Agronomist Notes

Things are pretty quite on the home front (the ag home front, that is), though I have heard a few fertilizer quotes lately. It looks like a stored price today is coming in at $450 a tonne for urea, $490 a tonne for phosphate, $550 a tonne for potash and $350 a tonne for sulphur. Mitch and I just booked ammonium sulphate fines at $250 a tonne to be spread on our canola ground. Also, the majority of seed and vigour tests for wheat and barley are coming back in the 90% plus range so we’re off to a good start for next year.  

I’ve started to wrap up my Nuffield Scholarship report, outlining my two years of world travels and research findings. I’m slated as one of the keynote speakers this year at Farmtech in Edmonton so I’ll be busy preparing for that as well. I speak on Wednesday, January 27th and again at one of the plenary session with Robert Ruwoldt discussing controlled traffic farming. It would be great to see you there.

This week we’ll discuss an interesting observation I noticed in New Zealand that focuses on plant architecture. Next, I’ll discuss declining boron levels and how to increase your chances of an economic response to boron. Last, I’ve included some interesting facts on canola flower formation under heat stress and how we can manipulate canola’s natural response to abort flowers under high temperatures. We’ll finish with fundamental and technical grain market news. Have a great week. 

Agronomy

Maximizing photosynthesis through plant architecture

After walking through 180 bushel barley crops and 210 bushel wheat crops in New Zealand last year, something donned on me about the way the plants looked. They were a lush green at the medium dough stage, matured from the leaf tip down naturally, had heads the size of cigars but what was most interesting was the architecture of each plant.

Take a look at the flag leaves on this 208 bu/ac wheat crop of Mike Solari’s, 2007 Guinness world record holder for wheat yield. Notice how the leaf tips point straight up? Why is this important? A leaf that is positioned vertically has the ability to absorb 50% more sunlight than a leaf that is positioned horizontally like ours in Western Canada. The end result is higher photosynthetic rates, greater carbohydrate production and higher grain fill potential.

It’s well documented that the flag and penultimate leaf account for 55% of grain fill potential in wheat and 80% of grain fill potential in barley. That being said, the undersides of the two most significant leaves in our wheat and barley crops face the ground, away from the sun. On top of that, they shade the leaves and stems underneath them. What if we could find a way to alter our leaves to make them more vertical? What kind of yield gains would we see through higher photosynthetic ability and higher grain fill potential if the sun could see both sides of the leaf?

Chris Dennison, former Guinness world record holder for wheat yield, caught my attention on this subject after having a chat in his 180 bu/ac barley crop last February. Chris mentioned that he liked to use a growth regulator not only to prevent lodging but to make the heads and leaves stand more erect. We walked through a check strip (pictured here to the right) where the sprayer had not applied a growth regulator and the heads and leaves were tipped over. The rest of the field in the two-row barley crop had heads standing almost vertical, even towards the end of grain fill.

Growth regulators inhibit cell elongation which tends to shorten inter node length and thicken cell walls. It’s the thickening of the cell walls that helps keep heads and leaves more upright. In Alberta, products like Ethrel from Bayer and Cycocel Extra from BASF are only distributed through select retailers that strictly monitor the product’s use. One wrong move and growth regulators can be disastrous; yield can be significantly cut if applied at the wrong stage, to the wrong crop or if drought conditions follow application.   

The economics play out well under irrigation where farmers around Brooks have seen 6-inch differences in crop height and between 2 to 20 bushel yield advantages. A full rate of a product like Ethrel runs around $11.20/ac at a rate of 1 L/ac. Including application costs you’re looking at a $17.20/ac to cover costs. At $5.25 bu wheat, you’ll need a 6 bushel yield advantage in wheat to give you a 2:1 return on investment. I think we need to talk to plant breeders to see if vertical leaf position is possible in wheat or barley and next, start researching ways to use growth regulators as a method to keep leaves more vertical to generate higher photosynthetic activity and ultimately more yield. SL

Boron levels: follow the trends

I’ve been taking geo-referenced benchmark soil samples since 2005 for my clients and came across an interesting trend in soil boron levels on one farm over the last five years. It seems that boron levels dropped dramatically in 2005 and then spiked in 2009. The chart you see here illustrates a sample of five fields across the farm. Soil tests showed very low to deficient boron levels in many fields but the plant tissue samples taken in 2009 showed sufficient levels but on the low end of the allowable range.

The allowable level of boron in the leaf tissue of wheat at tillering is 5 to 25 ppm and 7 to 20 ppm in barley. Most of the tissue tests showed 6 to 8 ppm which is on the low end of the curve and confirms my soil test results. I didn’t tissue test the canola given the multiple frosts it received which would have skewed the tissue results. What I believe is happening at this farm is due to consecutive years of high yielding crops with canola and wheat yields above 60 to 70 bu/ac. We even tipped 80 bu/ac on InVigor 9590 canola in 2007. I suspect the gradual decline in boron levels is because mineralization has not kept up with removal and higher rainfall has caused leaching.

As a strategy for next year, I’ll be ready for a foliar boron application in canola at early flower, providing the conditions are right. I’ll explain the “right” conditions later on. I’m not so sure I’d see an economic return on the cereals to soil applied boron but I’ll continue to monitor with tissue tests.

Typically, soils with 4% OM or higher will mineralize enough boron to supply crops throughout the growing season, especially cereal crops. Canola, on the other hand, has a different demand curve where boron is required in larger amounts during flowering, later in the growing season. Unfortunately, boron is immobile in the plant and a steady supply must come from the soil. The trouble is that our soils tend to dry out in July when canola is flowering and boron is left stranded in the top soil where roots cannot access it.

In canola, if you’re going to apply a foliar boron product, you’re going to see the greatest response at early flower under high temperature or drought stress. For example, research in Ontario found over 7 bu/ac yield increases from foliar applied boron at early flower when conditions were hot and dry in 2007. The following year, no response was found to the foliar applied boron at early flower in the same plots. The following year was cooler along with adequate precipitation throughout the growing season.

Like always, nothing is cut and dry. If you do suspect a boron deficiency or perhaps your soil typically dries out during flowering, perhaps you can set yourself up to apply a foliar application of boron. A 0.25 lb/ac application rate will run you around $7.00 plus application so you’re looking at roughly $14.00 an acre. To get a 2:1 return on your $9.00 a bushel canola, you’ll need a 3 bu/ac increase in yield. Remember, the key to success using foliar boron is to look for signs like drought or heat stress and apply boron at early flower and onward in order to give you the greatest chance for a return on your investment. SL

Temperature effects on canola flowering and yield

I found an interesting article on the effects of heat and boron on canola flowering and I thought it fitting after my previous article. I adapted the article from Stoller USA; I appreciate Jerry Stoller for his education on plant nutrient and hormone reactions in the plant, always an interesting new twist on how we view crop nutrition.

Canola is a cool season crop that prefers temperatures between 13 C and 20 C. At temperatures above 20 C yields begin to drop as the higher temperatures shorten the time the flower is receptive to pollen as well as the duration of pollen release. To explain further, canola plants cannot produce a sufficient amount of indole acetic acid (IAA) for cell division at high temperatures. The process of cell division and IAA production is needed to control bud formation, flower formation and fertility. So, without sufficient IAA, buds go dormant, flowers become sterile or don’t form properly at all.

Now, to offset the temperature effects on IAA production Jerry suggest we add three things, and here is where boron comes in. First, apply the hormone auxin which is directly involved in cell division. Next, add calcium to help move the auxin to the growing points and last, add boron to increase the half life of the auxin. Boron’s influence on auxin is the key and why responses to boron have been found at early flower, incidentally when temperatures tend to be high.

This physiological process applies to all flowering crops so think of peas and lentils or flax the next time you fall under high temperatures during flowering. Controlling hormone balances with boron- food for thought. SL

Reference: http://www.stollerusa.com/learningdetail?id=14278

Market News

Commodity Fundamentals

Technical Analysis

Canola: March futures. Short and long term trends are down.
HRS Wheat: March futures. Short term trend is up. Long term trend is up.
Corn: March futures. Short and long term trends are up.
Soybeans: March futures. Short term trend is down. Long term trend is up.
Canadian Dollar: March futures. Long and short term trends are up.
US Dollar Index: March futures. Long term trend is up. Short term trend is down.
Crude Oil: February futures. Short and long term trends are up.

Carbon News

Copenhagen and what’s next for Canada?

January 12, 2010- The world’s largest conference on climate change has come and gone and Copenhagen was by many accounts a disappointment with a silver lining. It’s all a matter of perspective and the stark realization that getting a legally binding deal from 192 countries was not very likely anyway. However, we did get an “Accord” and what we would argue is a much clearer understanding that a carbon constrained economy is inevitable.

By the last day of the ten (10) day Copenhagen conference on climate change pretty much nothing had been accomplished until US President Barrack Obama swooped in and lead the creation of the Copenhagen Accord. Let’s face it, many of the countries attending the conference would be hard pressed to go empty handed and this offered a solution. The key elements of the Accord were worked out by the United States, China, Brazil, India and the European Union. Canada was not invited but, given our place- one step firmly behind the US- it didn’t really matter anyway.

The Copenhagen Accord is really a statement of intent acknowledging a broad agreement that climate change is real and action needs to be taken. Some key elements of the Accord included: recognition that emissions need to be reduced to keep temperatures from rising by more than two (2) degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, developed countries agree to finance $10 billion/year for the next three (3) years to assist developing countries in coping with the impact of climate change, developing countries will report every two (2) years on their voluntary actions to reduce emissions, and Annex I Parties (includes Canada) commit to economy-wide emissions targets for 2020. The objective of the Accord is to transform it into a legally binding agreement by this December in Mexico City.

In a first for Canada on climate change, it was one of the first countries to officially notify the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of its intention to support the Copenhagen Accord, well before the January 31, 2010 deadline. Canada remains unmoved from its original commitment of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) from 2006 levels by 2010, or 3% below 1990 levels. Of course, this commitment is contingent on the US signing on to the Accord as well. The current US commitment stands at 17% below 2005 levels, or 4% below 1990 levels. Canada stands close enough to the US targets to avoid trade action, but certainly demonstrates that we have no intention of doing anymore than we absolutely need to.

The silver lining for the North American carbon market in our opinion is the clear recognition that a carbon constrained economy is on its way. The debate over whether climate change is real or not has shifted to harnessing the economic opportunities it offers the US, China, India, and the EU. Canada on the other hand will have to deal with the impact of restricting GHG emissions on the fossil fuel industry and a country divided on who shoulders the burden for GHG reductions. Efforts taken by Ontario, Quebec, and BC to reduce emissions will not be easily shared with Alberta and Saskatchewan.

The year ahead is certainly setting up to be the most interesting one yet for North American carbon markets. The US has positioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate GHGs even if the US Senate is unable to pass legislation reducing them. This would include establishing a market for GHG offsets. Canada has made it clear that if the US limits its GHGs emissions, it wants to be part of an integrated carbon market. The US, however, has not been so eager to embrace Canada and for good reason. By most accounts the cost of reducing emissions will be higher in Canada than the US, so why would the US want to open its carbon market to what could lead to higher carbon prices for US firms? With these questions and more poised to be answered over the next 12 months, it should be an interesting 2010 to say the least.

Reference: Bruce Love, Preferred Carbon
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author only and are not intended to represent financial advice.