Agronomist Notes
Today there’s a skiff of snow on the ground so it’s a good thing most producers are very close to the finish line. I would peg harvest completion at 90% with the western side of my territory towards Calgary about 75 to 80% complete. Most of the grain has gone in the bin dry. Canola required a full four weeks in the swath to completely cure out, which tested the patience of many.
Having finished our own harvest on last Monday, I was finally able to get out and take pictures and video of clients harvesting. I even had the chance to test out the new JD 9870 and MF 9895 in the same field. Hmm, red or green, red or green? I think I’ll stick to silver given the price tags of the other two!
In this week’s issue of Beyond Agronomy News, I’ll begin by estimating nitrogen removal in cereal crops. Next, we’ll discuss the realities of of residue management when employing a controlled traffic system. Next, we’ll look at the true costs, benefits and risks associated with straight cutting canola and we’ll look at lodging ratings as a way to reduce sclerotinia risk. I’ll give you the CWB variety survey results for cereals across the Prairies and finish with some trial results on the newest midge tolerant wheat Unity. We’ll finish with fundamental and technical grain market news.
Agronomy
Watch us on youtube
I posted my wife’s amateur harvest video on youtube showing our Gleaner R7 straight cutting canola. There’s no play by play description but you’ll get an idea of how we roll and how she likes to use the zoom feature.
CTF Straight cutting canola: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWSzHDRHvnc
CTF Gleaners making history: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BORDhk6cZ88
Calculating nitrogen removal in protein
I’ve yet to begin soil sampling this fall but I suspect that nitrogen levels will be low again given the high yields and lower proteins we’ve had. If you plan on booking fertilizer soon, I've provided a few examples on how to calculate/approximate how much nitrogen your crops removed.
Steve's quick math
To calculate the nitrogen content removed in the wheat, you must divide the yield times the bushel weight and divide the protein content by a factor of 5.7. For example, a 55 bushel wheat crop with 11.5% protein divided by a factor of 5.7 will indicate the nitrogen content of the grain.
Wheat: 60 bu/ac × 64 lbs/bu × (12.5% ÷ 5.7 ÷ 100) = 84 lbs/ac or 1.4 lbs/bu. The factor of 5.7 is unique to wheat.
Barley: 95 bus/ac × 55 lbs/bu × (12.5% ÷ 6.25 ÷ 100) = 104.5 lbs/ac or 1.10 lbs/bu. The factor of 6.25 is used for all other grains and nitrogen removal can be determined using the same formula.
So, with wheat proteins coming in between 11 to 13% and yields averaging 60 bu/ac and over, we’ve removed at least 80 to 100 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 nitrogen levels will be quite low. SL
The reality of residue management in a CTF system
Throughout harvest I was keenly observing the residue management system in our new/old Gleaner R7. In a controlled traffic system, the width of your tram lines are restricted by the width you can spread your residue evenly. For example, spreading residue across just 25 ft of a 30 ft swath can result in uneven germination, emergence, yield, maturity, nutrient cycling, soil moisture and temperature because 25 ft has residue cover and 5 ft has none. That is one of the reasons we chose a 30 ft wide tram lines because we didn’t feel we could spread residue properly in a 35 to 40 ft system with our choice harvesters.
This year we straight cut the HRS No.1 feed wheat, feed barley, and canola as well as some swathed canola. I was pleased to see that we could cover the entire 30 ft on a 100 bushel lodged barley crop. There were times when the wind switched direction and we weren’t getting a full spread but 95% of the time it was satisfactory. The 60 bushel wheat crop was easily spread across the 30 ft as there was less material to handle.
The canola was a different story. The straight cut canola (dried down with a glyphosate application plus a number of heavy frosts) actually spread very well. The residue was very dry but not brittle and we could spread it 28 to 30 ft each pass which is satisfactory.
The swathed canola was the most concerning because we could only spread it 20 ft at any given time. A swathed crop doesn’t cure down like a standing crop and the underside of swath can still green in spite of the seed being dry. The residue is tough, heavy and hard to spread with any vintage of combine, not just ours. This is something we’re going to have to address in the future.
Spreading canola residue unevenly in a three to four year rotation may cause uneven crops and is something we don’t want to risk. Producers with a tighter canola rotation like one in two years or canola every year may want to think twice or invest in better residue management system. In our situation, we may modify a chopper on the back of the combine to help spread canola residue that extra 5 ft on each side. The most profitable crop in our rotation right now is canola and, ironically, it’s the one that will give the most grief. This issue must be addressed before we start to see waves of uneven crops in our future. I love a good challenge. SL
The true cost of harvesting straight cut canola versus swathed
As usual in farming, or in any business, you have to walk through the fire to really understand the risks and benefits of a change in management practice. When it comes to comparing straight cut versus swathed canola I had the chance to run the gauntlet this year and discover the good, bad and the ugly of both. Here are the results:
- Standing canola gets tough faster at night compared to swathed canola. Often, neighbours and clients would get 1 to 2 more hours of combining after we shut down. The entire standing crop is exposed to dew compared to just the top of the swath.
- Standing canola doesn’t feed evenly onto the header. Often when straight cutting, half the header will have canola coming in heads first and the other side will come in stems first depending on which way the crop is lodging. This makes for tougher threshing compared to swathed.
- The difference in fuel use was 0.56 L/ac higher straight cutting verses swathed or $0.50 ac at today’s diesel price of $0.90 L.
- The cost of swathing was $12.00 acre and desiccating with glyphosate was $12.05 ac including application
- The average speed of straight cutting was 2.3 mph verses 2.6 mph in swathed canola. The speed would have been 3 to 3.5 mph if the custom swather had done a better job. I cannot tell you how much I learned on that field, mainly about my own character! To say we plugged alot is a huge understatement. With no reverser on the combine, it was hands on unplugging all the way. On the upside, I can now tear a phone book in half with my new found strength.
- The shelling losses on the straight cut canola were just as low if not lower than the shelling caused by the pickup. It’s a wash in my opinion.
- Swathed canola increases harvest efficiency. When you factor in the extra hour or two per day and another 1 to 1.5 mph in a swath, you wouldn’t want all your acres standing.
- In most cases I would recommend using glyphosate to help dry it down before you straight cut it. This aids in harvestability and reduces green material going into the hopper. Even though the grain is dry, canola bins can heat from the green chaff which collects along the sides of the bin and create zones of high moisture.
- When straight cutting, a rigid auger header with disappearing fingers works best. Draper headers will bring the canola to the feeder house but have trouble pulling it in without fingers or an auger. One solution is to purchase a cross auger kit for draper headers for a cost of roughly $5,000.
- Letting canola stand to straight cut in late September leaves you vulnerable to frosts. My standing canola was hit in mid-September by two back to back -4oC frosts which desiccated the plants quickly and stopped grain fill. Seed size wasn’t as large as it typically is with standing canola.
I didn’t realize how slow and inefficient straight cutting canola can be. It takes a year like this to let you know why you shouldn’t leave canola to stand in late September. That being said, if we had a 70 km wind storm come through like normal, I would have been more than happy with my standing canola. I’d be happy to hedge my bet each year and let some canola stand and swath the rest at 60 to 80% seed colour change. I will go back to my golden rule which I did not follow this year and that is to make the decision to straight cut no later than the 1st of September. In my opinion, you can’t afford to lose efficiency by straight cutting in late-September or early-October. It’s not worth the risk. SL.
Sclerotinia management tool in canola - Lodging rating
It takes a cold, wet year to really separate the good canola varieties from the bad. 2010 was one of those years. The crops showing the least amount of disease stood the most upright and the heavily lodged crops were hit the worst.
For example, I had a client miss the window on a fungicide application in two fields. One field was InVigor 1141 and the other was InVigor 5440. The LL 1141 was lodged heavily and had what I would estimate as a 30% infection level translating to a 15% yield loss. The LL 5440 was located right across the road and had fantastic standability with very little lodging. I estimated the infection level on the 5440 to be less than 5%. Both fields had similar history and crop rotations. The same thing happened to another client where the 1141 laid almost flat and had roughly a 40% infection level. The LL 5440 nearby showed very little signs of sclerotinia.
Varieties with poor standability tend to expose the main stem to sclerotinia infection. A stem that lays horizontal provides a perfect surface area for infected petals to land. Once established, the infected area cuts off moisture and nutrient supply to the entire plant. On the other hand, a variety that has excellent standability may only receive infection on the secondary branches which cuts yield down on just a portion of the plant.
When you’re selecting your canola varieties be certain not only about yield, blackleg resistance and maturity,but also standability. Unfortunately, you’ll have to rely on the experience of the retailer because lodging ratings are very subjective and don’t give a good picture. Dekalb 71-45, a popular RR variety has very poor standability yet the data rates it as a 0 versus a rock solid variety like LL 5440 which is rated a 1. The two varieties don’t compare when it comes to standability yet they’re only rated one point apart. So, be sure to ask around about the variety you’re interested in. Standability not only benefits at harvest, its also a great tool to help reduce the effects of sclerotinia. SL
Update on CWB variety survey
Each year the CWB does a variety survey and I find it useful to see what varieties are creeping up in usage across the prairies. With that, here are the results for the top two varieties with the greatest number of acres grown across Western Canada for HRS wheat, CPS wheat, feed and malt barley.
HRS wheat: Lillian 19.5% and AC Harvest at 16.5%
CPS wheat: AC Foremost 36.3% and 5700PR 33.2%
Feed barley: Xena 42.7% and Conlon 20.3%
Malt barley: Ac Metcalf 61.3% and CDC Copeland 23.8%
To see the variety results in your own province go to: http://www.cwb.ca/en/farmers/surveys/variety/archive/popups/provincial.jsp
Unity midge tolerant wheat yields but falls short on lodging and height
I had my third trial of the new wheat midge tolerant variety called Unity side by side with AC Harvest, a standard in our area. The down side of Unity is the 6 inches in height difference to Harvest and subsequent lodging. AC Harvest continues to hold a grade better than most varieties with better colour and less sprouting than other varieties. However, the Unity beat AC Harvest in yield by 10% on average at each location on three different soil types. If we can apply a growth regulator to Unity, I might think of growing it again. SL
Market News
Fundamental News
| World Production in Million Metric Tonnes | Ending Stocks 5-Year Avg | Sep Ending Stocks vs 5-Year Avg | ||||||
| Crop | Production | Ending Stocks | ||||||
| 2009-10 | Sept - 10 | Change | 2009 - 10 | Sept - 10 | Change | |||
| Rapeseed | 59.9 | 57.1 | -5% | 6.6 | 5.2 | -21% | 4.6 | 14% |
| Barley | 149.8 | 125.9 | -16% | 36.6 | 21.0 | -43% | 25.7 | -18% |
| Wheat | 643.0 | 643.0 | 0% | 196 | 177.7 | -9% | 138.6 | 28% |
| Corn | 810.9 | 826.0 | 2% | 139 | 135.5 | -2% | 125.9 | 8% |
| Soybeans | 259.8 | 254.8 | -2% | 62.8 | 63.6 | 1% | 54 | 18% |
