Agronomist Notes

My favorite part of soil testing has begun- time to read the results! It looks like the average nitrogen level for most fields is hovering around 40 lbs but I caution that this is only an average. Our soils are still very dry but I’ve heard of some wet weather for this week. Another concern I have, aside from low moisture levels, is the roughness in our fields and I’ll explain what I mean by that further on.

I just booked a trip to the UK for the first part of November to finish off my Nuffield travels. I’ll be visiting high yield producers to learn about their practices, climate and cropping intensity. Back on home turf, I’ve decided to attend the AgriTrend event in Saskatoon although my heart stopped momentarily at the $500 price tag for the two-day affair. AgriTrade in Red Deer is just around the corner and ‘producer meeting season’ is all set to begin. There goes November!

This week’s newsletter, I’ll show you how to estimate this year’s nitrogen removal based on protein content and yield. Next, I’ll discuss a new wireless RTK network in our area that could give us the accuracy, reliability and repeatability we need and at a reasonable price. Next, we’ll take a quick look at ‘micro-topography’, for lack of a better term, or soil surface variability we have across our fields. We will continue our mineral nutrition and plant disease journey and discuss the role of phosphorus in plant health. Bruce Love will give us an update on the price of carbon in Alberta. We’ll finish with fundamental, technical and international crop weather news. Have a great week. SL

Agronomy

Calculating nitrogen removal in protein

You might be thinking soil nitrogen levels should be higher this fall given the dry season we had. However, you may be surprised at just how much nitrogen was removed in 2009. Average wheat yields were between 35 to 50 bushels an acre across my territory. A pleasant outcome was decent protein levels, consistently in the 14% to 15% range. If you want to know how much nitrogen was removed in your grain this year, I’ve provided a few examples on how to calculate nitrogen removal.

Steve’s quick math

To calculate the nitrogen content removed in the wheat, you must divide the protein content by a factor of 5.7. For example, a 45 bushel wheat crop with 14.5% protein divided by a factor of 5.7 will indicate the nitrogen content of the grain.

Wheat: 45 bu/ac × 60 lbs/bu × (14.5% ÷ 5.7 ÷ 100) = 69 lbs/ac, or 1.5 lbs/bu. The factor of 5.7 is unique to wheat.

Barley: 55 bus/ac × 48 lbs/bu × (14% ÷ 6.25 ÷ 100) = 59 lbs/ac or 1.07 lbs/bu. The factor of 6.25 is used for all other grains and nitrogen removal can be determined using the same formula.

So you can see, even though our wheat may have yielded at or below average in 2009, it still removed about 70 lbs of nitrogen. With most producers applying 70 to 100 lbs of nitrogen this year and coming off consecutive years of lower protein, I suspect we don’t have a lot of nitrogen built up in the soil just yet. Bottom line: don’t expect to cut back in 2010. SL   

Roydale New Holland combines RTK guidance with wireless technology   

The use of RTK guided auto steer is all the rage right now as producers begin to think about inter-row seeding and possibly controlled traffic. I’ve watched salesman from each equipment manufacturer try to convince clients that RTK isn’t necessary and a simple, less expensive OmniSTAR HP GPS signal will give you all the accuracy you need for $1,200 a year. Well folks, they’re mistaken. You may get close to one-inch accuracy during a day’s worth of seeding from an OmniSTAR HP signal but you’ll never get the repeatability of an RTK system. Repeatability allows you to go back to the same spot within an inch day after day, week after week and year after year.

Equipment manufacturers are putting up RTK base stations everywhere at a cost of roughly $25,000 per unit and charging a subscription. Albeit costly, an RTK signal can only reach within a 10 km radius and you still need line of sight, which gets tricky in rolling topography. This is where Roydale New Holland from Red Deer has come up with a very innovative solution. They’ve developed a system that uses wireless technology to deliver RTK signals within a range of 60 km without sacrificing sub-inch accuracy or repeatability. This technology eliminates the need for line of site to a base station and lowers the cost of the subscription compared to other dealers.       

To show you the accuracy of the wireless RTK system, the illustration on the right is a scatter plot taken 108 kms from the RTK base station. Notice how the signal barely moves out of place, never mind the one-inch accuracy it allows for. Those familiar with WAAS signals know that the coordinates move back and forth a few feet even when the unit is stationary. Now, Roydale doesn’t know how accurate the repeatability would be from 108 kms and say they wouldn’t push the envelope that far just yet. For now, they plan to set a maximum radius of 60 km until proven otherwise.

I really think Roydale New Holland is on to something here as the only dealership I know of matching RTK guidance with wireless technology. If you plan on tackling inter-row seeding, controlled traffic or are looking to reduce overlap another percent or two, RTK is the answer. SL

Variability in soil surface topography may be a profit killer come seeding 

I’ve had a chance to drive across 120 fields this fall and happened to notice the subtle variations in micro-topography. When I say micro-topography, I’m talking about the subtle variations on the soil surface across a field, but on a square foot scale. Essentially, what I discovered was ½” to ¾” tracks or ruts across the field caused by years of traffic. Every year it seems more difficult to calibrate seeding depth across the drill properly. Often times we just say “close enough!” and know we’ll have some seeds shallow but the majority where we want them. Sometimes openers lift right out of the ground if we’re too shallow because of slight changes in elevation across three or four feet of the tool bar. 

If you recall, I had an article on seeding depth, emergence and yield penalties caused by uneven emergence. Essentially, a wheat plant could yield 1.5 times more than the plant next to it if it emerged three days earlier. With this information, I was strongly convinced that we need to start moving to on row depth control air drills. I did the math on a 4,000 acre farm using a small change in uniform emergence and estimated we could generate an additional $16,800 if we switched to a precision drill.

So, do we go back to light cultivation to level out the variability in our fields? What is the answer? My simplest solution without having to revert to tillage is to purchase a precision drill with on row depth control the next time you upgrade your drill. I guarantee there is a potential to increase crop quality, maturity and yield by making the switch. For example, I had a few opportunities to go crop checking by air this year and I discovered something interesting. Our neighbors own a Bourgault PHD 3310 which is a precision drill and their crops stood out above all the others, including ours. I saw a noticeable difference in crop emergence and uniformity and I wish I had a picture of it to show you. I was very surprised to see how good of a job that drill did compared to other drills in the area and in a difficult year like this one. (In the end they may not have yielded as much as we did across the road, but I’d like to think Mitch and I have a good drill, a good agronomist on staff and are meticulous when setting seeding depth.)

Next year, many producers will be forced to seed deeper than optimal to ensure all the seeds are placed into moisture. The germination may be wonderful but unfortunately, the uniformity of emergence across the field will be less than desirable and money will be left on the table. SL

Mineral nutrition and plant disease

Over the next several weeks I will be writing a series on mineral nutrition and how it relates to plant disease. Often, when we talk about disease in cereals and oilseeds we focus our attention on fungicides to solve the problem. In my mind, diseases are a symptom of an underlying problem and plant nutrition plays a critical role. I will stress that proper crop nutrition is one aspect of disease management and not the only one. With that, my goal is help you think about plant disease from a crop nutrition perspective where fungicides become a last resort and not the first. SL

Phosphorus nutrition and disease

Phosphorus plays an important role in plant development by helping move minerals and nutrients inside the plant. P nutrition promotes vigorous and early root growth, increased maturity, nitrogen uptake and plant mineral content. In addition, it provides the stored energy necessary for driving major plant functions.

The role of phosphorus and plant disease is not as well known as with other nutrients. The odd thing about phosphorus is that it can either reduce or increase disease pressure, depending on the disease. For example, phosphorus applications have been known to moderately suppress leaf rust yet increase leaf blotch complexes in wheat like septoria nodorum and glume blotch. P fertilization can help reduce take all infections in wheat but increase stem rust severity. At the end of the day, adequate phosphate nutrition is necessary to achieve optimal yields and plant health.

The most difficult part of P nutrition is getting adequate amounts of phosphorus inside the plant early in the season when soils are cool and diffusion is low. Equally important is getting a steady rate of P uptake all season long. With phosphorus concentrations higher in the top four inches of the soil where the soil tends to dry out, we can be left with P deficiencies as diffusion rates drop off at the critical grain filling stage. This is often overlooked in our crop nutrition programs. With that, I’ve put together a list of ways to increase phosphorus uptake.     

Tips on increasing phosphorus uptake:

1. Combine ammonium sulphate (21-0-0-24) with phosphate (11-52-0-0). The addition of an ammonium based fertilizer will help drop the pH near the root zone and make phosphorus more available.
2. In high pH soils with low P availability, make use of your triple compartment air tank and choose a separate starter blend of 15 lbs of N with 30 lbs of P and place with the seed. A small amount of nitrogen fertilizer can help draw roots towards the fertilizer band. Too much nitrogen like 70 to 80 lbs/acre can reduce the roots ability to penetrate the toxic fertilizer band.  
3. Split apply 80% of the phosphate requirements with the seed and top up the last 20% with foliar phosphate at the second node stage, just before flag leaf. You can apply nitrogen at that time as well to save a pass. Foliar applications of P have been known to control powdery mildew and other fungal diseases.  
4. Choose a wider opener to help warm soil quicker. Phosphorus availability rises as ground temperature rises. Cook and Hislop found phosphorus availability increased from 10 ppm to 20ppm as the soil temperature warmed from 10 to 20 degrees Celsius.    
5. Reduce compaction. Compacted soils inhibit root exploration and reduce the plants ability to intersect P in the soil. Compaction reduces diffusion, the primary mechanism for P transfer into the root.

Research has shown that moderately phosphorus deficient wheat plants begin to drop or senesce the flag leaf rapidly and can lead to a reduction in grain yield by 40% (Batten et al., 1986). I believe we should be paying closer attention to early and late season plant tissue concentrations of phosphorus to ensure optimum yield and plant health. SL    

Carbon News

Alberta carbon prices test price cap

October 19, 2009- The current value of Alberta greenhouse gas (GHG) offsets, or carbon credits, are testing the effectiveness of the price cap implied by the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund or "Tech Fund." While the Alberta Government appears content to let the price cap ride for now, carbon values may be poised to head higher. This becomes more apparent with some basic market analysis.

The Tech Fund creates an effective cap on carbon prices in Alberta by allowing it to be a compliance option for a large final emitter (LFE) to meet up to 100% of their statutory GHG reductions. The Tech Fund option is based on a $15/tonne of CO2e charge to the LFE requiring reductions in its GHG emissions. There is no risk of rejection for a Tech Fund contribution, unlike the use of a GHG offset by an LFE.

LFEs can also meet their statutory GHG emission reductions through the use of GHG offsets; however there is some risk with this. Under the Alberta GHG offset system, offsets are subject to a final audit by Alberta Environment for up to two (2) years after they are submitted by an LFE as a compliance tool. Currently, one project from the 2007 compliance year is on hold pending the outcome of an Alberta Environment audit1 and the results from the 2008 compliance year audit are not yet known.

Given that a GHG offset can be rejected as a compliance tool for an LFE, any GHG offsets purchased are typically subjected to due diligence prior to purchase. This process examines the quality of the GHG offset and the rigor that was used in its creation. This process has a cost and is reflected in the price ultimately paid for the GHG offset, with more due diligence, the higher the cost and the lower the price paid for the offset.

The compliance period and GHG emissions for an LFE is based on the calendar year; January 1 through to December 31. The LFE then has until March 31 to meet any compliance obligations to reduce the intensity of their GHG emissions. This later period is called the “true-up period.” The important date here is March 31, since this is the last day an LFE with a compliance obligation can write a cheque to the Tech Fund, or submit a GHG offset.

Now let’s apply some basic market analysis and compare the current value of GHG offsets to the Tech Fund imposed price cap of $15/tonne of CO2e. A survey of the GHG offset market this summer by Preferred Carbon indicated that quality GHG offsets were worth about $13.50/tonne on August 1, 2009 and its unlikely they have changed much since then. From August 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010 is eight (8) months of carrying charges until the first opportunity for the LFE to use the GHG offset as a compliance option. Then with all the turbulence in the credit markets, a typical weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for an LFE would be about 10% per annum. Therefore our carrying costs would be $13.50 × (1 + (0.10 × 8 ÷ 12)) = $14.40 per tonne of CO2e. Project due diligence, legal expenses, and contracting costs could easily top $0.50/tonne on agricultural offsets. When compared to the Tech Fund option, this would leave only ten (10) cents per tonne for the risk of GHG offset being rejected in whole or in part when it’s submitted for compliance by an LFE.

It would appear from our quick calculations that the market is trading at the Tech Fund price cap. It could even be argued that when the risk of rejection is considered that the market price for a GHG offset exceeds the Tech Fund value. The current guidelines for Alberta Environment audit consider any differences above 5% to be material. This would mean that any shortfall under 5% would not be considered material and won’t likely affect the GHG offset project tonnes. Above 5% would result in a restatement of the GHG offset project tonnes. Since the risk is that the audit produces material results below the GHG offset tonnes of CO2e claimed, let’s look at that. A 6% difference would be considered material (it’s just over the threshold) and would result in the purchase price being effectively $14.40 ÷ (1-0.06) = $15.32 per tonne assuming the buyer had no recourse on the seller of the GHG offset for the shortfall. Remember, the buyer ended up with 94% of the tonnes paid for.

Our simple market analysis seems to indicate that the Alberta GHG offset market is being capped by the Tech Fund, but that price cap is being challenged by the market. This could be the result of offset demand far outstripping supply, the need by certain LFEs to gain experience with offsets, the ability to bank offsets for use in the future when Tech Fund levels may be higher, or the market simply anticipating higher future prices.

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.
   
1 As seen on the Alberta GHG Offset Registry:  Emissions Credits Corporation Tillage Program  "Project on Hold Pending Further Alberta Environment Audit Results."

Market News

World Production in Million Metric Tonnes       Oct 09 ending stocks vs.     5- year Avg

	Production			Ending Stocks			Ending Stocks
	2007-08	Oct-09	Change	2007-08	Oct-09	Change	5-year Avg
Rapeseed	48.4	56.5	17%	3	4.9	59%	4.6	8%
Barley	133.2	147.2	11%	18	30.4	68%	25.7	18%
Wheat	610.6	668.1	9%	119	186.7	56%	138.6	35%
Corn	792.3	792.5	0%	128	136.2	7%	125.9	8%
Soybeans	220.9	246.0	11%	53	54.8	3%	54	1%

USDA
Updated Oct 16, 2009

Technical Update

Canola: November futures
HRS Wheat: December futures
Canadian dollar: Dec futures
Crude Oil: Dec futures

International crop and weather news

Western Canada: Poor harvest conditions continued last week. Temperatures were 3 to 9 degrees Celsius below normal, leading to some record low temperatures. Frosts occurred in all parts of the Prairies. Light to moderate rain/snow (10-25 mm) occurred in much of northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Daily highs reached the teens in Alberta and southern Saskatchewan, but elsewhere, remained in the single digits. Little harvest activity occurred because the wet/cold conditions limited drying. Quality and harvest concerns are building for the remaining crop. The overall harvest is 87 per cent complete, with spring wheat harvest at 90 per cent finished and the durum harvest 97 per cent complete.

United States: Light rains and snow limited harvesting the small amount of cereals remaining in the Northern Plains. Moderate to heavy rains in the Southern Plains caused temporary delays in winter wheat seeding. Temperatures were 4 to 8 degrees Celsius below normal across the Plains. Freezing temperatures occurred as far south as northern Texas. The spring wheat harvest is mostly complete and the winter wheat planting is three-quarters done.

Light to heavy rains fell across the Cornbelt last week, limiting harvest progress. Freezing temperatures occurred across the western Cornbelt and in northern Illinois and Michigan. The repeated freezing temperatures marked the end of the growing season for much of the area. Corn harvest progress increased to 13 per cent from 10 per cent the previous week, compared to 35 per cent normally. Winter wheat seeding in the Cornbelt remains delayed due to the lack of soybean harvest and poor weather.

Middle East: Dry weather favors cotton harvesting and winter grain planting.

Europe: Showers in northern Europe hamper summer crop harvesting but provide additional soil moisture for winter crop planting and establishment. Locally heavy rain in Spain provides a much-needed boost to soil moisture and irrigation reserves.

Former Soviet Union: Mostly dry weather in Ukraine and southern Russia helps summer crop harvesting. Chronic dryness in western and southern Ukraine and central Russia hampers winter wheat emergence. Scattered showers in Kazakhstan and the Urals and Siberia Districts in Russia cause only brief interruptions in late-season spring grain harvesting. In cotton growing areas of Central Asia, dry weather helps harvest activities.

East Asia: Warm Tropical Cyclone Melor brings flooding rains to Japan, delaying the rice harvest. Dry weather in China aids summer crop harvesting and winter crop planting.

Southeast Asia: Heavy rains from Tropical Cyclone Parma continue to flood rice areas in the northern Philippines. Showers continue the seasonal shift to the south, bringing more rainfall to Indonesia for the upcoming main rice season.

South Asia: Showers in western and northern India provide late-season moisture for immature summer crops but cause some minor harvest delays. Dry weather in southern and eastern India aids cotton boll development and rice harvesting.

Australia: Light rains and showers (5-15 mm) maintained crop conditions. While the amounts were insufficient to build soil moisture they did limit losses to evaporation. The largest amounts were reported in South Australia. Temperatures were 1 to 5 degrees Celsius below normal in NSW, South Australia, and Victoria. In Western Australia, temperatures were slightly above normal. Daily high temperatures were generally between the mid-teens and low-twenties in the main growing regions. The moderate temperatures and bit of moisture were beneficial for the crops.

South America: In central Argentina, showers boost topsoil moisture for germination of summer grains and oilseeds after a week of favorable planting weather. Rain returns to central Brazil, benefiting emerging summer grains and oilseeds. Unfavorably damp conditions persist, however, across the southern wheat belt.

Mexico: Warm, mostly dry weather promotes late development of corn and other rain-fed summer crops.

Sources: USDA, CWB