Agronomist Notes
The past week has been full of writing, writing and more writing. I’m in the middle of preparing my FarmTech presentations and I’m excited to bend the minds of the audience as they listen to my spin on pushing the yield barrier. Plant architecture, water use efficiency, maximizing photosynthesis, delaying leaf senescence- come on, when will this guy start talking about fertilizer and chemical?!
In this week’s newsletter, we'll be revisiting plant architecture with a few helpful comments from producers abroad. Next, we’ll look at a Mad Aussie’s approach to row loading, the concept we introduced a few weeks ago. We’ll also look at the effects of equipment traffic on phosphorus and potassium uptake and then finish with fundamental and technical grain market news. Have a great week. SL
Agronomy
Comments on maximizing photosynthesis through plant architecture
New Zealand producer, Chris Dennison, who will be attempting to break the Guinness world wheat yield record again in 2010, provided me with more insight into leaf architecture. He concured that plant breeding was probably the main reason for the difference in plant architecture between our wheat and theirs. However, excessive nitrogen applications before flag leaf will increase leaf size but at the cost of rapid cell expansion and weak cell structure. The elongated cells become weak and leaves begin to flop or lay horizontally. Chris mentioned that you lose the solar panel effect when you push nitrogen too early and get a leaf that hinders growth because it shades the leaves below.
It could be that early nitrogen applications are impacting the horizontal leaf structure in our cereals. We apply all of our nitrogen at seeding which leads to rapid nitrate accumulation and excessive uptake prior to flag leaf. One of the tricks Chris uses to combat weak leaves is an application of a growth regulator called Terple. Applying it at early flag helps to thicken cell walls and counteract the effects of excessive nitrogen.
Yesterday I had a dialogue with an Ag Canada technician at the research farm in Ottawa who is working on an oat breeding program. It turns out that Ag Canada is working on developing oat varieties that have more vertically positioned leaves to help reduce disease, specifically leaf and stripe rust. Vertically positioned leaves are smaller targets for air born rust spores and the spores are more easily washed off with precipitation. There’s a lot to be said about leaf architecture. I hope wheat and barley get a genetic makeover soon, but in the meantime, we could investigate nitrogen management and growth regulators. SL
Reduce compaction for better potassium and phosphorus uptake
Did you know that our current random traffic farming system has a profound effect on nutrient uptake patterns? This discovery was made over 20 years ago through research out of the University of Minnesota. The five-year study revealed the negative effects of soil compaction on nutrient uptake, namely phosphorus and potassium. The research out of U of Minnesota found that potassium uptake was reduced by 19% in the first year following the compaction treatment. The negative effects decreased to 14% by year five indicating compaction effects are longer term for potassium. Coincidentally, phosphorus uptake was also reduced by 19% in the first year and decreased to just 6% in the last year. Interesting results don’t you think?
The issue we have in our random traffic farming systems is that we add to the compaction of the soil every time we pull out the sprayer, air drill, combine, grain cart, tandems and heavy harrows. I estimate that most of us will cover between 50 and 60% of our fields each year with equipment traffic. By year two, the entire field has seen some level of compaction and nutrient uptake has been reduced. Let’s run some numbers to see what kind of yield and profit we’re giving up from reduced potassium and phosphorus uptake.
Steve’s quick math
A 50 bu/ac wheat crop requires a total of 73 lbs/ac of potassium or 1.47 lbs/bu. If you include a pre-burn (3%), seeding application (15%) and in-crop herbicide (3%), you’ve caused some level of compaction on 21% of the field before the flag leaf even emerges, which is the stage when the majority of potassium uptake has occurred.
Yield loss = 73 lbs/K/ac x 19% ÷ 1.47 lbs/K/bu x 21%
Therefore, a 19% reduction in potassium uptake on just 21% of the field will reduce yield potential by 1.98 bu/ac or 4% on a 50 bu/ac crop. At $5.25 bu, that’s a potential gain of $10.50 ac. If we do the math on phosphorus, we’ll find an additional 2 bu/ac yield loss from reduced P uptake for a total of $20.00 ac in missed revenue potential. The average 4,000 acre farm is looking at generating an additional $60,000 return by reducing compaction on cereals alone.
I believe we have the potential to reduce compaction, improve P + K uptake efficiency and subsequently generate higher yields. Those of you who’ve been reading my newsletters for some time know the solution to compaction is controlled traffic. I’ve seen controlled traffic work in high moisture environments that receive 30 inches of rain to low moisture environments with just 8 inches of rain. We need to start looking at the effects of compaction seriously and begin wrapping our heads around the implementation and logistics of controlled traffic farming. There’s a lot of money being left on the table with our current farming systems. SL
More on CTF: http://www.controlledtrafficfarming.com/content/default.aspx
Source: http://magissues.farmprogress.com/TFM/TF12Dec09/tfm008.pdf
Row loading from a Mad Aussie soil fertility specialist’s perspective
It’s great that Steve recently introduced the Australian term “row loading” to the wild Canadian farmers who read his newsletter. In agriculture we get so caught up trying to fit ourselves in to a box as in No-Till, Zero-Till, Strip Till, Full Cut, Conventional (whatever that means?) and the list goes on. I think we’re missing the point somewhat! Every farmer needs to have a far better understanding of the parent material that is their major asset- soil!
Row loading is a term used to describe the practice of loading a cropping row or furrow with a range of liquid fertilizer components in order to complement a granular program, replace it on occasion, and most importantly, maximise the cost/benefit of all dollars spent. Each farmer will change row applied nutrients depending on their soil types, rainfall, snowfall, rotations, machinery, budget and trial data. What’s added to the row can vary from a liquid calcium sodic soil amelioration program at $6- $10 to a trace element package at approximately $15 to a full liquid planting fertilizer at $120. The picture to the right shows the effect of row loading liquid fertilizer compared to granular. In the lower left hand side of the picture liquid fertilizer has delayed the onset of senescence compared to the granular fertilizer on the right where the crop is now under nutrient stress and has begun to ripen prematurely.
Steve has asked me to contribute articles on the various variations of the row loading concept in coming weeks. I plan to cover trace elements, major elements, soil ameliorants and other significant components that have been used (with good and bad responses) to further cropping efficiencies. I look forward to helping Canadian growers understand row loading and I certainly hope that some of the cost versus benefit information can be adapted to suit your systems.
Source: Michael Eyres, Injecta Pty Ltd.
Market News
Technical Analysis
Canola: March futures. Short and long term trends are down. More downside is possible.
HRS Wheat: March futures. Short and long term trends are down. High volume suggests more downside.
Corn: March futures. Short and long term trends have turned down. Further lows are possible.
Soybeans: March futures. Short term trend is down and long term trend is up.
Canadian Dollar: March futures. Long and short term trends are up. Look for a choppy trade ahead.
US Dollar Index: March futures. Long term trend is up, short term trend is up. Volume is dropping; watch for choppy trade.
Crude Oil: February futures. Short term is down and long term trend is up.
