Agronomist Notes

In the past few days, a small window of opportunity has opened for harvesting some tough wheat, barley and canola. The picture you see here is of a producer near Three Hills taking off barley at 20% moisture. It was going straight to the feed mill to be rolled for cattle feed. Others in the country were busy taking off canola in tough to damp condition. I continue to hear that 20% of the Canadian canola crop is yet to be harvested. That’s about 3.5 million acres- unreal!

I leave for England on Saturday and will be writing the newsletter from across the pond. I plan on beginning my adventure near Lincolnshire, northeast of London. I’m hoping to learn more about canopy management, controlled traffic, intensive wheat, barley and canola production and any other tips and tricks I can pick up along the way.

This week we’ll look at an Aussie-developed seeding technique called skip row seeding. Next, I’ve added a tidbit of trivia on where nitrogen counts in canola and mustard yields as well as an update on recent green seed count in canola. I’ve included two significant charts on storing high moisture canola followed by an article explaining an unusual opportunity to amend soil with elemental sulphur. Bruce Love of Preferred Carbon will give us his thoughts on why carbon policy is all about the money. We’ll finish with fundamental, technical and international crop weather news. Have a great week. SL      

Agronomy

New techniques in row spacing may allow more sunlight capture

During my Nuffield travels to New Zealand, one of the things that intrigued me most was their ability to produce 200+ bushel per  acre wheat and barley yields with what I consider low plant stand densities. One of the main goals in their production system is to allow as much sunlight as possible inside the crop canopy while maintaining as much green leaf area for as long as possible to maximize photosynthesis, and ultimately yield. With this in mind, I’d like to find a way to maintain the benefits of high plant stand densities in our system but also allow maximum sunlight inside the crop canopy.

In my research I’ve come across an interesting practice used in Australia called skip row sowing. The skipped row or row without crop is used as a small reserve area of moisture and nutrients for the adjacent plants. I see it as way to open up the crop canopy and let sunlight in without having to go to rows than 12 inches.   

There are three examples of seed row configurations in the pictures you see on the right. At the top is the conventional seed row that places seed down each row. Next is the single skip row configuration which places seed down every other row. Last, we have the double skip row configuration that places seed down two rows, skips the third row and repeats.

The reason I’m so interested in capturing more sunlight is because our crop canopies are typically pretty dense, especially crops like canola and barley. Canola leaves can be shaded for almost a month during flowering as sunlight reflects off the yellow petals thus preventing sunlight from penetrating the canopy. Some crop canopies are so thick that leaves begin to shade each other even before flowering. As for barley, it tends to tiller early and begins shading the bottom leaves before flag leaf emergence. Research has shown that shading effects can reduce yield.

For example, if you were to shade all the leaves on a mustard or canola plant, (picture a thick canola crop in full bloom reflecting light) you could reduce yield by 20% (Trobish and Schilling, 1969). If you were to remove the leaves of those canola and mustard plants completely, you would reduce yield by 50%. On the extreme end, studies have shown that shading wheat at flowering to just 20% of full sunlight reduced grain yield by 50% (DR Kemp and EE Whingwiri, 1980). Bottom line: the effects of shading on yield can be significant and we may have the opportunity to alter our seed row configurations to maximize the amount of sunlight we can capture in our production systems. SL

Source: Crop Circle Consulting http://www.cropcircleconsulting.com.au/images/userfiles/file/Agronomy%20Fax%20Updates/agronomy%20tech%20tip%208th%20July%202008.pdf
Source: Marschner, Horst, Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 2nd Ed., Academic Press, London, 1995.
Source: http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/PP9800501.htm

Did you know?

One of the main limiting factors effecting seed yield in mustard and canola plants is competition for nitrogen rather than for carbohydrates supplied by the leaves during flowering. Meaning, seed set, seed growth and final seed yield are determined by the size of the nitrogen pool in the vegetative parts and not from the nitrogen found in the soil. Research has shown that additional application of nitrogen at the onset of flowering can increase seed number and final yield.

Recommendation: Take leaf tissue tests at the beginning of flowering to examine nutrient status. If nitrogen is limiting, I would recommend using a liquid nitrogen product called N-Pact 26-0-0 by UAP for its crop safety and efficiency of uptake.  SL

N-Pact 26-0-0 fact sheet http://www.uap.ca/products/documents/npact6158C2408_CANADA.pdf

Update on green seed count in canola: down significantly

For those producers who were waiting on green seed count to come down in canola before harvesting, I have some good news. Several fields in the area that were once testing 6 to 8% green are now testing below 2% green, bringing final grade to a number one. They can give thanks for the ten day stretch of wet weather with snow and rain totaling just over half an inch. Moisture levels have risen to 12.5% to 15% in most cases lately with some producers making deals at the local elevator to dry down canola to 10%, which is roughly $4.00 to $6.00 for every percent above 10% moisture. 

If you remember a few newsletters ago, we did the math on what could be gained on seed weight which was roughly $8.00 a tonne going from 5.5% to 10% moisture. Now that you’ve waited and provided your swaths didn’t blow away you’ve gained an additional $25 a tonne in grade and $8.00 a tonne in weight. Lets’ do another calculation:

Steve’s quick math

From what I’ve heard, drying costs are hovering around the $4.00 to $6.00 for each percent of dry down. If you can bring your moisture down to 13%, it will cost you $12 a tonne to dry the canola, leaving you with $25.00 + $8.00 - $12.00 = $21.00 a tonne gain by leaving your canola in the swath. This was a risky proposition but it looks like it will work out well for some. SL

Facts about storing tough canola

For those of you combining tough canola right now, I thought I’d include a couple of key charts to help set your expectations when storing tough and damp canola.  The first chart below provides a model for storing canola for at least five months at different moisture and temperature levels. For more information go to: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/crop1301. The second chart provides a useful guide to help you understand when canola might begin to develop mould. Some stored grain insects feed off of mould and their activity can cause grain to heat. 

Canola moisture & temperature storage chart

Maximum period (days) without visible "clumping" of seeds by moulds

Source: Alberta Agriculture

Sulphur can be used as a soil amendment

I had a phone call yesterday about an opportunity to help a processing company get rid of 100,000 tonnes of elemental sulphur combined with top soil. They’re doing a feasibility study to look at the cost of application per acre to the farmer, provided that possible contaminates and heavy metals pass the test. It got me thinking about the potential to use the elemental sulphur as a soil amendment on a number of my fields with soil pH’s above 7.5. If possible, I’d like to bring my high pH soils down to a neutral pH range of 6 to 6.5. I’ll explain why further on.  

Benefits of using elemental sulphur as a soil amendment:

• release of phosphate and micronutrients.
• forms gypsum
• less crusting
• faster water penetration
• faster water runoff
• removes sodium
• better aeration of soil

The amending process

Elemental sulphur breaks down through oxidation and is converted from elemental sulphur to plant available sulphate, releasing sulphuric acid. Sulphuric acid then reacts with the free lime in the soil creating carbonic acid and gypsum. The resulting effect is a drop in pH. The amount of sulphur needed to drop pH is not the same for every soil. The effects will differ depending on soil texture (sand, silt, clay). For example, the higher the clay content in a soil, the more elemental sulphur is required to drop the pH. The table below shows the approximate number actual pounds of elemental sulphur needed per acre to drop the pH in a number soil textures and pH ranges. 

Approximate pounds of S (based on 99% S) needed to lower soil pH of one acre-foot of soil.

The same oxidation process that breaks down elemental sulphur creates a reaction in the soil which binds sulphate to calcium to form gypsum also known as calcium sulphate. Gypsum helps to improve soil structure by flocculating, or detaching clay particles in the soil. To describe flocculation, picture two rectangle slabs of clay laying flat on top of each other. Air, nutrients and water cannot get in between the two clay particles. When a soil becomes flocculated, the calcium in gypsum forces the clay rectangles apart and they begin to stand on top of each other. This reaction creates a larger surface area for nutrients to bind to and leaves more room for air and water to move freely in the soil, thereby increasing the cation exchange capacity, aeration, pH and water infiltration rate of a soil.

The gypsum created in the reaction can also help reclaim saline areas. The calcium in gypsum will kick off sodium from the clay particle and into the soil solution where it can be leached out. If you have a high soil pH and a salinity problem, using elemental sulphur may help reclaim the salty area and bring it back into production.

Cost-wise, prilled elemental sulphur is about $0.30 lb and to reclaim soil like I’m suggesting, it would be uneconomical. To run the numbers quickly, dropping the pH in a clay soil from 8 to 6.5 would take 3,500 lbs of sulphur at a cost of $1,057.00 per acre including application. Doesn’t make sense does it? Now if there’s a business that needs to get rid of large quantity of elemental sulphur, it sounds like we may have an opportunity at hand. Here’s hoping. SL   

Carbon News

It’s all about the money when it comes to climate change policy

October 26, 2009- A long time ago a good friend of mine told me if I wanted to understand something just follow the money. So when we look to understand climate change policy, this little piece of wisdom comes in handy. In my opinion, to understand proposed climate change legislation in the US and Canada it’s as simple as understanding where the money goes.

The Canadian situation is relatively simple. We have a whole of lot of natural resources including fossil fuels. Climate change legislation would add a tax on all the stuff we pull out of the ground and sell, since getting it there creates a lot of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. That is not so good for the bottom line. So of course we say we want meaningful polices to deal with climate change and reducing GHG emissions, but imposing these policies on the fossil fuel industry would slow down one of the largest drivers of the Canadian economy. This may only be temporary until technology is developed to deal with emissions from this industry, like carbon capture and store, but why risk it. So it comes as no surprise that as we follow the money, Canada has and will likely continue to resist any climate change policies that place a price on carbon and force large final emitters to reduce.

Turning to the US, climate change legislation has moved along at a fairly quick pace. This June the House of Representatives passed the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” that included climate change legislation in the form of a cap-and-trade system of GHG reductions with targets for 2020 and 2050. More recently the US Senate has created its own version of the House Bill with the Kerry-Boxer “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act” currently in development. Following the money in these pieces of proposed legislation, we find the fossil fuel interests claiming that life as we know it will end with the proposed GHG reductions. Energy prices will sky rocket and those Americans with jobs will face unemployment as the fragile economy comes grinding to a halt. On the other side of this are several very powerful arguments for climate change legislation that may ultimately win out.

Support for US climate change legislation has found some very solid footing when we follow the money. Recently President Obama has begun speaking out in support of the proposed “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act” citing two (2) main arguments: 1) it will transform the US energy system to become cleaner, more efficient and lead to energy independence and, 2) it will foster the creation of new green technology leading to new jobs and opportunities for Americans. A little further investigation into these two basic economic arguments suggests there may be some real money moving this climate change stuff after all.

US Energy Secretary Stephen Chu recently commented that the US has directed approximately $80 billion of the economic stimulus package to energy efficiency and renewable energy. While the primary driver for this may have been putting Americans back to work, it also reflects a growing belief that the US can wean itself off foreign oil, at least from unfriendly countries. As reliance on foreign oil declines, the US will find itself less likely to be engaged in costly military endeavors to secure energy supplies. This could be the “mother” of all cost saving programs.

The New American Foundation, an American Policy think tank, recently examined green investment in the US and produced some interesting statistics from very credible sources. They found that over the last decade the balance of payments in green technology in the US had undergone a huge shift. In 1997 the US exported a net $14.4 billion in green goods and by 2008 that export surplus had turned into an export deficit of $8.9 billion. One of the largest green tech losers was renewable energy which includes solar photovoltaic cells, solar thermal, wind generating sets, hydraulic turbines, ethanol and methanol. Therefore, it would appear that the US has appropriately named their climate change legislation and structured it to reverse the flow of capital and jobs out of the country when it comes to green tech.

When we follow the money the winners and losers in the climate change debate become a little more apparent. In Canada the balance is clearly tipped in favor of the traditional export driven industries and the fossil fuel producers and users in particular. For our neighbours to the south, the outcome is not so clear. As we follow the money the US appears to be prepared to reinvent itself, at least when it comes to energy, and the climate change winners there may be willing to help Canadians, but at a price.

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.

Market News

World Production in Million Metric Tonnes       Oct 09 ending stocks vs five year average

   Production     Ending Stocks     Ending Stocks 

	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: December futures
Crude Oil: December futures

International Crop and Weather News

Western Canada: Damp conditions slow the final stages of spring grain and oilseed harvesting.
United States: On the Plains, rain lingers in eastern portions of Oklahoma and Texas as one storm departs, while cloudiness is increasing across northern areas in advance of another system. Dry weather between storms is allowing for a limited amount of summer crop harvesting and winter wheat planting. In the Corn Belt, rain is confined to southern portions of Missouri and Illinois. Despite mild, dry weather across the remainder of the Midwest, harvest activities remain limited by factors such as wet fields and high moisture content in corn. In the South, rain has halted most fieldwork, including harvest activities in the Delta. On October 25, nearly half (47%) of Mississippi’s cotton and soybeans were rated in very poor to poor condition, up from 6 and 10%, respectively, on September 13.

Middle East: Dry weather favors winter grain planting, although soil moisture is limited for crop establishment.

Europe: Rain boosts reservoir levels and irrigation reserves in previously dry portions of Spain and Italy. Drier weather in Germany and northwestern Poland favors harvesting and winter crop planting. Showers in eastern Europe hamper summer crop harvesting and winter grain planting.

Former Soviet Union: Showers in Belarus, Ukraine, and western Russia provide additional moisture for winter wheat emergence but slow fieldwork, including summer crop harvesting and late winter grain planting. Dry, unseasonably warm conditions in southern Russia favor summer crop harvesting but reduce soil moisture for winter wheat emergence.

East Asia: A freeze in Manchuria ends the growing season. Warm, dry weather favors winter wheat and rapeseed planting on the North China Plain and in the Yangtze Valley.

Southeast Asia: Tropical Cyclone Lupit passes north of the Philippines, allowing drier weather for rice harvesting.

South Asia: Dry weather throughout India favors summer crop harvesting but reduces soil moisture for winter rapeseed planting.

Australia: In southeastern Australia, warm, sunny weather and adequate soil moisture aids filling winter grains. Persistent dryness in Western Australia slightly reduces the yield potential of immature winter grains. In east-central Australia, very warm, continued dry weather remains unfavorable for summer crops.

South America: Conditions remain favorable for soybean planting in central Brazil, but unseasonable wetness continues to plague maturing wheat farther south. Rain improves summer grain and oilseed prospects in Argentina’s eastern farming areas.

South Africa: Early conditions are mostly favorable for summer crop planting in the eastern corn belt.