header, and residue on the soil surface has on seed zone temperatures. Last year I played around with them to get an idea of what they were capable of. These units can be left in the field to collect data for a lengthy period of time. You can down-load the data on a computer and graph in many different ways. This summer I'm starting over with all the HOBO's positioned vertically with the top of the unit at the soil surface. Seven total. At the time of placement I took the soil temperature of each location as a start point. I will update this post when something of interest pops up or at season end.
[Update 2/24/16] --Launched two sensors for air temperature just above the soil surface, --#8 in the tall stubble, --#4 in mowed area. Should have thought of this earlier, but the thought never surfaced until a farmer suggested that tall stubble may have trapped cold temperature to the point of reducing the survival of his winter canola. I have my doubts but there is no reason not to check it out. Another sensor (#11) was carried off by some animal. I found it about 30' from its flagged location (that was luck). I have no idea of how long it was on the surface but I have put it back in the ground in the tall stubble, --which is mostly been flattened from winter weather of wind and a little snow. The roots are rotting, or being eaten off and allowing the plant to tip over when the forces of wind, water, snow engulf them. This sensor in the tall stubble has not been bothered in the past as those out in the open have. Now that it is exposed it is experiencing similar attention from critters. I'm going to have to stake and tie these sensors more securely in the future.
[Update 1/8/16] -- Relaunched sensors from being pulled out in November. The sensors were set for readings every 2hrs instead of 1hr. --#1 is located under #7(bare grnd) for temperature reading ≈3" deep. # 8 was not relaunched (couldn't locate plank). #6 is under #9 (under heavy mowed residue). #3 under #10 (standing residue w light surface residue). Replaced snow cover. Soft frost found at (bare grnd) site.
[Update 7/27/15] -- #11 HOBO has disappeared. It is being replaced today with #E7. It appears that the crows/ravens are drawn by the bright fluttering flags used to mark the location of the HOBO's. They haven't bothered the flag in the tall stubble, but all flags in the mowed areas are decimated, and I can only assume they packed off the small HOBO sensor.
[Update 6/14/15] -- placed four HOBO's (#8-9-10-11) (8am, 6/14/15), in Ee field. #8 is placed under white board on grnd that had been bared. #9 is placed in very heavy residue that was mowed. #10 is placed in standing residue with little surface cover. #11 is placed in bare grnd that had been scraped clean of residue. All the sensors are placed near each other, and vertical at the surface.
Intention is to pull them for readings on the 22nd prior to the drill demo, then again this fall when the field is seeded. We'll take moisture samples at that time as well.
[Update 6/4/15] -- pulled #1 through 7 to download. No data was recovered. A wasted 6m.
[Update 10/30/14] -- pulled and downloaded sensors ≈ Oct. 23 and replaced them on Oct 30th. Units #6&7 were switched when placed back in the soil.
This past year I have been playing with temperature sensors with the intent of quantifying the impact that the stripper header, and residue on the soil surface has on seed zone temperatures. Last year I played around with them to get an idea of what they were capable of. These units can be left in the field to collect data for a lengthy period of time. You can down-load the data on a computer and graph in many different ways. This summer I'm starting over with all the HOBO's positioned vertically with the top of the unit at the soil surface. Seven total. At the time of placement I took the soil temperature of each location as a start point. I will update this post when something of interest pops up or at season end.
------[field Es]-- Two units are in a chemical fallow field with heavy residue that is totally flat to the ground. One of these units is placed in an area of heavy residue(#7) where no dirt can be seen. At 2" my soil thermometer indicated 82 degrees. The other one was place where dirt could be seen at the surface(#6). The temperature at that spot was 90 degrees. This field location has a slight slope to the north.
------[field Ee]--Three units were placed in a chemical fallow field that was stripper headed. There is heavy residue with stubble standing approximately 36" tall. One unit was placed in a combine wheel track where there was some dirt showing and the residue was pressed flat to the ground (#3). The combine had duels mounted close together, so the track is wide. The temperature at that site was 96 degrees. A second unit was located in an area with tall standing stubble and no residue covering the ground surface (#1). The temperature at that site was 80 degrees. The third unit was placed in a location that had tall standing stubble and also had the ground surface covered with residue (#4). The temperature at that site was 72 degrees. This field location is flat
----- [field En]--Two units were placed in a growing spring barley field. The barley is only around 22" tall and fairly thin. One unit place in heavy residue (#2). The temperature at that site was 82 degrees. The other unit was placed whee there was no ground surface cover (#5). The temperature at that site was 84 degrees. This field location has a slight slope to the south.
SUMMARY:
--- In field Es I was surprised that there was so little difference in the temperature between the two sites. Did the flattened residue have an impact???
---In field Ee I was surprised that the wheel track showed such a high temperature compared to the other two sites. The wheel track was more compacted. Did that influence the temperature??? The tall stubble seems to be impacting the temperature compared to the field with the flattened residue.
---In field En I was surprised that the temperature was so similar between the two sites. Does a growing crop influence the surface temperature more than the surface residue???
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
CHEMICAL FALLOW
[Update 6/14/16] -- All of the winter canola died during the winter. It didn't make any difference whether is was platter size or just emerging. We planted SW on most of the acres and Billy Beans on the remainder. Both crops received heavy damage from a June 12th, 28 degree night, --not a great year. The spring peas was the only crop damaged to the extent that multi peril crop insurance kicked in.
[Update 10/30/14] -- Finally all our WW has emerged. It appears that we will get most of the canola out of the ground. We had all the pieces in place for this kind of summer and fall, but we didn't execute very well. We got about 40% of the canola emerged timely in mid-late August, and about 50-60% of the winter wheat emerged timely mid September. We currently have 70-85% of the canola emerged, but other than the plants emerged timely in August, it's doubtful the remainder will survive the winter. It is still emerging. Post analysis: The hot weather, lack of good early soil profile moisture allowed seed depth moisture to thin earlier than expected. The "best" residue areas were OK, but "good" residue was not. We should have seeded the canola at the end of July instead of mid August, and we should have seeded the winter wheat a week earlier (end of August instead of first part of September). If the ADF system had been working consistently, we may have still got 80-90% of each crop emerged timely. Weed pressure is low in both crops.
We may have an opportunity to see what the yield loss may be between timely emerged wheat and that which emerged 30+ days late. Years ago when I was regularly seeding the second week of October, I estimated that I consistently lost 15-20 bushels per acre compared to some of the neighbors.
[Update 9/20/14]
--- Soil that has cover is noticeably cooler, and moisture stays in the seed zone longer in the fall. It appears to be proportionate from 0 to 100% cover as to where the moisture line is at any given point of time in the fall. Observation this fall supports an earlier post about a 1970's unpublished research project (Soil Moisture posted 8/19/12).
I have started observing and digging in various fallow fields to see the differences that may show. I have been in a limited number of fields to date, but what I am finding is what I have learned to expect. "If you see dirt you don't have enough residue". We have had, over the last two weeks, high temperatures (high 90's and a few over 100) accompanied with a lot of wind.
Conventional fallow is hot and dried as deep as it is worked. One field was worked shallow (≈2") and moisture was thinning below the worked area. Another field was worked to 4"and to a finer texture and when moisture was reached it was good. Powder dry and no (0%) residue, both of these fields will likely endure severe wind and water erosion before the crop is harvested in 2015.
The chemical fallow fields in the area are either mowed short or have thin short stubble following harvest. In both scenarios, they have insufficient residue to hold moisture in the seed zone. The fields I checked were dry to ≈1.5" and thinning moisture below. Without added moisture, it will be difficult to get a stand of winter canola, and by fall, it will be difficult to get a stand of winter wheat.
In contrast, our field that will be seeded to winter canola, is in great shape. We have a thick mat of residue on the soil surface, and standing stubble (36"). The soil is cool and the wind has not been whipping across the surface. The combination of surface residue and tall stubble leaves us, currently, with moisture within 0.5", and much of the area has moisture at the soil surface. There are holes in the field where the moisture is deeper, but 95% of the field is great at this point in time.
We have another fallow field. Part of the field was mustard in 2013, but the majority is CRP that we started the takeout process in July 2013. I am including some pics with narrative to explain what I viewed. It's notable that the soil surface of this field whether crop or CRP is full of worm castings.
We may have an opportunity to see what the yield loss may be between timely emerged wheat and that which emerged 30+ days late. Years ago when I was regularly seeding the second week of October, I estimated that I consistently lost 15-20 bushels per acre compared to some of the neighbors.
[Update 9/20/14]
--- Soil that has cover is noticeably cooler, and moisture stays in the seed zone longer in the fall. It appears to be proportionate from 0 to 100% cover as to where the moisture line is at any given point of time in the fall. Observation this fall supports an earlier post about a 1970's unpublished research project (Soil Moisture posted 8/19/12).
I have started observing and digging in various fallow fields to see the differences that may show. I have been in a limited number of fields to date, but what I am finding is what I have learned to expect. "If you see dirt you don't have enough residue". We have had, over the last two weeks, high temperatures (high 90's and a few over 100) accompanied with a lot of wind.
Conventional fallow is hot and dried as deep as it is worked. One field was worked shallow (≈2") and moisture was thinning below the worked area. Another field was worked to 4"and to a finer texture and when moisture was reached it was good. Powder dry and no (0%) residue, both of these fields will likely endure severe wind and water erosion before the crop is harvested in 2015.
The chemical fallow fields in the area are either mowed short or have thin short stubble following harvest. In both scenarios, they have insufficient residue to hold moisture in the seed zone. The fields I checked were dry to ≈1.5" and thinning moisture below. Without added moisture, it will be difficult to get a stand of winter canola, and by fall, it will be difficult to get a stand of winter wheat.
In contrast, our field that will be seeded to winter canola, is in great shape. We have a thick mat of residue on the soil surface, and standing stubble (36"). The soil is cool and the wind has not been whipping across the surface. The combination of surface residue and tall stubble leaves us, currently, with moisture within 0.5", and much of the area has moisture at the soil surface. There are holes in the field where the moisture is deeper, but 95% of the field is great at this point in time.
We have another fallow field. Part of the field was mustard in 2013, but the majority is CRP that we started the takeout process in July 2013. I am including some pics with narrative to explain what I viewed. It's notable that the soil surface of this field whether crop or CRP is full of worm castings.
The pic above shows a lot of residue but there are significant holes in long narrow strips where dirt shows through. A guestimate would be 90% coverage, maybe 95%. The 2013 crop was mustard that yielded below average. It was seeded into very dense 2012 standing winter wheat stubble with a cross-slot drill. The area in this pic was over 120bu/a. Without ground disturbance the winter wheat (Brundage 96) stubble has stayed pretty good. There is no mustard residue to be seen by the casual eye. The mustard stalks were mowed following harvest. The operation was mainly cosmetic. With all our residue from 2012 the mowing appears to not have hurt the moisture bank.
This pic shows one of the narrow strips mentioned above where dirt was visible. There is residue in these spots, but you see dirt. You can see the moisture line, and it is 1.5" below the soil surface. You can also see what is probably the transition zone where moisture is thinning. With no standing stubble, and inadequate residue, this spot took the full force of wind and sun. 1.5" below surface is where I found the moisture line in all the chem. fallow fields where I looked. In all likely hood, the moisture line will continue to drop. We are in the third week of July. It's a long time to our normal seeding date. Rain will be needed to start a crop this fall. The dry looking crumble soil is all worm castings.
This pic shows the condition of most of the field. It's included in the first pic above. Heavy mat of residue, but no standing stubble. The moisture line is at the surface, and it is good moisture --not thinned. This demonstrates that residue can hold moisture and armor against high temperatures and high winds in Uhlig class soil. The down side is, that this level of surface cover will be challenging to maintain.
This pic is typical of the CRP/fallow that comprises most of this field. Good residue; however, it's inadequate to hold moisture . The top 3-5" of soil is made up almost entirely of worm castings. They have been working without interruption for 26 years. The moisture line on this hilltop is at 1.0". That is better than standard chem fallow but not as good as heavy residue shown in pic above. If you look closely, you can see dirt among the standing residue. The standing residue is only about 12-16" tall, and much of the surface shows dirt.
This is a good piece of property and we are excited to start enhancement of the microbiological community that's underfoot. This field is our best opportunity to develop a sustainable cropping system. 25 years of CRP is the kick start. Now we have to gain the knowledge and wisdom to work out a crop rotation, and develop a plan to incorporate cover crops where practical, and possibly inter-seed an alternate crop with our cash crop, and hopefully in the not too distant future, remove fallow from the system in this 15-17" rainfall zone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)