Green Manure Demonstration Year 2 Wheat...

30 North Peace Applied Research Association—2010 Annual Report

Background:

Including green manure in crop rotations adds nitrogen and organic matter to the soil. It helps protect

the soil from erosion, retains moisture and is an alternative to conventional summer fallow. The main

benefit of using a legume or pulse for the green manure crop is the nitrogen fixing capabilities in which

nitrogen from the atmosphere is converted into a form that is available for other plants.

Objectives:

• To demonstrate the use of different annual pulses and legumes as a green manure crop

• To demonstrate the use of pulses and legumes to extend crop rotations

• To demonstrate alternative methods to tillage for incorporating the green manure crop

under a zero-till regime

Materials and Methods:

In 2009 six different annual pulses and legumes were

seeded: Midas peas, LS 0036 RR soybeans, Snowbird

fababeans, Hairy vetch, Fenugreek, and Berseem

clover. A chem-fallow plot and canola crop were

included as check strips. The pulses and legumes were

rolled at flowering with NPARA’s custom built crop

roller to obtain plant to soil contact. The chevron

pattern of the blades on the roller serve to roll and

crimp the plants promoting plant to soil contact.

A combination of drought and the crop roller not being

heavy enough, resulted in the crops not flattening or being ‘pushed’ into the ground so inadequate

plant to soil contact was achieved. The Hairy vetch produced a massive amount of plant material so it

was mowed on September 15, 2009 to facilitate seeding in the spring.

Green Manure DemonstrationGreen Manure DemonstrationGreen Manure DemonstrationGreen Manure Demonstration Year 2 Wheat CropYear 2 Wheat CropYear 2 Wheat CropYear 2 Wheat Crop

Seed donation from: Ed Schmidt

Figure 1. Crop roller built by Ian Sparshu.

Figure 2. Soil Nitrogen Levels Obtained in the Spring of 2010

North Peace Applied Research Association—2010 Annual Report 31

The canola was harvested September 18, 2009. Each treatment area was soil sampled on April 19,

2010. On May 19, 2010 the entire area was seeded to Harvest wheat at 140 lb/ac using the zero-till

Seed Hawk drill.

Results and Discussion:

The area was difficult to seed with the Seed-Hawk drill as the hairy vetch and pea material piled up in

front of the shanks. The resultant piles may have adversely affected emergence. The soil test results

indicated that nitrogen levels were highest where the Hairy vetch was grown and second highest for

the chem-fallow treatment. Nitrogen levels were lowest where the fenugreek and Berseem clover

were grown.

A single strip of wheat was harvested with a plot combine to represent yields for pulse/legume crop

areas. The yields did not reflect the soil nitrogen levels. Yields were well below average for wheat in

all the 2009 seeded pulse/legume crops plots due to drought conditions.

The wheat yielded highest overall when it followed peas in rotation and the second highest yield

following soybeans. The lowest yields were observed where the Hairy vetch, Berseem clover and

chem-fallow plots were grown.

The area will be seeded to a monoculture crop again in 2011 with reduced fertilizer levels to continue

to monitor the impact of the green manure crops.

Figure 3. 2010 wheat crop yields for corresponding 2009 pulse/legume crops.


Objectives:

• To demonstrate the use of different pulse and legume crops as green manure

• To demonstrate alternative methods to discing or ploughing for incorporating the green

manure crop in a zero-till regime


A pre-seed burn-off with CleanStart was conducted on May 17, 2010. Fertilizer applied 50 lb/ac of 11-

51-0-0 and 46 lb/ac of 46-0-0 on canola plot only.


The plots were rolled at mid to late flowering, the peas flattened well, however the other crops did

not. The ground was very dry and hard, plus the crop roller was not heavy enough so the plant mate-

rial was not adequately flattened or pushed into the ground to get good plant to soil contact. The hairy

vetch did not emerge and the fenugreek had very poor emergence. Dandelions were a problem across

all plots. The area will be seeded to wheat in 2011 and yield data collected.

Annual Legumes & Pulses for Green ManureAnnual Legumes & Pulses for Green ManureAnnual Legumes & Pulses for Green ManureAnnual Legumes & Pulses for Green Manure Seed donations from: Ed Schmidt, Friendly Acres, Johnson Seeds, Pioneer

Figure 1. AC Greenfix chickling vetch. Figure 2. Agassiz peas after rolling.

Crop/Variety Seeding Date Seeding Rate Seeding Depth

Snowbird Fababeans May 11 266 lb/ac 2.5”

Agassiz peas May 12 216 lb/ac 1”

LS 0036 RR Soybeans June 3 112 lb/ac 1”

45H26 RR canola May 28 8 lb/ac ¼ “

Berseem clover June 4 8 lb/ac ¼ “

Hairy vetch June 2 22 lb/ac ¾ “

Chickling vetch (AC Greenfix) June 2 69 lb/ac ¾ “

Fenugreek June 2 30 lb/ac ¾ “

Table 1. Seeding information


Objectives:

• To assess the control of volunteer Roundup Ready canola

Methods and Materials:

Herbicide application was conducted on May 12 with the trial split into two parts: PART A: Pre-Seed Herbicide Options Prior to Seeding Field Pea

Herbicides applied:

• Roundup Transorb HC

• Roundup Transorb HC plus Express

• Roundup Transorb HC plus HEAT

• CleanStart

• Check

PART B: Pre-Seed Herbicide Options Prior to Seeding Wheat

Herbicides applied:

• Roundup Transorb HC

• Roundup Transorb HC plus MCPA Ester

• Roundup Transorb HC plus HEAT

• Roundup Transorb HC plus Express

• Roundup Transorb HC plus Express Pro

• PrePass

• Pre-Pare

• Check

The plot area was seeded on May 14, 2010:

PART A: was seeded to Meadow field pea at a rate of 182 lb/ac with 50 lb/ac of 11-52-0-0.

PART B: was seeded to AC Splendor wheat at a rate of 110 lb/ac with 50 lb/ac of 11-52-0-0 and 148 lb/

ac of 46-0-0.

An in-crop herbicide was applied on June 10: the field peas were sprayed with Viper and the wheat was

sprayed with Prestige.


Rating were conducted in May and June to visually assess the herbicide effectiveness. Results were not

available at the time of writing this report - the results will be published in the spring newsletter.

PrePrePrePre----Seed BurnSeed BurnSeed BurnSeed Burn----Off Herbicide Trial Off Herbicide Trial Off Herbicide Trial Off Herbicide Trial Funded by: Agricultural Opportunity Fund

Co-operator: Calvin Yoder, AARD

Seed donations from: Chris Lindberg and Lanny Soroka

Figure 1. Conducting visual assessment

of herbicide activity in May, 2010.


Lentil/Pulse Variety DemonstrationLentil/Pulse Variety DemonstrationLentil/Pulse Variety DemonstrationLentil/Pulse Variety Demonstration Co-operators: Garry Ropchan and Alberta Agriculture

Written by: Garry Ropchan

Background:

Peace Region annual crops have historically consisted of a limited number of cropping choices, these

being hard red spring wheat, feed and malt barley, Polish and Argentine canola and feed and milling

oats. Potential annual crops to this area are limited to a great extent by their growing season, that is

do they have the ability to mature given the frost free period that is experienced in the Peace Region.

One of the ongoing targets for plant breeders, while frequently targeting boosts in crop yield, is a re-

duction in the growing season of new varieties. It therefore presents an opportunity to be evaluating

their progress to ascertain if new crop species have the potential to be grown here. It is an excellent

opportunity for organizations such as NPARA to examine the potential challenges and pitfalls associ-

ated with some of these new crops to give local producers guidance in identifying management strate-

gies necessary to be successful in producing an uncommon new crop species. Producers should beware of several different, important fac-

tors:

1) where can I source the seed?

2) agronomic management – fertility, inoculants and pest

control options and challenges.

3) marketing – if a new crop can be grown, who will buy it

and at what price?

These questions require careful thought by the producer prior

to embarking on the road to produce a new crop.

There have been some significant steps forward; Peace Region

producers have had success in producing durum wheat, flax

and probably the best example, the success with which produc-

ers incorporated field pea production. Pulse crops like field pea

offered an opportunity to producers to produce a crop for

which there was a demand and existing marketing system. Well developed agronomic strategies had

been indentified and made field pea production less of a challenge than it might have been. While ini-

tial field pea varieties had some agronomic challenges (standability) and pest control product selection

was poor (herbicides) over time both of these challenges were met and overcome. In other parts of Western Canada there are a broader range of pulse crops under production. These

include pulse crops such as chickpea, soybean, fababean and lentil. One of the considerations for a pro-

ducer in undertaking the challenge of evaluating a new crop is how to collect meaningful data while

not having to undertake significant risk and expense in the process. This is a role that organizations

such as NPARA and CPCS are well experienced to undertake. Objectives:

The objective of this trial was to evaluate a number of potential new pulse crops for the adaptability in

the Peace Region and to see what challenges producers might face if considering them for production.

Two field pea crops were grown along with eight potential pulse crops to give some perspective to the

project.

Figure 1. Pulse variety site near Grimshaw.



2010 Pulse Crop Trial

Grimshaw Area NE 12 83 24 W5 -CPCS Agronomic Research Farm

A field scale, replicated trial was located on NE 12 83 24 W5, 1 mile west of Grimshaw along Secondary

Highway 285. This site was located on a orthic dark grey wooded sandy loam (Belloy/Berwyn/Albright

complex). CPCS would like to thank Dan Ropchan for providing the site for this trial. A randomized complete block plot design with 4 replicates used and 10 different treatments compared

The 0-6” soil test revealed the following information:

The target yield of 40 bu/ac of pulses called for: 0 lb N, 15 lb P205, 20 lb K2O and 0 lb S /ac. The previ-

ous crop was Roundup Ready canola.

A burn-off herbicide treatment consisting of the recommended rate of Clean Start were applied on

May 25th in a water volume of 5 gal/ac. Clean start offers some opportunity to control volunteer ca-

nola while there are no carryover issues for herbicide sensitive crops like pulses. The major weed no-

ticed was volunteer canola.

Seeding occurred on May 26th using a Fabro small plot seed drill equipped with Adam-Jet hoe openers.

There were no problems encountered with the seeding operation. Seeding depth was 0.5” and the

seeding rate based on the pre-supplied volume of seed provided to CPCS. The fertility program con-

sisted of a blend that provided 0-15-20-0. The appropriate inoculant was used with each pulse species.

The fertilizer was deep banded at the time of seeding 1.5” below the seed row.

The in-crop weed control program consisted of the recommended rate of Basagran applied in a water

volume of 10 gal/ac applied on July 7th. The major weed at this time was volunteer canola. The pulse

crops were at the 2 to 5 node stage. The Basagran was only applied to the soybean (Apollo and Or-

ford), fababean (Snowbird) and field pea (Cooper and Meadow). There were no herbicide options for

Crop Variety

Field Pea, Green Cooper

Field Pea, Yellow Meadow

Chickpea, Kabuli Amit

Chickpea, Desi CDC Vanguard

Chickpea, forage 8923

Soybean Orford

Soybean Apollo

Lentil, Small Red RedBerry

Lentil, Extra Small Red RedBow

Fababean Snowbird

Table 1. Pulse crop varieties seeded in 2010

Nitrogen: 107 lb/ac, marginal pH: 5.6, acidic

Phosphorus: 79 lb/ac, optimal Organic Matter:

5.3%

Potassium: 345 lb/ac, optimal EC

0.46, good

Sulfur:

65 lb/ac, optimal


controlling volunteer in chickpea and lentil crops. This was to prove to be a major handicap.

Throughout the growing season the pulse crops were experiencing both heat and drought stress. Out-

side of a single precipitation on May 23rd/24 resulting in 0.7” of water from rain and snow, the remain-

ing 90 days only saw a further 28mm of water, usually in 1 to 2mm events.

Table 2. New Pulse Crop Evaluation, CPCS Agronomic Research Site, Grimshaw, 2010

*means within the column followed by different letters were significantly different at P=0.0000


In 2010 there were highly significant differences in yield (P=0.0000) of the treatments.

Conclusion:

The 2010 trial illustrated that there are significant challenges to growing new pulse crops. The lack of

water during the growing season severely hampered crop growth at this site. However, while there

was some potential for the field peas to generate some revenue, this does not appear to be the case

for the other crops. The chickpea and lentil crops suffered severely from the combined drought and the

lack of effective weed control options.

Producers must consider several factors:

1) Previous crop. What will the most common volunteer crop be where the pulses will be seeded

and are there potential herbicides available?

2) herbicide carryover. Many of these new pulse crops are very sensitive to herbicide residues. Ex-

amining field records going back three years will be required to see if the field is suitable.

3) Marketing. Who will buy your crop? Can you market it yourself? What crop quality issues are

there – weathering, staining, inseparable seeds/contaminants?

4) While yield data was presented in bu/ac with crops like lentils they are actually given in lb/ac.

The lentil crops in this trial produced a yield of 252 and 126 lb/ac (common prices seem to be

$0.15 /lb). Common lentil yields seem to be more in the 1500 lb/ac range.

It would be advantageous to see how these pulse crops would perform with a greater volume of water during the growing season and with success in reducing weed pressure.

Crop Variety Yield bu/ac*

Field Pea, Green Cooper 10.4 b

Field Pea, Yellow Meadow 16.8a

Chickpea, Kabuli Amit 5.9 c

Chickpea, Desi CDC Vanguard 4.1 d

Chickpea, forage 8923 3.7 d

Soybean Orford 0.7 fg

Soybean Apollo 0.1 g

Lentil, Small Red RedBerry 4.2 d

Lentil, Extra Small Red RedBow 2.1 e

Fababean Snowbird 1.3 ef

P 0.0000

CV 11.6%

The center strip of each plot was

straight cut using a Hege 125

small plot combine on Septem-

ber 17th. The samples were

hand cleaned . The results are

given in Table 2.


Water Quality Water Quality Water Quality Water Quality ---- Dugout Testing ProgramDugout Testing ProgramDugout Testing ProgramDugout Testing Program

Funded by: Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture (AESA)

Background:

In Alberta, the majority of people (approximately 90%) get their drinking water from municipal systems ap-

proved by Alberta Environment. The remaining Albertans, including many First Nations and rural communi-

ties, obtain water from private systems such as wells, water co-ops, by hauling water or from surface water

bodies.

It should always be assumed that surface waters are unsafe to drink unless treated. The main reason for

treating or disinfecting public water supplies is to kill pathogens. Pathogens are disease-causing micro-

organisms that can be transmitted by water. Some examples of water-borne diseases and disease-causing

organisms are: cholera, typhoid, E. coli, Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Even a mountain stream not disturbed

by human activities could contain naturally occurring parasites, such as those from wildlife feces.

Albertans who get their drinking water from sources such as groundwater wells, dugouts, or cisterns are

responsible for making sure their water is safe. Individuals are responsible for having their water tested

regularly, and treating it based on water quality reports. Public health laboratories provide Albertans with

bacteriological water analysis services for public health purposes. Alberta Health and Wellness funds these

facilities and access is provided through Alberta Health Services. A handling fee may be required. Private

laboratories can also perform testing for bacteriological as well as routine chemistry and trace metals.

Water quality measurements fall into three broad categories and can be used together to describe the over-

all quality or “health” of aquatic ecosystems:

Physical characteristics such as temperature, colour, suspended solids, and turbidity.

Chemical characteristics such as nutrients, minerals, metals, dissolved oxygen, organic compounds, and

a wide range of pollutants (e.g., pesticides, hydrocarbons, pharmaceuticals, PCBs).

Biological characteristics such as the types and quantities of bacteria, protozoan parasites, algae, inver-

tebrates, plants, and other animals in water.

Objectives:

• To promote safe, secure rural drinking water sources

• To promote the importance of water quality testing

• To analyze the safety of dugouts as a drinking water source

• To develop a history of data


In mid-December 2010, 16 water sources (dugouts) were tested for quality. Most of the samples were col-

lected from the kitchen tap with the exception of two samples collected from livestock watering sites and

one collected from a shop tap. Sample bottles were obtained from the analysis lab and proper sampling

techniques conducted including adding preservatives as required. Water lines were flushed before the sam-

ple was collected to ensure a fresh sample. All water collected was cold water and was put in insulated

coolers immediately after collection to maintain the temperature. The samples were sent to the lab on the

same day they were collected; samples were submitted to ALS Laboratories for analysis of metals, bacteria

as well as a routine analysis.


All results are in (mg/L) unless otherwise indicated. Sample sites are represented by numbers one through

16 with each number corresponding to a specific site; due to privacy issues location/ownership information

Whether managing a livestock

operation, growing grain or sup-

porting a farmhouse, water is a

necessary component of any

agricultural operation.


will not be released.

There are no recommended

maximum acceptable con-

centrations for aluminum,

calcium, magnesium and

potassium, as there is no

evidence of adverse health

effects associated with

these nutrients.

Mercury, antimony, cad-

mium, chromium, selenium,

and silver were all below

traceable levels for all sam-

ples submitted and there-

fore are not of concern.

The aesthetic objective for man-

ganese in drinking water is less

than or equal to 0.05 mg/L. The

maximum acceptable concentra-

tion (MAC) for arsenic in drinking

water is 0.010 mg/L; every effort

should be made to maintain arse-

nic levels as low as reasonably

achievable. Arsenic is classified as

a human carcinogen. The MAC for

barium in drinking water is 1.0

mg/L.

The interim acceptable concentra-

tion for boron in drinking water is

5 mg/L; all samples collected fell

well below this concentration. The

aesthetic objective for copper in

drinking water is less than or

equal to 1.0 mg/L; this was set to

ensure palatability and to mini-

mize staining of laundry and

plumbing fixtures. The analysis

did not include pH; capturing pH

will indicated if the cooper is

naturally occurring or if the ele-

vated levels in several of the sam-

ples are caused by the corrosive

potential of the water on plumb-

ing.

The MAC for lead in drinking wa-

Figure 1. Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium, Sodium

Figure 2. Boron, Cooper, Manganese, Zinc

Figure 3. Aluminum, Arsenic, Barium, Lead, Uranium, Iron.


ter is 0.010 mg/L; lead has been

classified as a possible carcinogen

to humans though there is inade-

quate data to fully support this.

The interim maximum acceptable

concentration for uranium in drink-

ing water is 0.02 mg/L. The aes-

thetic objective for iron in drinking

water is less than or equal to 0.3

mg/L; at concentrations above this

iron can stain laundry and plumb-

ing fixtures and produce undesir-

able tastes in beverages.

The aesthetic objective for zinc is

less than or equal to 5.0 mg/L. Wa-

ter containing zinc at concentrations above this tend to be opalescent, develop a greasy film when boiled

and have an undesirable astringent

taste. The aesthetic objective of

sodium is less than or equal to 200

mg/L; the taste of drinking water is

generally considered offensive at

sodium levels above this concen-

tration.

The aesthetic objective for total

dissolved solids (TDS) is less than

or equal to 500 mg/L, at higher

levels excessive hardness, unpalat-

ability, mineral disposition and

corrosion may occur. The most

important aspect of TDS with re-

spect to drinking water is its effect

on taste. The palatability of drink-

ing water with a TDS less than 600

mg/L is generally considered to be

good, while levels greater than

1200 mg/L are unpalatable to most

consumers.

The measurement for turbidity is

nephelometric turbidity units

(NTU) and is measured with a tur-

bidimeter. Where possible, filtra-

tion systems should be designed

and operated to reduce turbidity

levels as low as possible, with a

treated water turbidity target of

less than 0.1 NTU at all times. Ex-

cessive turbidity has often been Figure 6. Note: Sample #4 and #15 were obtained from livestock drink-

ing sites.

Figure 5. Turbidity.

Figure 4. Total Dissolved Solids.


associated with unacceptable tastes and odours. Turbidity in excess of 5.0 NTU also becomes visually ap-

parent and may be objected to by consumers. For aesthetic purposes, turbidity should not exceed 5.0 NTU

within the distribution system, especially at the point of consumption. In surface waters and groundwater

under the influence of surfaces waters, the particulate matter that creates turbidity can contain toxins, har-

bour micro-organisms and interfere with disinfection. In addition, organic matter in the water may react

with disinfectants such as chlorine to create by-products. These by –products may cause adverse health

effects.

The maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) of Escherichia coli in public, semi-public, and private drink-

ing water systems is none detectable per 100 mL. Testing for E. coli should be carried out in all drinking wa-

ter systems. The number, frequency, and location of samples for E. coli testing will vary according to the

type and size of the system and jurisdictional requirements.

In semi-public and private drinking water systems, such as rural schools and homes, total coliforms can pro-

vide clues to areas of system vulnerability, indicating source contamination, as well as regrowth and/or im-

proper treatment (if used). If they are detected, the local authority may issue boil water advisory and rec-

ommend corrective actions. E. coli is the definitive indicator of recent faecal contamination in drinking wa-

ter systems and is therefore a good indicator of the possible presence of enteric pathogens of human health

concern. Consequently, detection of E. coli in any drinking water system is unacceptable.

The maximum acceptable concentration of total Coliforms in water leaving a treatment plant in a public

system, and throughout semi-public and private supply systems is none detectable per 100 mL. Total Coli-

forms are easily destroyed during disinfection. For distribution systems in public supplies where fewer than

10 samples are collected in a given sampling period, no sample should contain total Coliforms bacteria. In

distribution systems where greater than 10 samples are collected in a given sampling period, no consecutive

samples from the same site or not more than 10% of samples should show the presence of total Coliforms

bacteria. Testing for total Coliforms should be carried out in all drinking water systems. The number, fre-

quency, and location of samples for total Coliforms testing will vary according to the type and size of the

system and jurisdictional requirements.

Recommendations:

The best way to make sure drinking water supplies are kept clean, safe and reliable is to take a preventive

risk management approach. This means understanding each water supply from its beginning in nature to

where it reaches you, the consumer. This understanding--about the water's characteristics, the ways it

could become contaminated, and the type of treatment it needs--comes from collecting and studying data.

The maximum acceptable concentration of total Coliforms in water leaving a treatment plant in a public

system, and throughout semi-public and private supply systems is none detectable per 100 mL. Total Coli-

forms are easily destroyed during disinfection. For distribution systems in public supplies where fewer than

10 samples are collected in a given sampling period, no sample should contain total Coliforms bacteria. In

distribution systems where greater than 10 samples are collected in a given sampling period, no consecutive

samples from the same site or not more than 10% of samples should show the presence of total Coliforms

bacteria. Testing for total Coliforms should be carried out in all drinking water systems. The number, fre-

quency, and location of samples for total Coliforms testing will vary according to the type and size of the

system and jurisdictional requirements.

Regular water testing alerts you to (potential) problems with your drinking water.


GROWTH & SURVIVAL RATE OF SHELTERBELT TREES IN GROWTH & SURVIVAL RATE OF SHELTERBELT TREES IN GROWTH & SURVIVAL RATE OF SHELTERBELT TREES IN GROWTH & SURVIVAL RATE OF SHELTERBELT TREES IN NORTHERN ALBERTANORTHERN ALBERTANORTHERN ALBERTANORTHERN ALBERTA

Funded by the Greencover Canada/Alberta Technical Assistance Program,

Agriculture Opportunity Fund, Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture & Prairie

Shelterbelt Program, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada

Background:

Trials conducted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s (AAFC) Shelterbelt Center have illustrated the

benefits of yard shelterbelts for reducing home heating costs. Research comparisons found that homes

on sites protected by shelterbelts have a reduction in fuel use by 18-25%. Field shelterbelts will reduce

wind and soil erosion and increase snow retention resulting in increased soil moisture. Shelterbelts

also provide habitat for diversification of wildlife, encouraging nesting sites and hunting habitat for

raptors (birds of prey) which will help control agricultural pests. Additional benefits include wood for

fuel and depending on the species of tree, fruits for human consumption.

Careful consideration is required to select the appropriate species for each shelterbelt design and

planting site. A lot of work goes into planning, planting and maintaining a shelterbelt, so knowing what

species grow well in this area is helpful.

Objectives:

� Demonstrate the use of plastic mulch

� Demonstration of varieties available for shelterbelts

� Demonstration of recommended spacing and design


The shelterbelt project was started in 2007; 14 varieties of trees were planted. Sheep’s fescue was

broadcast seeded between the tree rows after the mulch was applied. Lontrel was sprayed, using a

shrouded sprayer in the fall of 2007 on the established Sheep’s fescue. In 2008 this project was

continued and the shelterbelt now has over 1200 trees representing 43 varieties. Twenty of these

varieties were obtained through the PFRA Shelterbelt Tree Program and 23 varieties were generously

donated by Alberta Nurseries in Bowden.

Site preparation in 2008 included tilling the site using NPARA’s Kubota lawn and garden tractor. The

trees were planted in mid May and early June, and the plastic mulch was applied within a week of

planting. Round-up and Lontrel was backpack sprayed between the new tree rows for weed control

and in late October Sheep’s fescue was broadcasted between the new rows. Mowing was conducted as

required to assist in weed control.

Figure 1. Shelterbelt tree demonstration in fall of 2010.


Part A: Survival and Growth Rate Objectives:

▪ Determine survival rate and winter hardiness of trees and shrubs used in shelterbelts

▪ Determine which varieties are fast

growing and easy to establish


Survival rates and average heights have been

measured annually in the fall starting in 2007.

Please note that dead trees are replaced annually

which has an effect on the minimum, average

heights and percent survivability.


2007-2008: In both 2007 and 2008 Okanese poplar

showed the greatest growth rate reaching on average 82.5” by year two. In 2008 herbicide drift

occurred in the spring having a detrimental effect on the survival and growth rates of the Saskatoon,

Blueberry, Cranberry, Raspberry, Chokecherry, and Pincherry stock. Assiniboine poplar had the lowest

survival rate at 67% in 2008.

2010: In the fall of 2010, height measurements were taken of all 2007 planted trees. Buffaloberry,

choke cherry, Manitoba maple, and Acute willow all exhibited 100% survival and Walker poplar had the

lowest survival rate.

The hybrid poplar are proving to be the fastest growing of all the 2007 planted trees with all varieties

displaying average heights of over two meters. The Okanese and Walker poplar had the highest

average heights.

Figure 2. Shelterbelt tree demonstration fall of 2010.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Buff

alob

erry

chok

e ch

erry

Sea

buck

thor

n

Villo

sa L

ilac

Man

itoba

map

le

Gre

en a

sh

Acut

e w

illow

Larc

h

Kate

pwa

popl

ar

Wal

ker

popl

ar

Assi

nibo

ine

popl

ar

Oka

nese

pop

lar

Hill

pop

lar

% S

urv

ival

heig

ht (c

m)

2007 planted trees - Average Heights and Survival Rates

minimum height (cm) maximum height (cm) average height (cm) % Survival


-50

0

50

100

150

200

Bu

ffa

lob

err

y

cho

ke c

he

rry

Sea

bu

ckth

orn

Vil

losa

Lil

ac

Ma

nit

ob

a m

ap

le

Gre

en

ash

Acu

te w

illo

w

Larc

h

Ka

tep

wa

po

pla

r

Wa

lke

r p

op

lar

Ass

inib

oin

e p

op

lar

Oka

ne

se p

op

lar

Hil

l po

pla

r

he

igh

t (c

m)

2007 planted trees - Yearly Average Growth Rates

07-08 Growth 08-09 Growth 09-10 growth

For Manitoba maple, Green ash, and Assiniboine poplar the growth rate bars which extend below zero

indicate a year in which the average growth/height is less than the previous year. This reduction in

growth and overall height may be caused by a combination of ungulate grazing, mortality and

replacement of the dead trees, and pruning.

Part B: Ungulate Deterrent Product Demo

In the fall of 2010 Plantskydd was applied to half of the trees in five rows of poplar trees (Katepwa,

Walker, Assinoine, Okanese and Hill). Plantskydd provides trees with up to six months of protection

from ungulates and rodents over winter. Plantskydd is manufactured in the United States and is made

from all natural ingredients including dried blood (porcine and/or bovine), vegetable oil and water and

repels animals by emitting an odor. For this demonstration the soluble powder concentrate was used

and sprayed on the trees.

The effectiveness of the product will be evaluated in the spring of 2011.


Background:

Swath grazing can be used to extend the grazing season and reduce costs for feed, labour, manure han-

dling and corral cleaning.

There are many variables to be considered when growing a crop for swath grazing: time of seeding,

swathing and grazing; crop selection; and variety selection. There is variation between crops and also

between varieties in terms of livestock preference and nutrition.

Objectives:

• To assess the nutritive value of different crops and varieties for swath grazing and assess

palatability


The demonstration was seeded on June 10, 2010 at Michael and Lorna Scott’s near Warrensville, AB.

Swath Grazing DemonstrationSwath Grazing DemonstrationSwath Grazing DemonstrationSwath Grazing Demonstration Co-operator: Michael and Lorna Scott, Warrensville, AB

Seed donations from: Northstar Seed Ltd via Friendly Acres, Solick Seeds

• Golden German millet

• Siberian millet

• Crown millet

• Red Proso millet

• Mustang oats

• Everleaf oats

• Baler oats

• Triticale

• AC Lacombe barley

Figure 1. Swath grazing palatability demo: triticale.

Figure 2. Varieties for swath grazing after being swathed.


Each variety represented

approximately one acre:

Swathing occurred at the

hard dough stage of barley

and the milk stage of the

oats. Samples were col-

lected and submitted for

nutritive analysis on Sep-

tember 22, 2010.The varie-

ties were seeded north-

south and electric fencing

ran east-west dividing the

quarter into smaller pad-

docks. This limited the area

the cattle had access too,

however, the herd did have

equal access to all of the

crops at the same time.


Palatability was assessed by

visually assessing which crops

and varieties the cattle

grazed first when allowed

into a new area and the

amount of waste/residue.

The Red Proso millet had the

highest crude protein and the

Golden German millet has

the second highest level of

crude protein.

Sundre barley had the high-

est total digestible nutri-

ents with Lacombe barley

exhibiting the second high-

est levels.

Please note that yields

were not measured.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Crown

Millet

Everleaf

oats

Golden

German

Millet

Lacombe

Barley

Mustang

oats

Red

Proso

Millet

Siberian

millet

Sundre

Barley

Triticale

Crude Protein (%) Digestible Energy (Mcal/kg)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Crown Millet

Everleaf oats

Golden German

Millet

Lacombe Barley

Mustang oats

Red Proso Millet

Siberian millet

Sundre Barley

Triticale

Calcium (%) Phosphorus (%)

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

Crown Millet

Everleaf oats

Golden German

Millet

Lacombe Barley

Mustang oats

Red Proso Millet

Siberian millet

Sundre Barley

Triticale

Total Digestible Nutrients (%)


Objectives:

• To establish a side-by-side demonstration of perennial forage varieties.


A pre-burn was conducted on June 9, 2010 using CleanStart. The varieties were seeded at ¼ “ depth

and fertility included 50 lb/ac of 11-51-0-0. The plots measure 17.8’ x 50’.

Varietal Descriptions:

ALFALFAS

Standard alfalfas: AC Grazeland, Algonquin, Peace - have a tap to branching root system, a broader crown, the flowers range in colour from purple to blue to yellow to white. Demonstrate good cold tolerance and drought tolerance and have early to medium fall dormancy. They are winter hardy to very winter hardy and will tolerate drier growing conditions than the Flemish types.

Siberian alfalfa: Anik (Yellow blossom) - Siberian origin, has fine, somewhat prostrate stems and small, narrow leaves and the crown is deep set with a widely branching root system. Has very slow regrowth following cutting and is very cold tolerant and winter hardy. Very early fall dormancy.

Hybrid alfalfa: Hybriforce 400 - Establishment, spring growth, recovery after cutting, and winter hardiness could all be expected to improve with the hybrids. It is still too early to tell if this is actually the case under Alberta environments but in theory it is possible. Hybrid alfalfa appears to hold some promise for improving alfalfa yields. In the future we can probably expect to see more hybrid alfalfa seed available for Alberta producers to try on their operations.

Dryland alfalfa: Rangelander - developed from Siberian and Standard type crosses. Develops horizontal root stalks from the main roots and has shoots capable of developing into

Perennial Forage DemonstrationPerennial Forage DemonstrationPerennial Forage DemonstrationPerennial Forage Demonstration Seed donations from: Pickseed, Brett Young

Figure 1. AC Grazeland alfalfa.

Forage Seeding Date Seeding Rate Inoculant

All alfalfas except 2220 June 16/17, 2010 8 lb/ac Nitragin “A”

2220 Alfalfa Blend July 5, 2010 8 lb/ac Nitragin “A”

Alsike & White clover June 16/17, 2010 5 lb/ac Nitragin “B”

Red clover June 16/17, 2010 6 lb/ac Nitragin “B”

Sweet clover June 16/17, 2010 9 lb/ac Nitragin “A”

Kura clover June 16/17, 2010 9 lb/ac RLR

Birdsfoot Trefoil June 25, 2010 9 lb/ac Royal

Cicer milkvetch June 25, 2010 13 lb/ac Royal

Sainfoin June 25, 2010 30 lb/ac Royal

Table 1. Seeding information


independent plants; may grow from horizontal root stalks. Has early fall dormancy.

2220 Blend : is for variable conditions, is adapted to all regions and consists of 35% Magnum 3801-Wet

(branched root) more adapted to poorly drained soils; 25% Survivor (sunken crown) deeper set crown protects it from harsh winters; 20% Caribou (tap root) deep tap root generates a more resilient plant with higher yields; 15% Adrenalin (multifoliate); and 5% Spyder (creeping root) strong dormancy, excellent winter hardiness and improved disease resistance.

Vision – suited to harsh winters and adapts well to multi-cut hay/silage systems. Has increased stand longevity. Prefers well drained soils, has tolerance to saline and alkaline soils and excellent winter hardiness.

53Q30 - is known for high consistent growth from spring to fall. Excellent forage yield potential. Good

yield stability over many environments with excellent winter hardiness. Impressive field appearance.

53V52 - A very winter hardy, multiple pest-resistant alfalfa variety. This product delivers dependable yield and Relative Feed Value. Exceptional overall root rot resistance package. Good field appearance. Cicer Milkvetch – long-lived perennial and once established is very competitive. It has a vigorous deep root system that can expand to 120 cm in diameter. Has long establishment time and is best adapted to soils with moderate to high amounts of moisture, will tolerate some drought but not flooding. It is more winter hardy and cold tolerant than alfalfa. Sainfoin – is a long-lived perennial under dryland conditions with deep tap root. Has good drought tolerance, and grows on well drained soils with a high pH (7.0 to above 8.5). Seedlings are not competitive and is less hardy than alfalfa under the same conditions. Will not tolerate flooding, waterlogged soils or a high water table or heavy grazing. Birdsfoot Trefoil - a potentially long-lived perennial that has small weak roots during the seedling stage. It can develop a strong deep tap root system with many side branches as a mature plant. It tolerates water-logged soils and withstands grazing better than other legumes. Somewhat tolerant to flooding and very tolerant to moderately acidic soils. It takes a long time to establish and does not tolerate competition, especially from taller plants such as bromegrass or orchardgrass . CLOVERS

Sweetclover - adapted to a wide range of soil and climatic conditions; will grow on sandy loam, clay loam and grey wooded soils, winter hardy and drought tolerant. Is well adapted to neutral, saline and alkaline soils and an ideal crop for reclamation of mechanically disturbed sites and problem areas. It has some salinity tolerance and is very sensitive to acidic soils. Will not tolerate flooding or water logged soils. White clover - may be a short to long-lived perennial. It adapts to a wide range of growing conditions, however cultivated sub-species cannot withstand overgrazing or being clipped short (below 8 cm). Produces creeping, above ground stems called stolons; roots can develop from nodes located on stolons. Has no upright stems. It is best adapted to well drained loam and clay loam soils and does not tolerate saline or alkaline conditions.

Figure 2. Cicer milkvetch.

Figure 3. Sweet clover.


Red Clover – a short- lived perennial with a hairy and leafy stem that is more erect than alsike clover in growth habit. Has watermark on leaves and a tap root with side branches. It is adapted best to areas with cool, moderate temperatures and moist conditions such as the gray wooded soils. It will tolerate acidic soils with a pH as low as 5.0, not adapted to poorly drained soils and does not tolerate saline soils. Alsike clover – a short-lived perennial that blooms throughout the season. Deep roots with many branches, but the plants are not creeping. It is adapted to low moist areas and withstands spring flooding for up to six weeks . It is extremely cold and frost tolerant - very winter hardy and well suited to acid soils (pH <6.0). Alsike clover thrives on many of the grey wooded soils and tolerates alkaline conditions. It does not tolerate saline soil conditions or drought and high temperatures. Results and Discussion:

The perennial forages were assessed for stand establishment on

October 15, 2010. Alsike clover is growing throughout all of the plots. All

of the alfalfa varieties had good establishment with the exception of the

2220 Blend which was due to a later seeding date (seed didn’t arrive on

time). Algonquin and Anik

displayed poorer stands than

the other varieties . Another note of interest - in early

November elk severely grazed all of the plots. The plots will

be assessed in the spring for survival rates.

The rating scale used was developed by NPARA staff and is an indicator of stand establishment with 1

being poor and 10 being optimal.

Figure 4. Alsike clover.

Crop Rating Height Comments

Sainfoin 7 0.25-0.4 Some flowering. Good catch.

Birdsfoot Trefoil 6 0.14 Some flowers. East end invaded by alsike. Good catch.

Cicer milkvetch 1 0.05 5-10% emergence.

Kura clover 8 Very short Thick. Alsike between.

Sweet clover 10 0.30-0.40 Excellent.

Alsike clover 10 0.15 Excellent.

White clover 8.5 0.01 Very short.

Red clover 9

Table 2. Visual rating results.

Figure 5. Hybriforce 400 alfalfa.


Sources of Nitrogen (Fall Vs. Spring) on Smooth Sources of Nitrogen (Fall Vs. Spring) on Smooth Sources of Nitrogen (Fall Vs. Spring) on Smooth Sources of Nitrogen (Fall Vs. Spring) on Smooth Bromegrass Seed yields Bromegrass Seed yields Bromegrass Seed yields Bromegrass Seed yields

Funded by: Agriculture Opportunity Fund


Objective:

• To compare the response of smooth bromegrass to different nitrogen fertilizers applied

in the fall vs. the spring for seed production


Calvin Yoder, AARD designed this trial as a randomized block with five treatments replicated four

times. The fall fertilizer application was done on November 4, 2009 on top of three to four inches of

snow and the spring fertilizer application was done on April 20, 2010.

Urea:

• highest analysis dry nitrogen fertilizer

• more subject to volatilization losses than 34-0-0 when not incorporated into the soil

Ammonium nitrate:

• contains nitrogen in both the ammonium and nitrate form

• less subject to volatilization losses than urea when surface applied without incorporation

ESN –Smart Nitrogen:

• a controlled release nitrogen fertilizer consisting of a urea granule contained within a

proprietary polyurethane coating. The analysis is 44-0-0.

The brome seed was harvested on July 29 with help from the Beaverlodge Research Station.


Results were not available at the time of writing this report - the results will be published in the spring

newsletter.

Fertilizer Source Application Rate

Urea (46-0-0) 70 lb/ac of actual nitrogen

Calcium Ammonium Nitrate (27-0-0) 70 lb/ac of actual nitrogen

Ammonium Nitrate (34-0-0) 70 lb/ac of actual nitrogen

ESN 70 lb/ac of actual nitrogen

Figure 2. Harvesting Bromegrass plots.

Figure 1. Harvesting Bromegrass plots.


Tolerance of Established Smooth Bromegrass to Tolerance of Established Smooth Bromegrass to Tolerance of Established Smooth Bromegrass to Tolerance of Established Smooth Bromegrass to New HerbicidesNew HerbicidesNew HerbicidesNew Herbicides

Funded by: Agriculture Opportunity Fund


Objectives:

• To test the tolerance of established Smooth Bromegrass to different herbicides at varying

rates


A plot area was selected in a four year old stand of Smooth Bromegrass. Calvin Yoder set the trial up as

a randomized block design with each treatment replicated four times. The herbicides were applied on

June 8, 2010 (shotblade stage) and the plots were visually assessed and rated during May, June & July.

1) INFINITY - a post emergent broadleaf herbicide (not registered on Bromegrass)

@ 1 x recommended rate


2) BARRICADE - a post emergent broadleaf herbicide (not registered on Bromegrass)


3) EXPRESS - a broadleaf herbicide (not registered on Bromegrass)



4) PRESTIGE - a post emergent broadleaf herbicide registered for use on seedling and estab-

lished Smooth Bromegrass


5) SPECTRUM - a post emergent broadleaf herbicide registered for use on seedling and estab-

lished Smooth Bromegrass



Results were not available at the time of writing this report - the results will be published in the spring

newsletter.


Murdoch Lake agro forestry demonstrationMurdoch Lake agro forestry demonstrationMurdoch Lake agro forestry demonstrationMurdoch Lake agro forestry demonstration

Project partners: Ducks Unlimited Canada, Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd (DMI), Alberta Envi-

ronmental Sustainable Agriculture (AESA), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: Agri-Environment

Services Branch & Woodlot Extension Program (WEP), Alberta Agriculture & Rural Development

Location: SE-16-89-23-W5; 12 miles south from the town of Manning on Hwy#35, 2 miles east on Hwy

#690 and 1½ miles south. The site borders waterfowl rich Murdoch Lake. Background:

This field demonstration was developed to show

landowners the potential benefits of combining tree

farming with traditional agricultural practices. The

purpose is to allow farmers to see that raising trees

and livestock or hay on the same land can be an eco-

nomically viable practice while providing wildlife and

waterfowl benefits. The goal of a tree improvement

program is to develop fast growing aspen and poplar

genotypes that would be suitable for use in agro for-

estry. Companies would be able to obtain portions of

their fibre requirements from these privately owned

woodlots. The initial hypothesis of this project was

that, by alternating hay and tree production in the same field, the overall productivity of the site would

increase. The trees would retain snow fall, increasing available soil moisture for hay production; hay

strips would allow the trees to have access to more sunlight therefore stimulate increased tree growth. Objectives:

• To establish an extensive, long term demonstration site that will showcase tree production and for-

age management, which will include hay production and grazing livestock

• To demonstrate opportunities for landowners to combine tree production with standard agricultural

practices The Site:

The project area covers 60 acres of land controlled by Ducks Unlimited

and is surrounded by an eight foot high elk fence. Established in 2004,

the site was divided into 3 replicates (a north, center and south) with 3

treatments in each replicate (a forage only, alley cropping (forage and

trees) and trees only treatment). The forage seeded was a mix of al-

falfa/timothy/meadow brome grass and the trees planted were

Walker Hybrid Walker Poplar at a spacing of 2.5m [in-row and be-

tween rows].

Activities and Measurements:

Measurements have been taken for tree height and diameter, soil

moisture, soil compaction, forage quality, forage/tree competition and

cattle/tree interaction. The project was also designed to compare the

effectiveness of plastic mulch vs no mulch (only mowing to control

weeds) during the establishment of trees. The plastic mulch worked


extremely well compared to treatments with no mulch. Without mulch the mortality rate for trees

was up to 92% and with mulch was around 5%. After 6 years of growth the trees with no plastic mulch

were removed. Tree height and diameter have been measured every 2 years, with the last sequenced

measurement occurring in 2009. They were also measured in the fall of 2010, providing annual meas-

urements for the current 3 year project. In 2009 and 2010, cattle were rotationally grazed in the alley

cropping treatment in 1 hectare paddocks which

included a ‘forage only’ strip 15m wide and a ‘trees

only’ strip 15m wide. The cattle have caused little or

no damage to the trees. Tree damage assessments,

forage production, manure deposition, and cattle

behaviour are just a few of the many parameters

that were measured. The grazing project will con-

tinue for an additional year, to gather 3 years of

data. The results will then be tabulated and pub-

lished in the final report.

Results & Discussion:

This graph shows the average height of

trees when they are separated according

to their position within a tree block. Tree

blocks run north to south and are 6 trees

wide. Tree positions are labeled 1-6 with

1 being the western most tree position

and 6 being the furthest to the east. The

trees on the edges (position 1 and 6) are

right next to the forage crops and are

expected to experience the most compe-

tition as a result. The trees in the center

(position 3 and 4) are expected to experi-

ence the least competition with the for-

age crop.

The graph shows that the trees closest to

the forage do experience more competi-

tion than the trees furthest from the for-

age. For both Alley Cropping trees and

Trees Only trees the trees on the edges

were the shortest while the trees on the middle were the tallest. This graph also shows that for every

position, the Alley Cropping trees were, on average, taller than the Trees Only trees. This suggests that

despite competition from forage, the alley cropping system has positive effects on tree growth.

Forage yield was very similar for the forage only treatment and the Alley Cropping Forage treatment.

Yield was almost the same for forage in the Trees Only treatment and the Alley Cropping Trees treat-

ment. This can be seen in the graph below. However, even though overall, average forage yield is al-

most identical for Alley Cropping Forage and Forage Only treatments, they differ in variability. There is

a small variability in the Alley Cropping Forage yields (+/- 154.12 kg/ha) and a large variability in the

Forage Only yields (+/- 859 kg/ha). Less variability in the forage yield may lead to a more reliable forage

yield.

Average Heights by Treatment - 2009

Tree Position (1 [West] to 6 [East])

1 2 3 4 5 6

Heig

ht (m

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Alley Cropping Trees

Trees Only Trees


This graph shows the forage growth in the north,

center and south reps. The variability of the For-

age Only growth is apparent in this graph.

We were interested in observing whether cattle

could be introduced to the alley cropping trees to

provide control of the grass and weed competition

without doing significant damage to the trees or

the soil. In 2009 (after 6

years of growth) cattle

damage to trees was moni-

tored and damage was

found to be minor. As can

be seen in the graph, most

trees had no damage or

minor damage (strong like-

lihood of survival). Less

than 1% of trees were deci-

mated (poor likelihood of

tree survival) and about 6%

were severely damaged

(moderate likelihood of

tree survival). Most of the

damage was done to trees

that were less than 2m tall. With these results it is apparent that cattle do not do irreparable damage

to trees of this age and may be managed with trees for mutual benefit. The cattle provide weed control

and fertilization services while the trees provide shade and insect relief for the cattle.

Conclusions to date:

• It requires about 6 years to establish an alley cropping and silvipastoral system with hybrid poplar.

• The survival rate of trees with plastic mulch is 3 times greater than those without mulch.

• With proper management, grazing by cattle to utilize forage is a viable option in agro forestry.

Average Forage Biomass 2009

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

TreesOnly Alley Cropping

Trees

Alley Cropping

Forage

Forage Only

Ab

ov

eg

rou

nd

Bio

ma

ss

(k

g/h

a)

Forage Only vs Alley Crop Forage

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

North Center South

Bio

mass (

kg

/ha)

Forage Only Alley Crop Forage

None

Min

or

Severe

Deci

mat

ed

<2m

2 - 4 m> 4m

209

163

1 1

35 43

21

28 32 32

10

50

100

150

200

250

Tre

e C

ou

nt

Kind of Damage

Height Category

Tree Damage After First Season of Cattle Interactions (N=548)


Background:

Conventional tillage methods are expensive, time consuming, increase the risk of soil erosion and dry

out the soil when used to remove forage from a rotation. Direct seeding of cereals, oilseeds and pulse

crops into a herbicide killed forage crop has proven successful under research and field conditions.

Conventional tillage operations used to remove forages from the rotation can reduce many of the

accumulated soil improvement benefits associated with growing forages: benefits to soil structure and

soil organic matter. The extra time available for crop growth after directly seeding into a forage stand

allows for a build up of nitrogen, the breakdown of sod, reducing soil borne disease organisms and a

more suitable seedbed. Results from research by the University of Manitoba and Alberta Agriculture

and from most field projects indicate that annual crop yields following a forage crop are similar in

normal or wet years for a direct seeding system as compared to a conventional system.

Objective:

Examine the agronomic benefits and measure the economic benefits (fuel and time savings) of remov-

ing perennial forage from a rotation and growing an annual crop without tillage.

Method & Materials:

The plot is located on SE 4 - 91- 22 W5M. The field was in smooth bromegrass for 15 years, first for

seed production and then for pasture. The field was grazed late June/early July, 2009 and then sprayed

with 2 L/ac of Clear-Out on September 3, 2009. Twenty-three acres of the field was designated for this

trial. A 750 John Deere no-till drill was used for fertilizer application and seeding, pulled by a 7410

John Deere Tractor. The plots were straight combined on September 14 with a John Deere 6620 com-

bine at 15% moisture.

PLOT PLAN:

Results:

S0d Seeding S0d Seeding S0d Seeding S0d Seeding ---- Energy ProjectEnergy ProjectEnergy ProjectEnergy Project Funded by: Alberta Agriculture & ARECA

Co-operator: Bob Noble

30 feet 30 feet 30 feet

100% Seeding Rate

100% Fertilizer Rate

200% Seeding Rate


150% Seeding Rate


DATE FIELD OPERATION PRODUCT APPLIED & RATE DIESEL FUEL USED

September 3, 2009 Spraying 2 L/ac Credit 45 0.9 L/ac

May 13, 2010 Banding fertilizer 136 lbs/acre of 46-0-0 1.86L/ac

May 26, 2010 Pre-seed burn-off 1 L/ac Credit 45 0.90 L/ac

May 29, 2010 Seeding Baler Oats @ 80 lbs/acre 50 lbs/ac of 12-51-0

1.86L/ac

TOTAL FUEL USED 5.52 L/Ac


Discussion:

We experienced a very challenging growing year starting with a very cold, late spring and early fall

frosts. During the growing season about 5 inches of rain was received.

Converting sod to grain production by direct seeding vs. multiple cultivations definitely takes less time

and fuel. Total fuel consumption for 2 herbicide applications, banding fertilizer and seeding was 5.52

L/ac. Due to poor growing conditions fall of 2009, a good kill on the smooth brome was not obtained,

so another application of glyphosate was done fall 2010. However, this will still take less fuel to con-

vert the sod to grain production vs using cultivation, plus, a crop is harvested the same year. Yields

were down due to the drought and competition from the brome, but still a crop was obtained.

Below is a chart outlining fuel usage for different operations and drills that was obtained from LARA

(Lakeland Agricultural Research Association).

200% seeding rate/ 200%

fertilizer rate

150% seeding rate/

200% fertilizer rate

100% seeding rate/

100% fertilizer rate

YIELD 2269 lbs/ac 2364.8 lbs/ac 2073.2 lbs/ac

PLANT STAND PER

FOOT OF ROW 22 17 11

Seeding System Operation Fuel Usage (L/ac)

Conventional Plow

Disc

Vibrashank

Harrow

Seed

In Crop Spray

TOTAL

6.52

5.72

1.88

0.46

1.07

0.28

15.93

ConservaPak Seed

Roll

In Crop Spray

TOTAL

2.89

0.40

0.28

3.57

John Deere 750 Seed

In Crop Spray

TOTAL

2.77

0.28

3.05

Green Manure Demonstration Year 2 Wheat...

Documents

Transcript of Green Manure Demonstration Year 2 Wheat...