January 2009 • Volume 8 • Number 1
Bank on It!
by Charles Long
RE FA
k
la
Mi
n
ER
FEA
M
R
Mike McClellan and
TU
his father, Robert,
farm in the vicinity of Palco, Kansas,
e
McClel
about 40 miles northwest of Hays. Other
than Mike’s financial rigor, perhaps
the most striking thing about their
operation is the aggressiveness
of cropping patterns, which were
intensive during the drought and
more intensive yet with recently
abundant moisture.
Since going full no-till in 2000,
McClellans’ crop rotations certainly
have evolved. Initially, Mike and
Robert tried to use the same rotation they’d used in their tillage
system (wheat >>milo >>summerfallow), by simply replacing all tillage with herbicides. Mike explains,
“The chem-fallow caused several
problems including loss of residue,
increase of prairie cupgrass and
sedges, and very hard ground—and
the patches of cupgrass and sedges
just kept getting bigger and bigger.”
Mike continues, “Now our basic
rotation is two years of wheat, and
from wheat we go to milo for two
years. Then the challenge is to go
from milo back to wheat [using a
cash crop instead of summerfallow].
So far we have been doing soybeans,
sunflowers, oats, and this year we
tried some field peas. Once I go out
of a crop, I like to be out of it for
three years before I go back to it for
[a break of] disease cycle and weed
pressure.”
McClellans have had zero summerfallow for about 4 years now.
Mike says, “Thinking about [having] something growing every year,
I always think of the quote, ‘Idle
hands are the devil’s tools.’ I kind
of convert that to idle lands are the
devil’s playground.” He summarizes
thusly: “The secret to no-till, in my
Contents
Bank on It................................ 473
Pesticides & Soil Biology........ 478
Photo by Charles Long.
Out on Bale............................. 487
Labor Productivity.................. 493
Chance of a Lifetime............... 496
McClellans’ double-crop sunflowers. Mike’s crop rotations are fairly intensive for his region.
Making It Pay.......................... 497
Photo by Charles Long.
significant N deficiency,
and Mike suspects the fertilizer was ‘tied up’ in the
residue instead of being
available for the hay crop
because it was sprayed on
with a burndown (he says
he should’ve streamed the
N instead). Nine inches of
rain after swathing delayed
baling until December, so
the quality wasn’t great. It
was swathed at the highest setting on the swather
Fast and user-friendly: McClellans’ tendering system.
to leave as much residue
as possible, although Mike
says, “I don’t like how the
opinion, is crop rotation. You can’t
field looked after the hay was off.
just do what you were doing. When
There wasn’t much wheat stubble
problems arise, learn how to deal
left.” (Editors’ Note: Spraying liquid
with them through rotations.”
N likely accelerated decomposition.)
As if eliminating the summerfallow
And it froze shortly after swathing so
wasn’t enough, Mike and Robert
not much regrowth occurred. Mike
have tried some double-cropping
says, “[Double-crop] sunflowers
for the first time this year. They
are a better option.
had about 400 acres of wheat
There’s lots of
hailed out, of
wheat stubble left
their 4,500 acres
after the sunflowof total cropland.
On his banking career:
ers—where the
So McClellans
wheat was actu“It’s good experience for
swathed and baled
ally harvested for
someone wanting to farm
the remnants,
grain.”
to sit on the other side of
then hired sunAre McClellans’
the desk for awhile.”
flowers planted.
intensive crop
They also put
rotations paying
sunflowers into a
off? In ’08, their second-year milo
field where the wheat was harvested
averaged 95 bu/a, while the milo
for grain, and those flowers looked
planted in the wheat stubble made
better all season and in fact yielded
135 bu/a. However, Mike notes,
1200 lbs/a, or 33% more than the
“The second-year milo is still very
flowers in the baled stubble. Mike
profitable.” The double-crop sunsays that in the hailed/hayed wheat,
flowers netted about $150/a when
the ground became very hard soon
Mike figures costs using custom
after planting the flowers due to
rates for planting, harvesting, and
the lack of stubble. Mike didn’t get
trucking. His current thoughts are
a good stand as the fields were too
that he would only plant double-crop
wet initially and then baked after
sunflowers again if grain prices were
the planting was finished: From a
relatively high and he had soil moisseed drop of 20,000/a, a final stand
ture at wheat harvest, so they will be
of about 13,000 was achieved.
something of an ‘opportunity crop’
In ’08, another of McClellans’ fields
for him. Mike notes that some years
of harvested wheat was doublemay actually provide better doublecropped to forage sorghum intended
crop sunflower yields, since he had
for hay. The forage sorghum showed
uneven stands this year, plus losses
474
Editors:
Matt Hagny (agron. consultant)
Andy Holzwarth (agron. consultant)
Charles Long (retired farmer)
Roger Long (Rosen’s sales rep.)
Keith Thompson (farmer)
E-mail: [email protected]
Science Advisors:
Dwayne Beck (SDSU: Dakota Lakes)
Jill Clapperton (scientist/consultant)
Rolf Derpsch (consultant, Paraguay)
John Grove (U.Ky., Soil Science)
Tom Schumacher (SDSU, Soil Science)
Ray Ward (Ward Laboratories)
Subscriptions & Advertising:
Phone: 888.330.5142
$75 per year (U.S.) subscription rate
No-Till on the Plains Inc. publishes
Leading Edge three times per year.
No-Till on the Plains Inc.
P.O. Box 379
Wamego, KS 66547-0379
888.330.5142
Website: www.notill.org
© Copyright 2009 No-Till on the Plains Inc.
All rights reserved.
No-Till on the Plains, Inc. is a non-profit organization under I.R.C. § 501(c)3, funded by feebased activities and by generous donations from
many individuals as well as organizations such as
Kansas Department of Health & Environment,
Kansas Soybean Commission, Kansas Corn
Commission, and Nebraska Environmental Trust.
Disclaimer: Mention of trade names does
not imply endorsement or preference of any
company’s product by Leading Edge, and any
omission of trade names is unintentional.
Recommendations are current at the time of
printing. Farmer experiences may not work for
all. Views expressed are not necessarily those of
the Editors or Leading Edge.
——— V———
No-Till on the Plains Inc’s Mission:
To assist agricultural producers in
implementing economically, agronomically, and environmentally
sound crop production systems.
Objective: To increase the adoption of cropping systems that will
enhance economic potential, soil
and water quality, and quality of
life while reducing crop production
risks.
Mike says, “It’s good experience
for someone wanting to farm to sit
on the other side of the desk for
awhile.” With the roller-coaster
farm economy in the 1980s, Mike
got a bird’s-eye view of what can
go wrong in a business sector when
excess optimism reigns.
While the effects of the double-crop
on the following crop remain to be
seen, Mike views this as a further
exploration of rotational options to
solve problems (in this case, excessively wet soils). He is intrigued with
cover crops, although he says, “It’s
really a different mindset to look at
profitability over 3 to 5 years versus
year-to-year. Although maybe there’s
enough to be gained in the first year
after a cover crop to make it pay.”
Mike is kicking around the idea of
using cover crops for some secondyear wheat stubble, particularly
‘cocktails’ that would include turnips
or radish plus a legume.
“The secret to no-till is crop
rotation. You can’t just
do what you were doing.
When problems arise, learn
how to deal with them
through rotations.”
Long Way ’Round
Mike expresses caution (and exercises extreme discipline) in the face
of recent euphoria
by grain farmers: “Anytime farmers make a little bit of money, they
figure out how to spend it. We go
out and buy new machinery and bid
up cash rents. The money we make,
we end up spending, and it doesn’t
take long for the costs involved to
increase to the income we have.” As
an antidote, Mike says they try to
pay cash for machinery purchases,
noting that the last few years have
made this much easier to do.
Mike grew up on the farm and
helped with the work until attending KSU, graduating in ’84
with a Bachelor’s in Ag Eco­
nomics. After college, his
father wanted him to work
off the farm for a couple of
years before coming back to
the farm, so Mike ended up
in the banking industry from
1984 until his return to the
farm in ’95. This included
tenures with the Farm
Credit System in Abilene and
Manhattan, KS, and commercial banks in Wamego
and Clifton, KS, as well as
loan packaging for banks on a
consulting basis in Scottsbluff,
Robert at wheat harvest, 2007.
NE. Of his banking career,
Mike tries to lock in profitable prices
for his crops using forward contracts and buying puts. An example
is his ’08 double-crop sunflowers
contracted at $30/cwt with an ‘Act
of God’ clause (prices had fallen by
more than half by harvest time). Mike
also had about 2/3 of their ’08 milo
production covered with forward contracts and puts.
When Mike returned to the farm in
’95, it included a cow herd, which
was liquidated in ’03 to concentrate
on the cropping. As for no-till on
their farm in the mid-’90s, only an
occasional milo crop was planted
this way. Mike became increasingly
interested in continuous no-till by
watching several neighbors, and by
attending no-till field days and the
No-Till on the Plains conferences.
Hardware & Methods
At the outset, Mike notes, there
were issues in identifying seeding
equipment that would work adequately in no-till. In the ’90s, they
experimented with no-till using a
Flexi-coil hoe drill, with limited success. Mike then went to Flexi-coil’s
now-defunct FSO disc openers on
an 8100 air drill. He liked the job
the openers did with seed placement but was quite disappointed
Photo by Mike McClellan.
from excess moisture—about 10% of
the acres drowned out. As for hailedout wheat, Mike further comments,
“I would do things differently next
time. Instead of swathing and baling
it, I would [spray out the aftermath]
and plant the flowers as soon as possible. We lost over a month between
when it hailed and when the flowers
were actually planted. I would also
try to plant them myself—hoping for
a better stand—and use Clearfield
seed.” (They own an older 8-row
Kinze planter.)
475
by the amount of maintenance they
required. Mike compares the FSO
drill to a race car that needs to be
worked on all week so it can race on
Saturday. (He nicknamed the drill:
“Mike’s Big Colossal Blunder.”) In all
fairness, he says, the Flexi-coil FSO
opener probably did the best job of
seed placement he’s seen in no-till.
McClellans’ seeding is now done
with a 30-foot Deere 1890 air drill.
Mike says this unit does a good job
but requires greasing much more
often than recommended by the
manual—to keep the dust and rust
out of the firming and closing pivot
points. Mike’s 1890 plants their
wheat, milo, soybeans, and hay crops,
with all of these in 10-inch rows (he’s
considering 20-inch for milo and
soybeans). The 1890 is stock except
for Case-IH SDX firming wheels
which fit into the seed slot and do a
much better job of firming the seed
into the bottom of the furrow. Mike’s
air drill has been rebuilt numerous
times to keep it in top operating condition. The tractor used to pull the
1890 is equipped with auto-steer.
Photo by Katie McClellan
For wheat, the McClellans plant 80 –
120 lbs/a of seed depending on lateness. Dry fertilizer is applied in the
seed row at 30 – 80 lbs/a of (Cargill)
Mozaic’s MESZ (“MicroEssentials:
Sulfur / Zinc” —prills compounded
with N & P). Nitrogen is applied in
the spring by streaming liquid with
their Apache sprayer, based on needs
calculated from soil tests.
McClellans harvesting milo in ’08.
476
For milo, Mike reports, “I use all
Gaucho-treated seed, which I think
helps tremendously. I think we
were having some wireworm problems and didn’t know it, because
my stand is more uniform than it
ever has been, and I’ve dropped my
population from 60,000 or 70,000
seeds/a, and now I’m down to
45,000 or 50,000.” (Editors: Some
of this may be due to seed vigor;
usually only the high-vigor seed lots
get Gaucho or Cruiser treatment.)
Mike doesn’t plant full-season milo
hybrids since in many years they
won’t have time to finish (their
elevation is 2,300 feet). This year,
Mike planted milo into field peas
that were hailed out—the peas were
allowed to grow back and then were
sprayed off, with the milo planted
on June 25: “It actually averaged
85 bu/a, so we came out all right,
thanks to the late freeze.” Typically,
Mike streams liquid nitrogen on the
milo after planting and before emergence, again based on soil tests.
For McClellans’ region, primarycrop sunflowers present a problem
when used in place of soybeans in
the rotation. Mike thinks it’s imperative to get flower fields seeded to
wheat, otherwise there is too little
residue to hold the soil the following
spring. However, in the fall it’s often
too dry to get a wheat stand in the
sunflower stalks. The fall of 2007,
wheat planted into early-harvested
flowers had adequate moisture to
germinate. This wheat yielded 40
bushels per acre. In later-harvested
flowers, wheat went into dry soil and
didn’t germinate until after moisture
came over the winter. This wheat
yielded 15 bu/a. McClellans have
had better success with wheat following soybeans as compared to sunflowers, mostly due to differences in
soil moisture. On years with lack of
timely rain, wheat after soybeans can
be troublesome enough for them,
which is partly Mike’s reason for
experimenting with field peas and
oats, especially on poorer soils.
In ’08, McClellans’ soybeans were
all treated before planting with
Optimize inoculant, going in at
130,000 seeds/a. While they normally use maturities of 3.0 – 3.4,
this year they went as high as
3.8—with the cool wet summer,
the late-planted beans (and milo)
barely finished. McClellans’ average soybeans yields have been
around 30 bu/a, although their ’08
crop made 43.
While McClellans haven’t had any
corn for several years, at one time
corn was a major part of their crop
rotation, and they are again considering replacing some milo acres
with it. Mike notes that the basis is
currently so wide on milo that corn
could yield slightly less and still be
more profitable.
Their Game Plan
McClellans’ region averages about
19 inches of precipitation a year.
From the late ’90s until about 2005,
they were battling conditions that
were too dry. In 2008, they’ve been
on the opposite side of the moisture
ledger. Several large rain events
topped terraces, washed gullies, and
destroyed roads. This caused problems with planting and spraying.
Mike says they normally plant and
spray over terraces, but with terrace
channels full of mud and water, this
wasn’t possible. Asked if terraces
were still necessary with no-till,
™
*Keeton is a registered trademark of Precision Planting, Inc.
Photo by Mike McClellan.
even have time
(with fields spanning a distance of
to farm. All I
about 30 miles), a semi trailer is
do is go to ball
equipped with nurse tanks for water
games. We
and fertilizer, an area for chemical
will be going
shuttles, a clean water shuttle for
to both junior
rinsing, and a pressure washer to
high and high
clean the sprayer in the field.
school games
Going from full tillage to pure no-till
for the next 8
with chem-fallow, then eliminating
years straight. It
summerfallow, to now trying doubleis a good thing
cropping, has been an evolutionary
I don’t have a
process for Mike and Robert. Mike
regular job.” In
credits much of their success in
addition, Mike’s
these changes to good advice from
Mike’s daughter, Katie, perhaps aspiring to be a farmer.
wife owns and
other no-tillers. Two he mentions in
operates a retail
particular are Alan States, who farms
Mike replies, “Yes, absolutely. We
store in Hays and helps to coach
in the Logan area and later became
may do some reshaping of terraces
grade school volleyball.
a banker at Hays (Mike is currently
so they are easier to farm over, but
The labor force keeps busy, since
on the board of directors for States’
we definitely still need them. Even
the McClellans do much of their
bank), and John Griebel of Stockton,
with terraces, we still get some gulown harvesting with a John Deere
KS, whose work with cover crops
lies that wash out and we have to go
9670. However, they also hire cushas been inspiring Mike. Regardless
back and patch them.”
tom harvesters as needed; in 2008,
of the source of ideas, Mike is cerSome of McClellans’ acreage is cash
they hired the harvesting of about
tain to be continually striving to
rented and some is share-cropped.
half of their milo, as well as the
improve his farm’s profitability. You
The rate of cash rent per acre has
double-crop flowers. McClellans’
can bank on it. T
increased along with grain prices,
combine is
but Mike thinks that is only fair.
equipped with
He prefers to cash rent, as it gives
guidance and
What would 5%
him an opportunity to try differyield mapping
more yield do for
ent things like double-cropping
(Mike is collectand maybe something out of the
ing yield data
your bottom line?
norm for crops in general. When
but hasn’t had
crop-sharing, Mike feels more of
time to analyze
…every year?
an obligation to stick with what has
it yet).
been proven. When McClellans first
The McClellans
Reliable furrow closing:
lock seed in place:
began no-tilling, there was resis™
accomplish their
Thompson
Wheel
moJo WIRe™
tance from some share-crop landspraying using
• Aggressive sidewall shattering • 3 – 5x more
lords due to increased fertilizer and
an Apache with
with self-limiting depth
pressure than
herbicide costs, although as returns
a 90-foot boom
standard Keeton*
•
Creates
ideal
zone
for
crop
have increased with no-till, this has
and 1000emergence
&
rooting
• Ensures fast, uniform
ceased to be an issue.
gallon tank.
• Heavy-duty bearing with
germination
Labor for the operation is provided
The sprayer has
5-yr guarantee
by Mike, Robert, one full-time hired
guidance and
educational DVD: no-Till seeding explained™
man, and one man who works for
auto-boom con• Step by step guidelines for setup &
them about two-thirds of the time
trol which have
NO-TILL SEEDING
EXPLAINED
adjustment of your planter and drill
and who also farms on his own
proven benefi•
Tips on side-band & pop-up fertilizer
using McClellans’ machinery. With
cial for increas• Hundreds of photos, diagrams & video
two daughters in grade school, one
ing sprayer effiWatch a free excerpt at www.exapta.com
daughter in junior high, and the oldciency. To keep
est daughter in high school, there’s
the spraying
Equipment & Support: 785-820-8000
plenty going on, Mike says, tongue
operation runNo-Till Seeding DVD: 866-203-9471
in cheek, “This time of year I don’t
ning smoothly
477
Pesticide Effects on
Soil Biology: Part I
by Jill Clapperton
S cie n ce
Jill Clapperton is a soil ecologist
and land resource consultant,
based in Montana.
Editors’ Note: Jill Clapperton, PhD (Plant Ecophys­iology),
is one of only a handful of soil ecology scientists in the
world. Formerly with Agri-Food Canada at Lethbridge,
AB, she is now a freelance consultant in her “new life”
in Montana. Her business is named Earthspirit Land
Resource Consulting, [email protected].
between pesticides and the soil fauna (‘animals,’ such
as predatory or scavenging protozoa, nematodes, mites,
collembola, enchytraeids, earthworms, spiders, and
beetles), and the influence of transgenic (GMO) crops
on the soil biota (all organisms that live in the soil) and
ecosystem processes.1
One of the biggest criticisms against no-till farming is
the use of herbicides to control weeds. How many times
have we all heard: “I just don’t like all those chemicals
that farmers use, and don’t no-till farmers use far more
chemicals anyways? And doesn’t that sterilise the soil?”
So let’s look at how herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides affect the soil biology. This is the first in a series
of articles addressing the question of how agricultural
practices affect soil biological properties and soil ecology
functions.
Before we begin, all of us should be
clear on some
key background
information: First,
what happens in
It is the organic material
the rhizosphere
(both quality and quantity)
drives most of
that feeds the soil biota.
what happens
biologically in the
soil. Secondly,
it is the organic
material (in both quality and quantity) that feeds the
soil biota, and the term ‘soil organic material’ includes
the plant roots and root exudates (carbon-containing
compounds that leak from roots). Lastly, undisturbed
soil allows the biota to build a stable and continuous soil
pore network, establish an interactive community, and
provide key functions, such as C, N, P, and S mineralisation and nitrogen fixing that we rely on to grow nutritious foods.
Photo by Kris Nichols, USDA-ARS.
In this first article, I will discuss the effects of pesticides on soil micro-flora, and on the rhizosphere (the
microbiologically active portion of the soil near plant
roots), and how these effects can be managed. This
article looks especially at the primary producers and
the early-stage decomposers in a soil food web: bacteria
and fungi. In future articles, I will address interactions
Cyanobacteria from grassland soil in central North Dakota.
1
The disclaimer for these articles is that much is yet to
be discovered. Science has a limited understanding of
the abundance and diversity of organisms in the soil, let
alone trying to figure out all the biological interactions
that unite the soil’s chemical and physical properties for
‘soil health.’ We know a lot about how pesticides influence the target, and even some of the effects on plants
and other aboveground organisms that are not the targets of pesticides. But we don’t know much about how
pesticides interact with soils and soil organisms, and
there’s far greater species diversity belowground than
aboveground. The following article is a summary of my
understanding on how pesticides affect the soil biota,
and how that could affect soil ecosystem function specifically in a no-tillage system.
Editors: The grouping of organisms into fauna and flora is a bit arbitrary at times, e.g., protozoa somewhat blur the distinction between animal and plant,
while fungi are actually more closely related to animals than to green plants, and the greatest single distinction of all these life forms is prokaryote (bacterial
& archaean) versus eukaryote (cells with mitochondria and a true nucleus). Protozoa are single-celled eukaryotes; all multicellular species are comprised of
eukaryotic cells.
478
Knowing the Rhizosphere
these compounds depend to a certain extent on the soil
chemical and physical properties; these exudates largely
In undisturbed soil, most of the nutrient cycling, roots,
determine the microbial community of the rhizosphere.
and biological activity are found in the top 20 to 30 cm ​
Symbionts (such as mycorrhizas, and the nitrogen-fixing
(8 to 12 inches), known as the rhizosphere. More specifiRhizobia in legume root nodules) as well as diseasecally, the rhizosphere is the root and the immediately
causing pathogens may be particularly attuned to the
adjacent soil, which is strongly influenced by the root. It
composition and quantity of root exudates attracting,
is a zone of intense microbial activity. (Editors: As used
and/or activating, them to a particular plant species.
by scientists, ‘microbe’ and ‘microbial’ encompass bacteMore generally, bacteria and fungi use
ria and fungi, and oftentimes protozoa as well. Mites and
root exudates (and the dead sloughed
nematodes aren’t included, although they
cells from the root) as a food source
often are microscopic.)
to grow and reproduce. Many types
The rhizosphere is a close relationship
of bacteria that live in the rhizosphere
Many types of bacteria
between the plant, soil matrix, and soil
will produce plant-growth-promoting
produce plant-growthorganisms where any outside factor
substances that increase root growth,
affecting one member of the triad will
thereby providing themselves with
promoting substances.
have consequences for the other two
increased root area to colonise, and
members. The rhizosphere is bathed
more exudates for food. (Self-serving
in energy-rich carbon compounds,
manipulation is ancient indeed!)
such as sugars, amino acids, and organic acids (all are
Rhizosphere interactions often produce changes in soil
products of photosynthesis) that leak from the roots,
structure. Sticky secretions from bacteria, the glomalin
called root exudates. An example of a rhizosphere effect
from mycorrhizas, and hyphae from these and other
that many of you will know is the effect that peas, and
fungi, along with exudates and dead root cells, will bind
to a lesser extent, beans, have on soil tilth. Both of these
soil particles to create aggregates and a unique habitat
crops make the soil very soft and mellow (easy to dig),
for other soil organisms. As scavengers and/or predators,
and impart a slightly sweet smell to the soil from the
various species of protozoa, nematodes, and mites feed
microbial community associated with these plants.
on the large numbers of bacteria and fungi near the root,
Every plant species leaks a unique signature of comas well as the organic substances secreted. In turn, the
pounds from its roots. The quantity and qualities of
faecal pellets from these microscopic animals add to the
Micro-flora & fauna
Meso-fauna
Macro- & Mega-fauna
Bacteria
Cyanobacteria
Fungi
Nematodes
Protozoa
Acari (mites)
Collembola
Enchytraeids
Chilopoda (centipedes)
Diplopoda (millipedes)
Megadrils (earthworms)
Coleoptera (beetles)
Mollusca (snails)
1 µm
5µm
10µm
100 µm
1mm
2mm
20mm
Typical sizes of various groups of soil biota, some categories of which span a considerable range of sizes among their members (e.g.,
from miniscule fungal hyphae of 3 microns in diameter, up to 20+ mm for some species such as mushrooms). Note that the scale isn't
linear (it's roughly logarithmic). In the next article (Part II), we will be focusing on fauna, and splitting them into micro-, meso- and macrogroups for the discussion. You can see where we have started and where we will end. 1 µm is a micrometer (a.k.a. micron), or onemillionth of a meter (a meter is ~ 39 inches). A human hair is 50 – 80 microns in diameter. Adapted from M.J. Swift, O.W. Heal & J.M.
Anderson, 1979, Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems, Univ. Calif. Press Berkeley.
479
structure of the soil and are a rich source of nutrients for
bacteria, fungi, and plants.
To summarize, the rhizosphere is a close relationship
between the plant, soil, and soil organisms. Plants produce photosynthate which is the food source for organisms that build soil aggregates and recycle nutrients, and
the soil provides habitat, water, and mineral nutrients for
both soil organisms and plants. Any factor that changes
the amount and quality of carbon- and nitrogen-based
compounds going into the soil as either residue or root
exudates will alter the soil biological community.
Building the Soil Habitat
Tillage directly affects soil porosity. Porosity determines
the amount of air and water the soil can hold, as well
as providing passage for roots and other organisms.
(Editors: See Schumacher & Riedell, ‘Soil Structure,’
Jan. ’08.) Tillage collapses the naturally occurring pores
and tunnels, and alters the water-holding capacity as
well as the gas and nutrient exchange capacities of the
soil. It then becomes somewhat necessary to continue
tillage, as there is a net loss of soil organisms that can
perform the nutrient-cycling functions and maintain
natural porosity.
No-till farming has generally been shown to build
populations of soil animals such as protozoa, mites, and
earthworms because this system retains and builds the
integrity of the soil pore network.2 It also builds the surface residues (mulch cover), creating a litter layer that
provides a habitat for all the organisms as well as a continuous food supply. No-tillage systems function better
as they age, and when the diversity of crops is increased.
Together these practices improve the soil habitat and
build the quantity and quality of the organic matter,
thereby allowing increased abundance and diversity of
soil organisms.
Pesticides in the Soil Ecosystem
There is no doubt that in the last couple of decades
production agriculture has relied more heavily on
applying pesticides. In many cases, weeds, insects, and
diseases have developed resistance to chemistries that
were once effective
at controlling or supEUKARYOTES
pressing these organisms. Broad-spectrum
ARCHAEA
Animals
Bacteria
pesticides (in particular) kill the target pest
(mitochondria)
Methanogens
Fungi
or disease but likely
Plants/Green
also affect similar
(chloroplasts)
& Red Algae
natural enemies and
Ciliates
beneficial non-target
organisms despite the
Cyanobacteria
best efforts of chemists to be very spePurple Bacteria
LUCA
cific. Thus, the use of
pesticides, even the
Single-celled
more specific ones,
Eukaryotes
can lead to decreased
biodiversity, which
often causes the ‘flare
The tree of life showing the three domains, based on comparisons of ribosomal RNA, with the length
up’ of other weeds,
and branching of the lines proportional to genetic similarities (except the line length for mitochondria,
damaging insects, and
which is shortened here). (Labels omitted for some lines.) LUCA is the Last Universal Common Ancestor.
Note that the entire animal kingdom—from sponges and jellyfish to nematodes and humans—represents
pathogens. Further,
rather little diversity of genetics and metabolism. Chloroplasts are organelles within the cells of algae and
there is legitimate
green plants; chloroplasts perform photosynthesis and are most closely related to free-living cyanobacteconcern that pesticide
ria. Mitochondria are organelles within the cells of all eukaryotes, and carry out respiration (oxidizing of
use may inadvertently
sugars), and again are most closely related to bacteria. The consensus emerging among biologists is that
be damaging to various
extended symbiosis eventually resulted in a (unicellular) archaean methanogen acquiring/internalizing a
bacterium which became mitochondria and chloroplasts (these organelles contain their own genetic matesoil organisms, which
rial, and divide independently of the cell itself). Diagram derived in part from N. Lane, 2002, Oxygen: The
may compromise soil
Molecule that made the World, Oxford Univ. Press; A.H. Knoll, 2003, Life on a Young Planet, Princeton
aggregation or porosity
Univ. Press; W.F. Doolittle, Feb. 2000, Uprooting the Tree of Life, Scientific American 90-95 (the original
(by suppressing earthribosomal RNA analysis was by Carl Woese at Univ. of Illinois).
2
See, e.g., D.C. Coleman, D.A. Crossley Jr. & P.F. Hendrix, 2004, Fundamentals of Soil Ecology, 2d ed., Elsevier.
480
Degradation by Bacteria
chlorothalonil (Bravo)
and metalaxyl /
mefenoxam (Apron,
Ridomil).8 (Editors:
Examples of trade
names registered in
the USA are provided
if the compound is
commonly used in
agriculture. A few
Bacillus thuringiensis (‘Bt’) bacteria,
others are included for which occur naturally in many soils.
historical purposes, or
because they are used
in forestry or turf care.) Here is the caveat to all that:
Just because the bacteria break it down doesn’t mean
there are no effects on other soil biota.
Bacteria strains isolated from soils that have been contaminated with various biochemicals, including pesticides, are increasingly being used for bioremediation
(reclaiming the soil by inoculating it with organisms able
to degrade certain compounds which are detrimental to
other life forms).3 In other words, the bacteria are using
specific pesticides to meet their energy needs, i.e., using
them as food. For example, bacteria were isolated from
soil contaminated with triazines, then inoculated onto
charcoal (to bind the chemical and deliver the bacteria),
and reintroduced into contaminated soil. The
Herbicides
results indicated that these bacteria degraded the triazines in 4 – 9
Glyphosate is one of the most successful
days. Similarly, it has been shown
and acceptable herbicides used today, for
No-till farming has generthat four weeks after simazine
reasons including: broad-spectrum weed
ally been shown to build
and atrazine were applied, there
control, benign characteristics for handling
populations of soil animals and application, environmental safety, and
was an increase in the population
such as protozoa, mites,
of organisms known to degrade
relatively good crop safety when used on
those chemicals.5 Generally speaktransgenic glyphosate-resistant crops.9
and earthworms.
ing, some bacteria types appear
While glyphosate poses no direct threat to
to adapt to degrade regularly
crops after coming in contact with the soil
used herbicides such as atrazine, 2,4-D, sulfentrazone
(due to being strongly bound to soil particles), the com(Authority, Spartan), and glyphosate,6 as well as insecpound itself persists in the soil for some time. Glyphosate
ticides such as chlorpyrifos (Lorsban), hexachlorocyclocontains a carbon-phosphorus bond (C-P bond) resistant
hexane (HCH, a.k.a. lindane), imidacloprid (Gaucho),
to chemical breakdown. However, the C-P bond is susand carbofuran (Furadan),7 and fungicides including
ceptible to biodegradation by any bacterium with the
3
M. Hernández, P. Villalobos, V. Morgante, M. González, C. Reiff, E. Moore & M. Seeger, 2008, Isolation and characterization of a novel simazine-degrading
bacterium from agricultural soil of central Chile, Pseudomonas sp. MHP41, FEMS Microbiol. Letters 286: 184-190.
4
K. Yamazaki, K. Takagi, K. Fuji, A. Iwasaki, N. Harada & T. Uchimura, 2008, Simultaneous biodegradation of chloro- and methylthio-s-triazines using charcoal enriched with a newly developed bacterial consortium, J. Pesticide Sci. 33: 266-270.
5
M.A. Dinamarca, F. Cereceda-Balic, X. Fadic & M. Seeger, 2007, Analysis of s-triazine-degrading microbial communities in soil using more probable number
enumeration and tetrazolium-salt detection, Int. Microbiol. 10: 209-215.
6
E. Sandmann & M.A. Loos, 1988, Aromatic metabolism by a 2,4-D degrading Arthrobacter sp., Can. J. Microbiol. 34: 125-130; A.E. Smith & A.J. Aubin,
1991, Transformation of 14C-2,4-dichlorophenol in Saskatchewan soils, J. Agricult. Food Chem. 39: 801-804; C.O. Martinez, C.M.M. de Souza Silva, E.
Francisconi Fay, R.B. Abakerli, A. de H.N. Maia & L.R. Durrant, 2008, The effects of moisture and temperature on the degradation of sulfentrazone, Geoderma 147: 56-62; A.L. Gimsing, O.K. Borggaard, O.S. Jacobsen, J. Aamand & J. Sorensen, 2004, Chemical and microbial characteristics controlling glyphosate
mineralization in Danish surface soils, Appl. Soil Ecol. 27: 233-242; M.A. Weaver, L.J. Krutz, R.M. Zablotowicz & K.N. Reddy, 2007, Effects of glyphosate on
soil microbial communities and its mineralization in a Mississippi soil, Pest Manag. Sci. 63: 388-393.
7
C. Vischetti, E. Monaci, A. Candinalie & P. Perucci, 2008, The effect of initial concentration, co-application and repeated applications on pesticide degradation
in a biobed mixture, Chemosphere 72: 1739-1743 (chlorpyrifos degradation); L. Xiao Hui, J. Jian Dong, S.W. Ali, H. Jian & L. Shun Peng, 2008, Diversity of
chlorpyrifos-degrading bacteria isolated from chlorpyrifos-contaminated samples, Int. Biodeterioration & Biodegrad. 62: 331-335; M.J. Sainz, B. GonzálezPenalta & A. Vilariño, 2006, Effects of hexachlorocyclohexane on rhizosphere fungal propagules and root colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in Plantago lanceolata, Eur. J. Soil Sci. 57: 83-90; P.S. Kidd, A. Prieto-Fernández, C. Monterroso & M.J. Acea, 2008, Rhizosphere microbial community and hexachlorocyclohexane degradative potential in contrasting plant species, Plant & Soil 302: 233-247; M. Soudamini, P. Meera, A.K. Ahuja, S.S. Venna & R. Sandhya,
2008, Degradation of lindane and imidacloprid in soil by Calocybe indica, Pesticide Res. J. 20: 143-145; S.L. Trabue, A.V. Ogram & L.T. Ou, 2001, Dynamics of
carbofuran-degrading microbial communities in soil during three successive annual applications of carbofuran, Soil Biol. & Biochem. 33: 75-81.
8
W.V. Sigler & R.F. Turco, 2002, The impact of chlorothalonil application on soil bacterial and fungal populations as assessed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis, Appl. Soil Ecol. 21: 107-118; S.G. Pai, M.B. Riley & N.D. Camper, 2001, Microbial degradation of mefenoxam in rhizosphere of Zinnia angustifolia, Chemosphere 44: 577-582; W.J. Jones & N.D. Ananyeva, 2001, Correlations between pesticide transformation rate and microbial respiration activity in
soil of different ecosystems, Biol. & Fertility Soils 33: 477-483; Vischetti et al., 2008 (metalaxyl degradation).
9
J.P. Quinn, J.M.M. Peden & R.E. Dick, 1988, Glyphosate tolerance and utilization by the microflora of soils treated with the herbicide, Appl. Microbiol.
Biotech. 29: 511-516. K.N. Reddy, 2001, Glyphosate resistant soybean as a weed management tool: opportunities and challenges, Weed Biol. Manag. 1:
193-202.
481
Photo by Jill Clapperton.
worms, fungi, or other organisms), N-fixation (by suppressing rhizobial symbionts and/or free-living N-fixing
organisms), or nutrient cycling or plant uptake (by suppressing mycorrhizas).
enzyme C-P lyase, such as Pseudomonas species.10 Other
organisms capable of breaking the C-P bond and using
the phosphonate as an energy source include some of the
cyanobacteria11 (depending on your age, you might know
these organisms as “blue-green algae”) which are microscopic filament-forming, free-living (non-symbiotic),
nitrogen-fixing, photosynthesizing bacteria. It appears
that soil bacteria are the principal degraders of glyphosate
in the environment.
fungal growth in the short term.17 Now if we think about
our rhizosphere model, let’s speculate as to what goes on
underground. The balance between beneficial bacteria
and fungi has changed, damage to the root by the pathogen further unbalances populations and diversity in the
rhizosphere community, and pathogenic nematodes are
attracted to the root damage. The plant reduces photosynthesis, and puts more of its energy into blocking the
root damage. The root exudates change dramatically,
affecting populations, diversity, and function of the rhizoThe effects of glyphosate on the soil biological commusphere community of microorganisms. Eventually, the
nity generally are benign, but with some mixed results.
population of fungal-feeding nematodes (non-pathogenic
A number of studies have shown that glyphosate, when
to plants) increases opportunistically in response to the
used at recommended rates, has insignificant effects
flourishing fungi (non-mycorrhizal), and the entire ecosys12 although there can be
on the microbial community,
tem finds a new balance. However, some
a short-term stimulation of bacterial populations at
plants may succumb to the combination
higher concentrations.13 One group
of Fusarium, pathogenic nematodes,
of researchers concluded that glyand other diseases. Obviously, there are
phosate likely results in minor effects
Just because the bacteria
many other scenarios given all the interon soil biological and chemical propactions in the rhizosphere.
break down a pesticide
erties.14 They further suggested that
doesn’t mean there are no Unfortunately, sometimes the by­the effect of greater amounts of soil
carbon and plant residues retained
products of bacterial degradation are
effects on other soil biota.
on the soil surface with no-till and
more toxic than the original chemical.18
Researchers studied the breakdown
conservation farming practices likely
of two selective triketonic herbicides, sulcotrione (in
mitigated any negative effects of glyphosate usage.
Europe: Mikado) and mesotrione (Callisto), and comStill, there have been negative indirect effects of glypared them with the known toxicity of the commercial
phosate on soil microbiology. Glyphosate-tolerant soyproducts.19 They concluded that it was necessary to
bean (Roundup Ready) seedlings that have been treated
assess the potential toxicity of the intermediate by­with glyphosate are more susceptible to Fusarium solani
products of biodegradation as well as the active ingrediinfections which cause Sudden Death Syndrome.15 This
ents and additives in commercial herbicide formulations.
is likely related to the finding that glyphosate is released
into the rhizosphere in root exudates, and that the
The general consensus among soil ecologists is that the
Fusarium fungus is actually attracted to the increase in
commonly used herbicides do not greatly affect the
glyphosate concentration in the rhizosphere.16 This is condiversity and general function of the soil microbial comsistent with the finding that glyphosate tends to stimulate
munity.20 However, applied pesticides can favour the
10Gimsing
et al., 2004.
11G.
Forlani, M. Pavan, M. Gramek, P. Kafarski & J. Lipok, 2008, Biochemical bases for a widespread tolerance of cyanobacteria to the phosphonate herbicide
glyphosate, Plant Cell Physiol. 49: 443-456.
12
D.A. Wardle & D. Parkinson, 1990, Influence of the herbicide glyphosate on soil microbial community structure, Plant & Soil 122: 29-37; M.D. Busse,
A.W. Ratcliff, C.J. Shestak & R.F. Powers, 2001, Glyphosate toxicity and the effects of long-term vegetation control on soil microbial communities, Soil
Biol. Biochem. 33: 1777-2789; R.L. Haney, S.A. Senseman, L.J. Krutz & F.M. Hons, 2002, Soil carbon and nitrogen mineralization as affected by atrazine
and glyphosate, Biol. Fert. Soils 35: 35-40; A.W. Ratcliff, M.D. Busse & C.J. Shestak, 2006, Changes in microbial community structure following herbicide
(glyphosate) additions to forest soils, Appl. Soil Ecol. 34: 114-124; Weaver et al., 2007; M.A. Locke, R.M. Zablotowicz & K.N. Reddy, 2008, Integrating soil
conservation practices and glyphosate-resistant crops: impacts on soil, Pest Manag. Sci. 64: 457-469.
13Ratcliff
14Locke
et al., 2006.
et al., 2008.
15
S. Sanogo, X.B. Yang & P. Lundeen, 2001, Field response of glyphosate tolerant soybean to herbicides and sudden death syndrome, Plant Disease 85: 773779.
16R.J.
Kremer, N.E. Means & S. Kim, 2005, Glyphosate affects soybean root exudates and rhizosphere microorganisms, J. Environ. Analyt. Chem. 15: 11651174.
17A.S.F.
Araújo, R.T.R. Monteiro & R.B. Abarkeli, 2003, Effect of glyphosate on the microbial activity of two Brazilian soils, Chemosphere 52: 799-804.
18C.
Tkaczuk & R. Mietkiewski, 2005, Effects of selected pesticides on the growth of fungi from Hirsutella genus isolated from phytophagous mites, J. Plant
Protect. Res. 45: 171-179.
19J.L.
Bonnet, F. Bonnemoy, M. Dusser & J. Bohatier, 2008, Toxicity assessment of the herbicides sulcotrione and mesotrione toward two reference environmental organisms: Tetrahymena pyriformis and Vibrio fischeri, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 55: 576-583.
20N.Z.
Lupwayi, K.N. Harker, G.W. Clayton, T.K. Turkington, W.A. Rice & J.T. O’Donovan, 2004, Soil microbial biomass and diversity after herbicide application,
Can. J. Plant Sci. 84: 677-685.
482
Fungicides and Insecticides
As compared to herbicides, there are still fewer
research papers studying the effects of fungicides
and insecticides on the soil biota. As we will see in
the next article, fungicides and insecticides tend to
Mycorrhizal colonization inside a switchgrass root. The fungal hyphae run
have a greater effect on the soil fauna (‘animals’),
between the plant cells as well as intruding into the cells (arbuscules).
often negatively. But, generally speaking, we are
encouraged by the fact that it appears most of these
ficiently (3 – 4 weeks, usually), with remarkably only a
chemicals can be degraded by soil bacteria, maksmall effect on the overall amount of mycorrhizal fungi
ing bioremediation a reality. (Many pesticides are also
that eventually establish on a more mature plant.
degraded by sunlight and by non-biological chemical
reactions in the soil.) Given enough time, the soil ecolMycorrhizal fungi (also referred to as ‘vesicular-arbuscuogy appears capable of recovering from applied fungilar mycorrhizas,’ or simply ‘arbuscular mycorrhizas’) form
cides and insecticides, although the recovsymbiotic relationships with their host plants, increasing
ery may take months or years and
plant establishment and growth, so you want to encourthe economics of
age these fungi. Mycorrhizas cannot grow in the absence
crop production
of a host plant, and are known to colonise more than
may be negatively
85 percent of all vascular land plants. Mycorrhizal fungi
The general consensus
impacted in the
increase plant uptake of mineral nutrients that are less
among soil ecologists is
meantime.
mobile in the soil such as phosphorus (P), zinc (Zn), and
that the commonly used
Fungicides are
herbicides do not greatly
used to prevent
affect the diversity and
fungal disease as
seed treatments,
general function of the soil
or to actually
microbial community.
treat (or prevent)
a particular disease when foliarly or soil applied. Potentially the worst
side effect of using a fungicide is that it kills most of
the fungi in the soil or around the seed, many of which
could actually protect the seedling from pathogens, and/
or confer other benefits. In the worst case, a fungicide
would prevent beneficial mycorrhizal fungi from colonising the plant. However, it appears that mycorrhizas are
only temporarily inhibited from colonising the new root
until the seed treatment is diluted or broken down suf-
copper (Cu), as well as more mobile ones such as calcium
(Ca). In exchange, the plant supplies the mycorrhizas
with photosynthates such as amino acids, organic acids,
and sugars. Once a plant is colonised by mycorrhizas, the
rhizosphere microbial community changes in favour of
plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (‘PGPR’), and the
plant increases photosynthesis. The ability of a mycorrhizal fungus to colonise a host plant is affected by the
phosphorus status of the plant and soil. It is thought that
the extra P acts to tighten the plant cellular membranes,
thereby decreasing the amount of photosynthate leaked
from the root, which means less of a signal is received
by the mycorrhizas and making the host less attractive.
So using too much P fertiliser can have the undesired
consequence of reducing mycorrhizal colonisation, thus
also reducing the population and species diversity of
21L.V.
Gonod, F. Martin-Laurent & C. Chenu, 2006, 2,4-D impact on bacterial communities, and the activity of 2,4-D degrading communities in soil, FEMS
Microbiol. Ecol. 58: 529-537.
22G.L.
Pérez, A. Torremorell, H. Mugni, P. Rodríguez, M. Solange Vera, M. do Nascimento, L. Allende, J. Bustingorry, R. Escaray, M. Ferraro, I. Izaguirre, H.
Pizarro, C. Bonetto, D.P. Morris & H. Zagarese, 2007, Effects of the herbicide Roundup on freshwater microbial communities: a mesocosm study, Ecol. Appl.
17: 2310-2322.
483
Photo by Kris Nichols, USDA-ARS.
growth of specific bacterial degraders that are able to
use the various molecular components of the chemical. This modifies the overall function and population
of the community in favour of degrading the chemical, but generally leaves the diversity of the community intact.21 In freshwater microbial communities
exposed to herbicide-contaminated runoff, researchers found that primary production had increased
twofold, while cyanobacteria populations increased
4.5-fold, and picocyanobacteria increased 40-fold,
although populations of plankton decreased.22
particularly the new benomyl, Topsin-M,24 and
the highest rate of carbendazim (an old chemistry,
no longer labeled in the USA).25 However, many
widely used foliar fungicides haven’t been studied
at all for their effect on mycorrhizas, including
propiconazole (Tilt), azoxystrobin (Quadris), and
pyraclostrobin (Headline).
Photo by Kris Nichols, USDA-ARS.
Fungicides in general may also affect mycorrhizas
indirectly, via a slightly negative but transient
influence on rhizobacteria.26 Any fungicideinduced increase in bacterial biomass is likely a
result of surges in chemical-degrading bacteria,27
while tending to decrease the beneficial bacterial
populations such as PGPR as well as free-living,
N-fixing bacteria.28 Indeed, in a number of cases it
appears that adding PGPR or root-disease-antagonistic bacteria as a seed treatment can be as effective as a fungicide seed treatment, or overcome
A fungal hyphae has grown across this earthworm channel (note the size
any adverse affects on the microbial community
difference). Mycorrhizal hyphae can extract water and nutrients from a soil
by the fungicide. By far the best ways to build
volume far surpassing the plant roots by themselves.
populations of bacteria, including PGPR, is to use
diverse crop rotations and cover crops. To partly
mycorrhizas. (Mycorrhizal fungi are relatively complex
overcome poor crop rotations (e.g., corn – soybean) or
organisms, with reproductive life cycles spanning weeks
long fallow periods, food sources such as molasses have a
or months, in sharp contrast to bacteria and protozoa
small but arguably worthwhile effect, by supplying a mixwhich double or quadruple their population in a matter
ture of amino acids, organic acids, and
of hours with favourable conditions.) Most of the origicomplex sugars
nal wild types (“land races”) of the major cereal grains
that approximates
were dependent on mycorrhizas. However, many of our
root exudates.29
modern cereal grain varieties are much less dependent
The persistence of insecAnd you certainly
on mycorrhizas, likely as an inadvertent consequence of
won’t hurt anyticides and their effect on
plant breeding on well-fertilised soils. The lowest level
thing with molasof P availability at which plants can grow without mycorthe rhizosphere microbial
ses, which may
rhizas indicates the dependency of that plant species (or
community are more neganot be true of
varietal) on mycorrhizas. Thus, crops that can grow at low
tive as compared with both
some of the soil
P levels and without mycorrhizas have low dependency.
bio-stimulants
herbicides and fungicides.
Plants that do not form mycorrhizal associations are nonbeing
sold.
But
hosts.
generally, if you
The good news is that many fungicides that have been
have good crop rotations that provide lots of high-quality
studied are not a serious problem for directly reducing
mulch on the surface, then the soil organisms will flourcolonisation by mycorrhizas,23 except for benomyl and
ish in that habitat, as opposed to adding living organisms
23P.F.
Schweiger, N.H. Spliid & I. Jakobsen, 2001, Fungicide application and phosphorus uptake by hyphae of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi into field-grown
peas, Soil Biol. Biochem. 33: 1231-1237; V.J. Allison, T.K. Rajaniemi, D.E. Goldberg & D.R. Zak, 2007, Qualifying direct and indirect effects of fungicide on
an old-field plant community: experimental null community approach, Plant Ecol. 190: 53-69.
24
G.W.T. Wilson & M.M. Williamson, 2008, Topsin-M: the new benomyl for mycorrhizal-suppression experiments, Mycologia 100: 548-554.
25Schweiger
et al., 2001.
26L.
Thirup, A. Johansen & A. Winding, 2003, Microbial succession in the rhizosphere of live and decomposing barley roots as affected by the antagonistic
strain Pseudomonas fluorescens DR54- BN14 or the fungicide imazalil, FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 43: 383-392.
27J.
Demanou, S. Sharma, U. Dörfler, R. Schroll, K. Pritch, T. Njine, U. Bausenwein, A. Monkiedje, J.C. Munch & M. Schloter, 2006, Structural and functional
diversity of soil microbial communities as a result of combined applications of copper and mefenoxam, Soil Biol. Biochem. 38: 2381-2389.
28F.I.
Ekundayo & M.K. Oladunmoye, 2007, Influence of benomyl on ability of Fusarium oxysporum and Fusarium solani to produce beauvericin and rhizosphere organisms of cow pea, Int. J. Soil Sci. 2: 135-141 (decreases in N-fixing bacteria); M. Attia, N.M. Awad & A.S. Turky, 2002, Associative action of
growth promoting rhizobacteria and phytoremediation on the biodegradation of certain pesticides in soil, Bulletin – National Research Centre (Cairo) 27:
469-480 (decreases in PGPR bacteria).
29Root
exudates include complex sugars, but not simple sugars. C4 plants leak far more sugars from their roots than cool-season C3 plants, which may be
why C4 plants tend to be more mycorrhizal.
484
that may not have previously existed in your soil. As for
the existing organisms in your soil (which are already
adapted to it), their populations usually
will expand much
more rapidly
under favourRhizobium and
able conditions
Bradyrhizobium will both
than what you
could ever hope
increase their populations
to accomplish by
completely independent of
applying them to
legume roots, so long as
the soil.
other conditions in the soil
Generally, the strongest negative effect of the more commonly used insecticides is on the nitrogen cycle, which
seems especially true in tropical soils. For instance, imidacloprid (Gaucho, Senator) directly inhibited N-fixation
in mung beans.31 Chlorpyrifos along with quinalphos
and a pyrethroid were all shown to have negative
effects on the N-fixing ability of the free-living bacteria
Azospirillum spp.32 However, many of the other side
effects of insecticide treatments of seed or soil are indirect. For example: Seed treatment with diazinon, imidacloprid, and lindane increased the plant uptake of P.33
Another study showed that mycorrhizal fungi and low P
soil concentrations interact to enhance plant growth that
increased the rate of microbial degradation of lindane in
the soil.34 However, some of the most problematic effects
of insecticides, especially when broadcast-applied, are on
soil fauna, which will be discussed in the next article.
Introducing
are conducive (they don’t
legume inocufix N until they infect a
lants can increase
the populations
legume, however).
of Rhizobium or
Bradyrhizobium
Managing the Rhizosphere & Pesticide Use
regardless of whether these are applied on a legume crop
or not: These bacteria won’t colonise non-legumes, but
Studying mycorrhizas is tricky work in the laboratory
they are free-living in the soil and act as PGPR (they don’t
because of the difficulty of culturing them (mycorrhizas
fix N until they infect a legume, however). Rhizobium
do not grow well without a host plant), so scientists conand Bradyrhizobium will both
increase their populations
Crop Dependency on Mycorrhizal Colonisation
completely independent of
Dependent
Intermediate
Non-host
legume roots, so long as other
alfalfa
medic
oats
canola
conditions in the soil are conalsike clover
millet, foxtail
barley
lupin
ducive.
chickling vetch (Lathyrus spp.) millet, proso
annual ryegrass
mustard, oriental or brown
The persistence of insecticides and their effect on the
rhizosphere microbial community are more negative as
compared with both herbicides and fungicides. Again,
most insecticides are rapidly
degraded by soil bacteria.
Chlorpyrifos (Lorsban), a
widely used neurotoxin insecticide, can degrade in as few
as 20 days,30 and although
there can be effects on soil
bacteria and fungi during that
time, these organisms recover
in a few weeks (however,
effects on soil fauna are more
persistent).
chickpea, desi
chickpea, kabuli
corn
cotton
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)
field pea
flax
hairy vetch
lentil
millet, pearl
onions
potatoes
red clover
sorghums & sudan
soybean
sunflower
sweetclover
white clover
Crotalaria spp.
safflower
wheatgrass
rye
triticale
wheat
mustard, tame yellow
radish
sugarbeet
turnip
Plant species termed ‘obligate mycotrophs’ are dependent on mycorrhizas for various aspects of
growth (e.g., nutrient uptake, drought resistance). For instance, tropical trees, warm-season rangeland grasses (bluestems, switchgrass, etc.), and most legumes require mycorrhizal colonisation for
normal growth. Plants that are ‘facultative mycotrophs,’ such as cool-season grasses (fescue, timothy, wheat, and barley) do benefit from colonisation but will also establish and grow reasonably
well without it, although this somewhat depends on the conditions. Some plant species fend off
the mycorrhizas almost entirely, such as lupin and all members of the brassica family. The disclaimer
for the categories is that many factors affect the degree of mycorrhizal association, including plant
genetics (varietal), number of appropriate mycorrhizal spores in the soil (different species of mycorrhizal fungi have different capabilities or ‘preferences’ for host plants), nutrient status, chemical
residuals, etc.
30C.V.
Lakshmi, M. Kumar & S. Khanna, 2008, Biotransformation of chlorpyrifos and bioremediation of contaminated soil, Int. Biodeterioration & Biodegrad.
62: 204-209.
31A.
Kaur & A. Kaur, 2005, Impact of imidacloprid on soil fertility and nodulation in mung bean (Vigna radiata), Asian J. Water & Environ. Pollution 2: 63-67.
32R.S.
Gadagi, Tongmin Sa & J.B. Chung, 2004, Chemical insecticide effects on growth and nitrogenase activity of Azospirillum sp OAD-2, Comm. Soil Sci. &
Plant Analysis 35: 495-503.
33J.
Singh, N. Sabir, D.K. Singh & M. Singh, 2008, Plant available phosphorus and total phosphorus as affected by diazinon, imidacloprid and lindane treatments in a ground nut field, Pesticide Res. J. 20: 146-150.
34Sainz
et al., 2006.
485
tinually look for indicator species that respond similarly
to mycorrhizal fungi. Indicator species are used to gauge
not just mycorrhizal well-being, but also the entire spectrum of soil biota. For example, one group of organisms
that are reasonably good indicators for both fungi and
bacteria are the micro-algae (photosynthesizing, soildwelling, unicellular or colony-forming eukaryotes).
lem is that if you kill soil fungal pathogens with fungicides,
you also kill most other soil fungi. Fungi are an important
food source for many soil animals, and often contribute
directly to plant vigour as well as soil aggregation.
Fungicides and insecticides used as seed treatments are
generally safer for soil ecosystems as compared with soil
applications (banded or broadcast) of the same chemistries,
due to the much smaller volume of soil affected. The prob-
Authority, Spartan, Furadan are registered trademarks of FMC.
Senator is a registered trademark of Nufarm Australia Ltd. Callisto,
Apron, Bravo, Ridomil, Quadris, Tilt are registered trademarks
of Syngenta. Topsin is a registered trademark of Nippon Soda Co.
Roundup Ready is a registered trademark of Monsanto.
So, although fungicides and insecticides are eventually
broken down by soil microorganisms, still they are definitely more toxic to other organisms in the soil food web
When several commonly used herbicides were ranked
compared with herbicides. I recommend avoiding prophyseparately for their effects on micro-algae, the most toxic
lactic use of fungicides and insecticides, and instead nurwere diuron (Karmex), propanil, and atrazine, while chlor­
turing the build-up of a biologically diverse rhizosphere
propham was intermediate, and MCPA and glyphosate
to compete with pathogens and damaging insects. In my
were the least toxic.35 The key finding is that it appears
experience, most healthy plant rhizospheres have an adethat most microorganisms are capable of tolerance to glyquate population of Bacillus and other bacterial species
phosate and, to a lesser extent, 2,4-D or atrazine. Even in
that provide some protection from insect
soils that had no previous history of glylarval grazing. However, when an insect
phosate or 2,4-D use, many glyphosatepopulation is out of balance and threatand 2,4-D-tolerant microorganisms
ening the crop, then using an insectiwere isolated.36 This is the good news,
Given enough time, the soil cide may become necessary. Whenever
because once again it means that if herfeasible, use the somewhat more
ecology appears capable
bicides are used judiciously and at the
targeted insecticides (e.g., synthetic
of recovering from applied
appropriate time, they are likely to be
pyrethroids) instead of broad-spectrum
fungicides and insecticides, chemistries (e.g., carbofuran) that tend
broken down relatively quickly, limitalthough the recovery may to be more disruptive. Following a crop
ing the potential for negative effects in
the field as well as in runoff. Pesticides
that has had significant insecticide use
take months or years and
and other chemicals break down much
the economics of crop pro- with a cover crop, or any kind of green
faster when the soil conditions favour
cover, will speed the degradation of the
duction
may
be
negatively
high biological activity, such as in the
chemical and allow some recovery of
impacted in the meantime. the damage to the soil ecology. Having
spring when soils are moist.
substantial diversity of plants (includLet’s think about the rhizosphere
ing cover crops), growing them well,
model again. We can isolate the effects
providing adequate nutrients (but not surplus P), and
of glyphosate on plants by using glyphosate-resistant soyretaining very high levels of mulch cover will allow your
beans. When sprayed with glyphosate, glyphosate-resissoil ecology to flourish, which in turn minimizes many
tant soybeans had higher protein, greater N assimilation,
problems with pathogens and damaging insects.
less oil content (more oleic and less linoleic), and changes
in C and N metabolism compared with glyphosate-resisThus far, I have confined the discussion to bacteria and
tant soybeans that were not sprayed.37 These metabolic
fungi. Now just imagine the direct and indirect effects
influences will also be manifest in roots, and glyphosate
that pesticides have at the next level, when we start
itself is exuded from the roots. These changes would no
talking about soil animals such as protozoa, mites, coldoubt affect the community composition of the rhizolembola, earthworms, and carabid beetles. To be consphere, having direct and indirect effects on soil biota
tinued . . . . T
and plant growth. Once again, use the lower rates if at all
Gaucho, Mikado are registered trademarks of Bayer. Headline is a
possible to minimize the effects on soil ecosystem diverregistered trademark of BASF. Lorsban is a registered trademark
sity and function.
of Dow AgroSciences. Karmex is a registered trademark of DuPont.
35A.
Maule, 1984, Interactions of micro-algae with soil herbicides, with particular reference to chlorpropham, Dissertation Abstracts International, C 9 European Abstracts 45: 84.
36V.
López-Rodas, A. Flores-Moya, E. Maneiro, N. Perigones, F. Marva, M.E. García & E. Costas, 2007, Resistance to glyphosate in the cyanobacterium Microcystis aeroginosa as a result of pre-selective mutations, Evolutionary Ecol. 21: 535-547; L.J. Merini, V. Cuadrado, C.G. Flocco & A.M. Giulietti, 2007, Dissipation of 2,4-D in soils of the Humid Pampa region, Argentina: A microcosm study, Chemosphere 68: 259-265.
37N.
Belloui, R.M. Zablotowicz, K.N. Reddy & C.A. Abel, 2008, Nitrogen metabolism and seed composition as influenced by glyphosate application in
glyphosate-resistant soybean, J. Agricult. Food Chem. 56: 2765-2772.
486
Out on Bale
by Kirk Gadzia
T ech n i q ue
Winter feed costs are consistently
one of the highest expenditures
in most beef cattle operations.
Remember, these expenses include
not only the cost of putting up the
feed, but moving it, storing it, and
feeding it. Each one can be a separate time-consuming operation, and
each has potential to take away from
the bottom line. Many people notso-fondly recall that childhood summers on the farm were spent putting
up hay and moving it, and winters
were spent feeding it.
on about 3% of the body weight of
the mature animal per day: Thus, a
1,000-pound cow typically would be
allotted 30 lbs of dry matter per day.
Usually, the farther north you are,
the more you spend on winter feeding because of the longer winter
and heavier snow cover. Often, the
feeding comes with additional costs
of manure removal and spreading.
Each day that an animal can graze
its daily requirement, without being
fed, is a significant cost savings.
With bale grazing, increases
of 400 to 4,000 lbs/a/yr of
forage are often reported.
Bale grazing usually refers to placing large round bales strategically on
fields where they are to be grazed
during the winter months. Typically,
groups of bales are fenced with
a one-wire electric fence to provide enough forage for 2 days to 2
weeks for the herd size that is being
grazed. Feed calculations are based
porary one-wire electric fence. This
is also known as strip grazing, and
placement of the strips and their
sizes are related to the nutritional
needs of the animal, the weather,
and the parts of the field that may
need to be utilized at different times
(e.g., lower areas that collect deep
snow, or that are far from cover in
bad weather). The advantage of
swath grazing is that there’s no baling of the windrows and the nutri-
ents are returned directly to the site
where the crop was cut.
Pile grazing is a simple variation on
swath grazing, but is usually done
with perennial grass stands. Here,
the swaths are gathered up into loose
piles rather than left in windrows.
George Whitten and Mike McNeil
utilize pile grazing on native meadows in the San Luis Valley of southern Colorado. The bottom of the valley is nearly 8,000 feet in elevation
and winters are long and very cold,
with temperatures below zero (F) for
weeks at a time. The main reason for
piles versus windrows is the reduced
exposure of forage to weather.
Lower Costs, Better Pastures
Regardless of the winter grazing
method used, all of the producers
I’ve interviewed have said the primary reason they began looking at
these alternatives was cost savings.
The range of cost savings has varied
from 75% to 10% depending on the
level of management, yearly conditions, and the type of practice used.
In many instances, the practice of
putting up and feeding hay has been
Photo by Cathy McNeil.
However, many agricultural operations have discovered some very
innovative ways of reducing this winter feed cost while saving time and
energy, and improving their land
at the same time. The practices go
under several names: bale grazing,
swath grazing, or pile grazing. The
basic idea is that the animal can feed
itself, and the job of the manager is
to plan the best way for that to happen on the farm.
Swath grazing is the practice of
grazing windrows of cut perennial
forage, annual grain or forage crops,
or crop aftermath (stubble). Usually,
the field where these windrows are
located is cross-fenced
with a tem-
Gadzia is a rangeland and resource
management consultant based in
New Mexico.
Piles of bunch-raked hay on Whitten & McNeil’s meadows in the San Luis Valley of
Colorado. These will be strip grazed during winter while under snow cover.
487
entirely replaced with buying hay
and having it placed directly in the
fields where it is to be grazed during
the winter season.
Goven says this practice greatly simplifies their own operation in terms
of cutting machinery and labor costs,
and allows him to focus on improving soil health. This focus in turn has
created a 300% increase in stocking
rates over their former practices.
He confidently predicts that this
increase will go to 500% over the
next few years as the land continues
to improve.
One of Goven’s measures of this
improvement is the pounds of beef
produced per acre. As pastures continually improve, his production has
been as high as 180 lbs of beef per
acre per year, although yields decline
during drought conditions since
there is no irrigation. Goven plans
the operation as if each year is going
to be a drought, then takes advantage of any excess production by
bringing in more stock in the fall and
winter on a custom-grazing basis.
Where hay is purchased, these beef
operations typically report that they
have converted most of their own
cropland into perennial pasture. The
managers want to have less reliance
on fossil fuels, less machinery, and
find they can cash flow the forage
production through their animals
better than they can through hay
production. However, by far the
largest benefit to buying hay is the
488
Photo by Clayton Robins.
For example, Gene Goven, who
farms and custom grazes near Turtle
Lake, ND, purchases all the hay for
the cattle that winter on his operation. This hay is typically from CRP
lands or even slough and cattail hay.
In other words, it is seldom costly,
but provides the needs of his cow
and calf herd for the winter. The hay
is strategically placed on the areas
that need the additional nutrients
and organic material that bale grazing provides.
A single-strand electric wire is moved to allow the cattle access to a new allotment of hay.
Bale strings do not need to be cut.
nutrient value that is added and the
subsequent increases in productivity
to that land. Increases of 400 lbs to
4,000 lbs/yr of forage per acre were
reported in several instances.
Neil Dennis of Wawota, Saskatch­
ewan, contrasted the time savings
of bale grazing versus conventional
bale feeding. He says that they used
to spend at least one
hour of tractor
Reduce costs and maximize
production: Let the cow
do most of the work while
you do the thinking and
planning.
time per day to feed the herd, and
now they use approximately one
hour per month to place the bales in
strategic locations for grazing—and
he gets to choose the good-weather
day to do the job! In order to calculate the amount of bales needed,
Dennis first checks the weight of the
bales he is purchasing or trading for.
Then he uses an independent laboratory to check the nutritive value of
the feed rations to make sure cattle
will receive what they need. He also
knows the average weight of the animals he is wintering on bales. Since
cattle will typically eat 2.5 to 3%
of their body weight daily, the final
calculation is to divide the weight of
bales by amount needed per head;
multiplied by the number of head
and by the number of days for an
allotted area.
Dennis Wobeser of Lloydminster,
Alberta, says his cost of “buying in” hay is 4 cents per pound
delivered to the field. A cow/calf
pair consumes about 35 pounds
of feed per day ($1.40 total per
pair per day). (Editors’ Note: The
U.S. and Canadian dollars were
approximately equal value at time
of writing.) However, the value
placed on the nutritional return of
the manure and urine to the soil is
approximately 38 cents a day per
pair according to Wobeser, based
on fertilizer costs in early 2008.
Wobeser quotes these numbers
for cow/calf pairs in the winter
because they keep the calf on
the cow for 10 months and calve
only on green grass in the spring.
Indeed, most producers utilizing
this novel form of winter grazing
also report a similar management
philosophy of later calving to be
more in sync with forage production and the natural fertility cycles
of the cows. The key is selecting
for animals adapted to the climate
and that respond well to minimal
inputs. The focus is on reducing
costs and maximizing production.
This means letting the cow do most
of the work while you do the thinking and planning.
Another concern seems to be
the perennial plants directly
under the bale being killed
out. This can happen, depending on when the bale is placed
there and how long it stays
before being eaten. However,
the area that is affected is
quite small usually, and lasts
for one season only. Plus, the
added productivity of the
nearby area swamps any negative effect.
Using natural jute or sisal twine is
recommended for the baling process, and many strings should be
applied if possible.
With bale grazing or swath
grazing, there is very little
waste. If some material
is left behind, it goes
to build soil cover and
feed soil organisms. And
because transportation
expenses are eliminated,
the uneaten material is of
little cost anyway.
The reason for many strings is to
keep the bales together while the
cattle are eating on them, which
minimizes wastage. Most producers
say that the strings do not have to be
cut, and whatever remains behind
composts into the soil. That’s right,
the cows open the bales themselves,
so it is one less thing you have to do.
The cows will do this for any kind
of bale string, and even netting, but
you will have to go back and pick
up the plastic when they are done
and there is always some danger
of ingestion problems with plastic
twine or netting.
Placement of bales is not critical unless you want to target the
improvement of certain areas, such
as zones of poorer soil, or bush
encroachment, or low density of
perennial forage plants. Gene Goven
uses bale grazing to renovate old
low-productivity pasture. The way
to do this is to place at least 20 – 30
bales per acre on these areas and
not allow the cows to consume all
the litter. You want to plan for a certain amount of litter accumulation
for soil health, Gene says. Also, since
bale grazing does take place in winter, you need to consider location in
terms of proximity to natural shelter,
although the bales themselves offer
good protection in some cases.
Photo by Gene Goven.
One concern most people have is
the amount of hay or swathed material that goes to waste with this form
of winter grazing. The consistent
answer from everyone practicing
it is that there is either no waste
or almost none. If the calculation
of pounds of feed consumed per
animal per day is matched to the
amount of feed allotted for the days
the animals will be placed there, the
animals tend to eat almost all the
food. Also, if material is left behind
because the animals are moved due
to a storm or other reasons, they
will go back and clean it up at a
later date. If some material is left
behind, it goes to build soil
cover and feed soil organisms. It also helps absorb the
nitrogen in the manure and
urine, then releasing it at a
time more in sync with plant
growth (spring and summer).
And because transportation
expenses are largely eliminated, the uneaten material is
of little cost anyway.
Some Guidelines
Photo showing increased production where bale was placed and grazed the preceding winter. Gene
Goven’s bale grazing has allowed a 300% increase in stocking rates over former practices, with pastures continually improving. One measure of improvement is the pounds of beef produced per acre
per year, although vegetation is carefully monitored as well.
489
Photos by Kirk Gadzia.
reports this may take 15 minutes or
less per day to ‘feed’ 100 cows. He
usually sets up a couple of temporary wires, one ahead of the other.
Should the cattle break down the
first wire for whatever reason, the
second wire will usually stop them
from advancing into the entire feeding area. Some ask about the labor
to move cattle, but since the cattle
are hungry, Dennis says they move
themselves as soon as he takes down
the wire.
A
Photo A: Bale feeding zone is towards the right—note
healthy green color. Photo B: Same species of grass taken
from outside (L) and inside (R) the bale feeding zone.
Movement of animals to fresh areas
is important because they tend
to foul the areas they are in fairly
quickly with their own dung and
urine. Movement depends mostly
on the amount of feed available for
the herd in the size of area given to
them, but it also is a function of soil
compaction and pasture damage if
the ground is not frozen and there is
little snow cover.
Some managers are finding they can
get by with larger areas used for 2 or
more weeks where they have frozen
soil and good snow cover. Others in
more open areas are moving animals
daily onto fresh ground. Experience
and local conditions are the guiding
factors in determining the right timing for your area.
Pre-planning is the key to minimizing labor requirements for both
moving the animals and keeping
fresh feed ahead of them, says Neil
Dennis. Prior to winter, one needs
to know where and when they will
be grazing the swath and/or bales.
You plan your moves and then set
490
B
up your fence accordingly within
your outside perimeter or semipermanent fencing. With that done,
bales are then set 15 – 20 feet apart
in rows. Since Dennis has already
calculated the number of bales he
will be allotting at a
time, he is able
In the paddock with bale
grazing, Kelly Sidoryk
reports the average distance between plants has
gone from over 3 inches to
0.6 inches. She estimates a
two- to four-fold increase
in forage production in the
growing season following
bale grazing.
to use a temporary electric wire
between his permanent or semipermanent perimeter wires at the
time he starts the bale grazing. He
It seems that the Canadians have
the most experience with bale and
swath grazing and are the true
leaders in this field. Perhaps this is
because they have had the most to
gain from reducing costs and workload in tough winter conditions.
Whatever the reason, everyone I
spoke with referred me to someone north of the U.S. border as
the “real expert” on winter grazing.
In fact, the Agricultural Research
and Extension Council of Alberta
(ARECA, www.areca.ab.ca) has
published a very informative booklet
entitled ‘Year Round Grazing 365
Days’ available at http://www.agri
reseau.qc.ca/bovinsboucherie/docu
ments/00105%20p.pdf. (Editors: the
publication wasn’t on the ARECA
site at time of press.)
Many Canadian winter graziers do
not provide water to the cattle, but
rely on snow cover to provide what
the cows need. Some have been
doing this for over 20 years with no
ill effects. However, it takes cattle
a couple of days to learn how to
eat snow if they have not done so
before. Crusted snow is more difficult to consume and the animals
need access to clean snow at all
times, and the snow must have adequate moisture content. The most
important thing is that you check
the animals and snow conditions and
provide water if you see any signs of
stress.
Snow depth covering windrows is
a factor that is considered, but it is
Sidoryk reports that another positive result is how bale grazing of
hay works in their operation as they
focus on converting solar energy
through forages and ruminants. Bale
grazing has been a way in which
Deep snow? No problem for experienced cattle! (Snow is actually a water source for the
cattle, making things easier yet for the producer.) The meter stick in the photo provides an
indication of snow depth (~ 2 ft).
491
Photo by Clayton Robins.
Photo by Neil Dennis.
rience with the practice: “Bale
grazing allows us to greatly
reduce labor and equipment
requirements during the feeding period. Last season with a
four- to five-day graze, feeding labor worked out to under
$0.10 per head per day. Total
feed and labor costs were
under $1.15 per head per
day.” Kenyon continues, “Bale
Bales placed for winter grazing. Neil Dennis reports that daily moves to new allotments take 15
minutes or less per day to ‘feed’ 100 cows.
grazing also allowed us to
import nutrients and organic
matter to our land. We value each
their family operation has signifinot as critical as you might think.
cow that is fed on our pastures at
cantly enhanced soil organic matter,
Experienced cows can easily reach
$0.30 per head per day due to the
biodiversity, and overall health of
feed with two feet of overlying snow.
fertilizer value added to the land.
the land, as well as improving forage
The bigger problem is if the snow
This would make our true feed cost
production.
crusts heavily or falls just after a
at $0.85/hd/day. We also receive
heavy rain.
Steve Kenyon ranches in the
added water-holding capacity and
Barrhead area of northern Alberta
ground cover due to this strategy.
Waste Not
and also has expeBale-grazed land can outproduce
Kelly Sidoryk documented some of
the land not bale-grazed by up to
the results on their family livestock
$75/acre more in the first year. That
operation at Lloydminster, AB,
benefit remains in the land for years
Steve Kenyon: “Bale-grazed
after they began bale grazing hay
to come.”
in 2003. The results have turned
land can outproduce the
University of Manitoba soil scientist
out to be better than they had
land not bale-grazed by up
Don Flaten has studied manure
hoped: Production has significantly
recycling: “Every tonne of alfalfa
to $75/acre more in the
increased, as has biodiversity, while
hay represents 60 pounds of nitrofirst year. That benefit
costs have been cut. Sidoryk congen, 12 lbs of phosphate [P2O5],
ducted biological monitoring which
remains in the land for
60 lbs of potash [K2O] and six lbs
documents this improvement. She
years to come.”
of sulfur. That’s about $55 worth of
looked at the monitoring results on
nutrients per tonne from a fertila particular paddock that had been
bale grazed for three winters over
the last five years. Bare ground
has decreased from around 20%
to virtually zero. The average distance between plants has gone from
over 3 inches to 0.6 inches. She
now reports having a thick layer of
thatch where the bale butts were,
with this comprising 21% of the
paddock. She estimates a two- to
four-fold increase in forage production in the growing season following
bale grazing.
izer standpoint. In terms of feeding practices, 80 per cent or about
$40 worth is going to be deposited
where the bale is fed. Grass hay is
about $35/tonne.”1 (Editors: “tonne”
is a metric ton, approximately 2,200
lbs. Nutrient values were from early
2007 fertilizer prices.)
All Things Considered
Trevor Atchison of Pipestone,
Manitoba, has extensive experience with winter swath grazing of
various crops. He reports many
positive benefits of this practice
including: easy integration of
swath grazing and no-till cropping,
reduced manure handling, greatly
reduced labor, healthier animals,
improved soil health, and operator exercise. However, Atchison
also warns of some potential prob-
Photo by Clayton Robins.
Katherine Buckley with Agri-Food
Canada at Brandon, Manitoba, says
that a 1,400-lb cow excretes 23,000
to 29,000 lbs/yr of manure. For a
150-day winter grazing period, this
would be about 9,500 – 12,000 lbs
(5 to 6 tons) of manure per cow,
which includes roughly 55 – 75 lbs
of nitrogen, 20 – 40 lbs of phosphate
(P2O5), and 45 – 65 lbs of potassium (a major portion of K excretion is via urine).2 Using summer
2007 fertilizer prices, this calculates
to approximately $29/cow (65 lbs x
$0.45/lb) for nitrogen ‘applied’ as
manure during the winter grazing
period, plus $10/cow (30 lbs x $0.35/
lb) of P2O5. So the N and P in the
manure total $39/cow during those
150 days, or $0.26/cow/day. (Editors:
By late summer 2008, N & P fertilizer prices had roughly doubled
from the previous year, but were
rapidly falling by Dec. ’08. A ton of
beef manure also includes Ca, Mg,
S, and micronutrients which would
cost $7 – 10 to replace with fertilizer, plus K worth ~ $25, if your
soils have shortages of those nutrients. Nutrient content of manure
varies tremendously due to dietary
intake of the animals, although this
is easily quantified with laboratory
testing.) Furthermore, there is no
handling cost when the manure (as
well as urine) is deposited directly
out on the land by the cow.
Bale grazing at Brandon Research Center in Manitoba.
lems or drawbacks that can occur:
wildlife damage to swathed areas,
weather losses especially if rain
is followed by heavy snow, other
weather hindrances (snow depth,
snow crust, extreme cold temperatures, erratic water source), possible overfeeding, poor grounding
for electric fences, and no decent
production insurance.
Atchison further advises that the
main thing to consider is economics.
You must know what it costs to feed
your cows traditionally before you
can calculate (or test) whether swath
grazing is really cheaper. When you
do figure your swath-grazing production cost, keep in mind that if you
are dual-cropping (harvesting/grazing
more than one crop per year) there
are added nutrient benefits, and that
if you are already producing green
feed this reduces baling and handling
costs and time for getting the green
feed into the animal since they harvest it directly from the swath.
With continued cost increases in
most sectors of agriculture, it makes
sense to investigate methods that
can cut costs dramatically. Bale and
swath grazing are two techniques
that are showing their worth at
enhancing soil quality while improving profits. As energy and labor costs
continue to rise, bale and swath
grazing will be even more advantageous from an economic standpoint.
The methods are simple, but doing
things differently is probably the
biggest challenge you will face. If
you need any encouragement—look
north where the real winter is!
More info on the author’s consulting is available at: www.resource
managementservices.com. For an
overview of the scope and long-term
effects of nutrient removal from ag
land, see ‘Nutrient Export’ in the
Sept. ’08 issue. T
1
D. Winters, July 2007, Spread Benefits of Manure Around, The Western Producer.
2
G.E. Erickson, B. Auvermann, R.A. Eigenberg, L.W. Greene, T.J. Klopfenstein & R.K. Koelsch, 2003, Proposed Beef Cattle Manure Excretion and Characteristics Standard for ASAE, in Proceedings: 9th Int’l Animal, Agricultural and Food Processing Wastes Conf. (Durham, NC, USA, 12-15 Oct. 2003), ed. Robert T.
Burns (data and calculations were for feedlot steers).
492
Photo by Tony Downs.
Labor Productivity
& Creating Wealth
by Matt Hagny
perspecti v e
Hagny is a consulting agronomist
for no-till systems, based in
Wichita, Kansas.
Everyone has heard of the work ethic, and hard-working
such and such could have great implications and returns,
people are often esteemed in many cultures. While a
or it may not make one whit of difference and the return is
certain amount of wealth can be created by working hard
zero (or negative). Perhaps it’s best to think about what the
(and saving), throughout history, by far the largest driver
market value would be for that task—if you hired someof wealth creation has been technology. (Lest the point
one to do the task (operate your machinery, or shop tools),
be missed, it is wealth that improves living conditions,
what would it be worth? Many will fuss and say, “But they
including health.) For instance, comparing amongst
won’t do it right,” although this is just an excuse—it is
countries down through the centuries, the large majority
management’s problem to figure out how to keep employof any increase in income per person (adjusted for inflaees on track, and what parameters of the task are truly
tion) came from growth in productivity per worker, and
important and need to be monitored,
almost all of this was from technology.1 (Technological
and what things get less attention. It
advances have completely elimiisn’t a contest to see who can drive the
nated some types of work, such as
straightest or whatever; this is a busiswitchboard operators, prompting an
ness. And besides, who’s to say whether
Farmers and ranchers
editorial a few years ago in Forbes
the way you want it done is really the
should think of themselves
magazine rejoicing over job destrucabsolute ‘best’ way? (None of us is that
as management first, and
tion—yes, we should celebrate all the
perfectly rational and far-seeing.) Being
labor
secondarily.
things we don’t have to do anymore,
a control-freak isn’t all bad, so long as
for that indeed is progress.)2
you have a healthy dose of self-doubt to
go along with it.
How does this relate to farming? The point I’m making
is that improvements in farm profitability will have very
Other excuses for not hiring labor include lack of availlittle to do with ‘working harder’ (i.e., working lots of
ability. This is indeed a concern in some of the leasthours per year on increasingly trivial things), and a great
populated areas, but there is always somebody out there
deal to do with making better decisions, including deployif you bid up.3 Can’t pay enough? Again, this could be
viewed as a management shortcoming: maybe you should
ing your work hours for the year at the most important
scrutinize your activities more closely, or perhaps you are
tasks, as well as investing in appropriate technologies. In
poorly positioned and need to re-evaluate overhead and
other words, having good labor productivity, which we
other expenses per unit produced, or even whether you
might define as returns to labor divided by hours worked
should be in the business.
(‘returns to labor’ would be net farm profit minus ‘fairmarket’ returns to equity, say 8% or whatever.)
It should be obvious that skilled labor commands a higher
price per hour than unskilled labor. But management
If not already engrained, you as the farm manager and/or
would command a higher price yet in the marketplace,
laborer should get in the habit of thinking about how much
with good reason (fewer people can do it well). And genreturn per hour is being generated by the activity at hand.
erally we see that some of the most profitable farms retain
Don’t get too fanciful with your estimations, however—yes,
1
We are accustomed to thinking of returns on capital (ROAs) and returns to labor (salaries and wages, or the opportunity cost of working for yourself), but
these are both income sources for persons since all capital is ultimately owned by someone. And any increase in per person income (adjusted for inflation)
for a society ultimately depends on: A) capital accumulation invested, or, B) gains in productivity per worker, which is to say, deployment of technology
and skills. Changes in hours worked per year may have some effect, but over long stretches of time the only substantial gains in modern societies are from
greater productivity per hour worked. Capital markets, and capital itself, are human innovations, and can thus be viewed as technology. See generally W.J.
Bernstein, 2004, The Birth of Plenty, McGraw-Hill. See also G. Clark, 2007, A Farewell to Alms, Princeton (Clark shows that essentially all of the economic
gains since the Industrial Revolution derive from improvements in labor productivity, and about 3/4 of this is due to greater efficiency from know-how
[“production knowledge,” i.e., skills and technology] and only 1/4 from greater physical capital deployed per laborer).
2
W. Baldwin, 1 Nov. 2004, In Praise of Job Killers, Forbes.
3
That (inflation-adjusted) wages continue to increase is a wonderful thing: It means the standard of living has risen in your society.
493
Photo by Dan Forgey.
during crunch times such as seeding
or harvesting. There are occasional
‘eureka’ moments during the heat of
battle, but not if you are a zombie.)
If your analysis shows that you truly
do have sufficient time on your hands
to do a good job with management
and still provide a large portion of the
labor, that’s fine. But don’t let management suffer because you’ve shortchanged your operation on labor, or
because you enjoy tinkering in the
shop or being outdoors more than
performing office work such as analyzing your business. (You can do only
Some innovative farmers have built a hitch and routed plumbing to tow an air cart behind
their planter, delivering dry fertilizer in-row and/or side-band. If you’re trying to stretch your the things you enjoy, but then don’t
planter investment over more acres, and already own an air cart, this makes sense. Labor
complain about the end result being
productivity is also improved.
financially lackluster.)
As for outsourcing versus in-house, Terry Kastens, KSU
the management tasks while outsourcing some (or all) of
Extension Ag Economist, analyzes it thusly: “I believe
the labor, directly via employees, or indirectly via conmost tasks that were once ‘farmed out’ will come back
tracting with other farms or ag businesses. An example is
in-house. At least this is what I observe for most non-ag
Logan, KS, farmer Alan States, who, with a bank to overcommercial success stories. And, it is what I’m observing
see, doesn’t participate directly in that many field activities
for fast-growing large commercial farms. That is, hiranymore, but he has put careful thought into how to hire
ing consultants, custom machinery work, etc., is really
farm labor and contractors, and tries to align their finanonly a stopgap as one moves towards a
cial interests with his own to whatever extent possible.
large commercial farm. Of course, that
States’ farm is as profitable as it has ever been (which
stopgap is often sufficient to allow
is to say, quite profitable), so this aptly
oneself to coast out into retirement
demonstrates the value of insightful financial analysis and planning, as
Gains in farm labor produc- profitably, since the impending consolidation doesn’t happen overnight.”
compared to performing tasks in the
tivity are almost entirely
Kastens continues, “Yet, when poultry,
field or the farm shop: The latter are
due
to
technological
hogs, dairy, and beef finishing decided
necessary, but not sufficient, for finanto consolidate, it did happen quite
cial success. (It should be noted that
improvements.
fast. For example, we went from, ‘I
States was a farmer before he became
can run a successful 300-cow dairy in
a banker, not the other way around.)
Kansas,’ to, ‘Nobody in their right mind would build a
new 300-cow dairy in Kansas’ in perhaps 5 – 10 years.
Outsource, or In-House?
That’s pretty fast. I expect crop production consolidation
Too many farmers and ranchers get caught up in trying
to occur nearly as fast, with much of that being seen in
to do everything themselves. But they should think of
the next 10 – 20 years.” If Kastens is correct, this will
themselves as management first, and labor secondarily.
mark a dramatic change in crop farming in many regions,
This isn’t to say that you deserve more perks and don’t
although it is merely a continuation of a trend that has
have to get your hands dirty; instead, what this demands
been occurring for millennia. (Kastens has a financial
is that you put forth more brainpower towards making
stake in a sizable grain operation, so this isn’t merely
better decisions, as well as monitoring and re-evaluating
armchair forecasting for him.)
those decisions. And making better decisions almost
The New Technologies
always requires getting enough sleep and having some
pleasant non-work diversions to keep you from becoming
Gains in farm labor productivity are almost entirely due
excessively immersed in the battles at hand. (At a minito technological improvements (think about the output in
mum, strive to make all the important decisions when
bushels or tons for a mechanized U.S. or Canadian grain
you are well-rested and have had time to reflect and
farmer versus that of a Third World farmer—or versus
gather information; try not to make any major decisions
U.S. farmers a couple generations ago, doing everything
494
with oxen, horses, or hand labor). Technology often takes
of technology. Well-devised crop rotations and larger
the form of hardware, software, or genetic engineering
contiguous fields are examples. Organizing your spraying
(including crop breeding). For instance, GPS-guidance
schedule for fewer cleanouts needed is another.
and auto-steer are labor-saving devices, reducing fatigue
Livestock operations are exactly the same. The biggest
and allowing the operator more opportunity to observe
returns are from more intelligent decisions, not from
the machine’s functioning, contemplate activities, permoving more feed or manure around, nor from buildform calculations, make plans, carry on important phone
ing the prettiest fence. (For example,
calls, etc. Air drills, central-fill planters, and stripper
see Kirk Gadzia’s ‘Out on Bale’ on
heads for combines are technologies
page 487.)
that can also greatly improve producAgain, the point is that you shouldn’t
tivity per hour. Herbicide- and insectYou shouldn’t necessarily
necessarily look for more activities
tolerant crops can likewise improve
to keep yourself busy in the physilook
for
more
activities
to
labor productivity (at least in the
cal sense. Instead, spend more time
short term), if used appropriately. (Of
keep yourself busy in the
thinking about managing more effeccourse, herbicides themselves are cerphysical sense.
tively, and that includes increasing
tainly a labor-enhancing technology.)
your output per hour. (Some timeGrain handling systems, cone-bottom
management gurus assert, with some
bins, and totes for seed storage can
credibility, that an hour of planning is equivalent to
also lead to gains in productivity per hour (or per minfour hours of reacting.) In many cases, you would be
ute). Efficient tendering systems for seeders and sprayers
better off to find a cunning way to eliminate tasks,
serve similar ends. Whether your farm derives benefit
freeing up even more time for insightful analysis, and
from deploying more of these depends on the details,
for true prosperity: Enjoying the fruits of your manincluding the cost of capital versus the cost of labor.
agement (whether that deploys your, or someone else’s,
Sometimes the gains are simply in organization of the
physical labor). T
tasks or the materials to be used, which is also a form
495
Chance of a Lifetime
TU
RE FAR
M
ER
The original story
on States appeared
in the Dec. ’03 issue.
FEA
by Matt Hagny
s
A
We last reported on
la
e
n S Tat
Alan States amidst
a record-breaking
drought, which didn’t relinquish until
2007 (although ’05 was, in his words,
“halfway reasonable”). 2007 was a
banner year for States, not just in
terms of production but also in profitability since he had purchased ’07 fertilizer in ’06, and sold the ’07 crop in
early ’08. (Uncanny, isn’t it? —States’
market instincts serve him well.)
Weather in ’08 proved “challenging,”
but due to extreme excess moisture,
which presented some new problems—for instance: rill erosion, especially where ‘foreign’ water drains
across States’ fields from adjacent
land. Because of abundant summer
rains, his soybean crop was a bumper
46 bu/a, but quite slow to mature
and dry down. When he first started
cutting beans, it was bone-dry in the
top foot and the drill wouldn’t have
gone in the ground to plant wheat.
Then it got really muddy, which
almost entirely prevented his wheat
planting in soybean stubble (he did
get a few acres mudded in).
So, other than 55 acres of wheat
after field peas, States will have no
wheat crop for ’09 on his 6,800 acres
of cropland. Is he concerned? Not so
much. States actually had a stacked
wheat program for a couple years,
but lately has dropped the 2d-year
wheat: “Corn and soybeans have
been more profitable than wheat in
recent years. Soybeans have actually
carried us the last two years.” So he
will be a corn – soybean farmer in
Phillips County, KS?! He adds some
caveats: “Corn has never been successful for us planted into anything
496
except wheat stubble. But this is an
exceptional circumstance where the
soil [moisture] profile is completely
full in the soybean stubble.” So he
will roll the dice in ’09 with corn into
soybean stubble, and accept the consequences of the workload crunch.
“Then we’ve got to get back to some
semblance of a rotation. . . . We
really need wheat in the rotation to
keep residue levels up. Our residue
disappears too quickly.”
Eventually States envisions returning to a rotation with stacked wheat.
He continues to grow predominantly
corn rather than milo,
partly due to
“In grain farming, out of 30
years, you might only have
2 fantastic years. No-till
and these other efficiencies are about surviving all
those other years.”
profitability and partly due to some
fields with shattercane. ’08 was his
first attempt at field peas, which
made 30 bu/a, but he’s quite cautious about replacing many soybean
acres with peas.
States remains frugal on machinery,
although the lineup has grown to
handle his added acres and better
yields: two 2588 combines, a 40-ft
JD 1890 (7.5-inch spacing) with
430-bu cart, a 16-row Case-IH 1250
front-fold planter, a newer 4WD
tractor and a MFD (both with autosteer), and a couple grain carts and
semis. When the crop warrants it,
States hires custom harvesters with
4 additional combines. States continues his business relationship with Jay
Hofaker for operating the machin-
ery and overseeing field operations
when States is absent (which is
frequent, since he does have a bank
to run), although Hofaker also has
his own sizable farming operation.
States relies on Randy Kiser’s custom spraying service, too.
States continues to use surface
broadcast urea to supply his N needs
for wheat and corn, and has generally tried to build P levels in fields
that are low, most of which goes out
as 11-52-0 as pop-up in the wheat
(corn gets pop-up of 10-34-0). Alan
has begun adding S and Zn fertilization, as prilled ammonium sulfate
and zinc sulfate blended into his
other dry fertilizers.
States reflects on the recent (June
’08) spike in virtually all commodity prices (not just grains) and
their subsequent collapse: “These
opportunities only come along about
once in a career. Back in the ’74
era, we had this fantastic spike in
grain prices [a bigger spike than ’08,
inflation-adjusted]. A few people
took great advantage of that. But
people who thought it would last
soon found themselves in trouble.”
He continues, “The lessons are the
same now as they were then: Be
efficient on equipment, and get the
debt paid down. . . . In grain farming, out of 30 years, you might only
have 2 fantastic years. No-till and
these other efficiencies are about
surviving all those other years. And
hopefully we’ll do something right
with [the substantial profits] instead
of farming until it’s gone.”
Alan was fresh out of the military in
’74, and only had about 15 acres of
wheat—so he didn’t benefit greatly
from that episode. But he learned.
This time, he admits to doing considerably better. T
Making It Pay
by Matt Hagny
s
s
FEA
R
ER
M
e
es
ER
ER
FEA
R E FAR
M
M
Ry
Ron recalls his message back then: “I really downplayed
wheat. But we had excellent summer rains from ’95
through ’97, so milo and soybeans were much more
profitable for us than wheat.” He continues, “But we
weren’t doing anything different in our no-till wheat than
what we used to do in tillage. We used the same seeding rate—60 lbs/a—and the same fertilizer plan.” Ron
describes sitting in on a session on wheat management
(by two Kansas no-till farmers) in 2000, when, “The light
came on: We needed to manage our wheat differently in
no-till.” So he and his sons, Eric and Ryan, upped their
wheat seeding rate and fertilizer, and picked up 20 bu/a
in yield increase the first year (and essentially ever since).
TU
were riskier than wheat; Ryan comments,
“In ’03 and ’04, we bailed on some rotations due to economics.” Plus, Jacqueses
o
were
really struggling to control triazine/
e
n
Jacqu
ALS-resistant Palmer pigweeds with that
much milo in their rotation (this was before
Lumax was labeled for milo).
FEA
R E FAR
TU
Back in the mid-’90s, a
name and face familiar
R E FAR
on the no-till speaking
TU
circuit in Kansas and
a
u
n J
acq
Colorado belonged to
Ron Jacques’ (jah-kwes),
r
e
ic
Jacqu
whose farm was almost entirely no-till
in the early ’90s, and has been 100% continuous no-till (except for newly acquired fields) since
1995 when ‘Freedom to Farm’—the new U.S. Farm
Bill—eliminated penalties for crop rotation. In the heart
of monoculture wheat country about 10 miles south of
Hutchinson, KS, Ron had already rediscovered (in the
’80s) the value of crop rotation, and was finding crops
other than wheat to be quite profitable, especially when
no-tilled.
About that time, ‘stacking’ of no-till wheat (2 consecutive
years, preceded by at least 2 years without wheat, rye, or
triticale) was becoming popular in the region, and this
technique proved to be an excellent fit for Jacqueses.
Ryan says, “Stacked wheat is one of the best moves we
ever made.” Reacting to their weed-control problems,
they substituted double-crop soybeans for the dc milo,
creating a rotation of wht >>wht/ dc soys >>milo >>soys,
which they’ve used
on most of the
farm since ’02.
(Occasionally,
they grow wheat
“Wheat will respond to
3 years in a row
intensive management.”
on fields with
very poor soils,
with Ron noting
that 3d-yr wheat still yields okay although ‘cheatgrass’
pressure gets bad.) Except for a few episodes of crop
loss due to flooding, Ron says their double-crop beans
have been quite consistent, never yielding below 17 bu/a
even in the most droughty years. And despite the return
of more favorable weather patterns, the Jacqueses just
can’t get corn to yield with milo, and rarely plant corn
Photo by Ron Jacques.
During the mid-’90s, crop rotation on the Jacques farm
(dryland, except for 3 pivots) was typically wheat/ dc
milo >>milo >>soybeans, but
occasionally with dryland corn
instead of milo, or with singlecrop sunflowers instead of
soybeans. Ron reflects, “The
rotation worked good in those
years.” Then the drought hit.
Ron says, “1998 to ’04 were
some of the worst years this
farm has ever experienced for
fall crops.” Corn and soybeans
were often disastrous; the
single-crop milo somewhat
better. Because of input costs,
they concluded that milo,
soybeans, and especially corn, Seeding wheat on the Jacques farm: “Stacked wheat is one of the best moves we ever made.”
497
anymore, even under pivots (theirs are 400-gpm pivots,
so limited irrigation; their irrigated rotations are basically
the same as their dryland).
Another drastic change for Jacqueses has been exiting
their lengthy involvement in the sheep business, having
shipped off the last of the 1,000-ewe herd in Sept. ’08.
In spite of Ryan & Eric returning to the farm full-time in
the early 2000s, Ron says, “We were at the point where
we couldn’t handle it all. Economics was the final push
[to sell out of the sheep]. . . . We calculated it was costing us to keep them versus selling [more] grain. And we
were working constantly. We don’t want to work that
hard if there’s no money in it.” (Their decision was made
a number of years back, so the recent run-up in grain
prices didn’t skew the analysis.)
United Farm Tools press-wheel drill in the ’90s, to a
Great Plains press-wheel drill (with a coulter ahead of
the double-disc openers) in the early 2000s, and have
now been running a Deere 1890 since the spring of ’07.
Ron says, “I’m really impressed with the job the 1890 is
doing. We should’ve gone to that type of opener years
ago—I was worried about the cost, but it would’ve made
us money.” Eric comments on the earlier press-wheel
drills, “I would get so frustrated with not being able to
get the seed pressed into moisture, even though there
was plenty of moisture in the soil.” Ron adds, “In the fall
of ’05, our neighbor got a stand with a JD 1890 drill, but
we didn’t, due to the open slot of the Great Plains with
the Turbo coulters. Plus, it wouldn’t go through the straw
[without plugging or dragging].”
Photo by Matt Hagny.
Jacqueses’ 1890 is on 10-inch spacing,
The Jacques farm has no perennial
is equipped with narrow gauge wheels,
pasture, so the feed for the sheep
SDX firming wheels, and a 3-tank towcame almost entirely from a hun“If you’re going to grow
behind cart. Ron says, “I really like the
dred acres of alfalfa, plus haying of
high-yielding wheat, you’ve capacity and efficiency of the air drill,
sudan double-cropped after wheat.
and being able to apply fertilizer in the
got to watch everything.”
Back in the ’80s and early ’90s, some
seed row without the mess of liquid
of their wheat was planted earlier
systems. Sometimes I wish we would’ve
for sheep grazing (wheat for grain
gotten the largest cart, though—there are times where it
was never grazed) and occasionally rye or other winter
would come in handy.”
species were planted strictly for grazing. Exiting the
livestock industry may not greatly impact their cropping
Besides much more uniform and thicker wheat stands,
patterns, but it certainly frees up a great deal of time for
the Jacqueses have been focusing on managing tiller
attention to detail on the crops for grain harvest.
numbers at the behest of Phil Needham, although Ron
notes they don’t yet have their tiller numbers as limited
as Phil likes to see. They’ve been planting 1.2 – 1.4 milConstant Change
lion seeds/acre, usually in the 5th – 20th October timeThe cropping details are considerable, once Ryan and
frame, and supplying 30 – 40 lbs/a of P2O5 in the seed
Eric got involved—they’ve both got Bachelor’s degrees
row, and a total of 30 – 50 lbs/a of N in the fall. (Editors’
in agronomy from K-State. Especially for wheat. Ron
Note: This is probably excessive fall N for the earlier of
emphasizes, “Wheat will respond to intensive managetheir planting dates, especially for 2d-yr wheat.) Most
ment.” Ron and Ryan credit much of their progress
of their seed is Cruiser treated. Ron comments, “We’re
to better seeding equipment: they went from a 20-ft
very particular about stands, and getting the wheat off to
a good start. Plant health in the fall
is extremely important.”
Jacqueses’ 2008 double-crop soybeans.
498
Jacqueses’ wheat program currently uses roughly another 100
lbs/a of N in the spring, split
equally between green-up and
jointing, and applied as streams
with their Apache 1010 sprayer.
(Editors: The early N application
may again cause too many tillers to
be kept for too long.) They’ve also
been running about 15 lbs/a of S
as thiosul (including some in the
fall) as well as dry potassium chloride, and in both cases noting quite
favorable yield responses to sup-
In recent years with high grain prices, Jacqueses also
plan on two fungicide applications in the spring on all
their wheat acres. Their ’08 wheat crop came in around
60 bu/a, after some hail and drowned spots took their
toll. Ron remarks, “We used to think 30 – 40 bu/a for
wheat after beans was good. But we were leaving too
much [yield potential untapped].”
Summer Crop Allure
The history of summer crops, particularly milo, goes
back a long way on the Jacques farm. While Ron can
relate some mildly crazy stories of no-till plantings in
the early ’80s, including scratching
wheat into milo
stalks with an old
JD end-wheel
“Some very positive things
drill (with singleare happening in our soils
concave-blade
openers), and
in long-term no-till.”
even a hoe-drill
(going really
slow), he notes the results were only passably decent.
But, Ron says, “No-till milo was very successful, right
from the start.” Where did Ron get the notion for these
no-till efforts? “In those days, I had a brother working in
Kentucky in Extension, and another brother working for
Monsanto in North Carolina. Those were areas that had
some no-till back in those days, and they told me about
what was working.”
For summer crops, the Jacques farm had a Buffalo
planter in the ’80s and ’90s—the type with the largediameter in-furrow firming wheel. Ron says, “I always
liked the way it imprinted the seed in the bottom of the
furrow.” By spring of ’01, it had been replaced with an
8-row White 6100 with row cleaners, Keetons with Mojo
Wires, and Thompson closing wheels. The planter also
has two separate liquid fertilizer systems, one for pop-up,
and another for side-band with low-disturbance openers
(4x0). Jacqueses used a planter for virtually all of their
milo and soybeans until ’07, when they started seeding
those crops
on 20-inch
spacing with
the 1890.
Ron says part
of that was
due to covering the acres
more timely,
although he
notes that
seeding rates
had to be
increased
slightly with
the drill,
further commenting that
at some point
they may go
Jacqueses’ primary-crop soybeans await harvest.
to a 16-row
30-inch planter
for milo and soybeans simply for savings in seed costs.
Currently, their planter is used only for a very small acreage of corn each year.
With the 1890, Jacqueses are using seeding rates of
about 50,000 for dryland milo, and 80,000 on irrigated.
For milo, they run both ranks on the drill, with seed
going down one rank (20-inch spacing) and all the N
+ P fertilizer down the other rank. All their milo gets
Lumax, split-applied, although they still have pigweeds
getting through, especially in wet summers. Ryan notes,
“We make it worse by running the extra rank to place
fertilizer. It does plant some weed seeds.” (Editors: And
destroys residue.)
In addition to pigweeds, another new nemesis on the
Jacques farm is glyphosate-resistant marestail. This has
prompted more diligence in spraying it out of the growing wheat, as well as altering their single-crop soybean
program to include residuals such as FirstRate + Valor.
Jacqueses’ proven APH yields on single-crop soybeans
are 30 – 35 bu/a for most fields, much of which is attributable to excellent yields in the mid-1990s.
Strength in Numbers
“It’s a family operation,” Ron emphasizes—there’s no offfarm income, since Ron’s wife, Vickie, helps considerably
with field work, and Ryan’s wife, Kari, and Eric’s wife,
Jessica, are both “stay-at-home moms.” Ron admits, “It’s
been a challenge to generate the dollars for three families.” The drought of the early 2000s added to the challenge aplenty, although Ron’s frugal instincts and careful
number-crunching kept it all together, and has actually
499
Photo by Matt Hagny.
plying these nutrients. Plus, Jacqueses apply dry zinc fertilizer when soil tests drop below 0.9 ppm (DTPA extraction). Yet they haven’t gotten all the wheat to a uniform,
dark healthy green, which is a source of consternation for
Ryan and Eric, partly because they’ve been barking up
the wrong tree with some “expert” but erroneous interpretation of plant tissue analyses. But everything gets
the eagle-eye, as Ron notes, “The two boys are scouting
all the time,” and all theories put to the test. “If you’re
going to grow high-yielding wheat, you’ve got to watch
everything.” Confounding these management issues is
the extreme variability of their soils, from tight red clay
to sandy knolls, and pH readings all over the map.
Photo by Vickie Jacques.
The Jacques crew harvesting soybeans, 2008.
allowed them to add acres and upgrade machinery in
recent years.
With doing all the harvesting, hauling, and spraying
themselves, Jacqueses’ workload isn’t light. Along with
the air drill, they are striving to improve efficiency by
eliminating field subdivisions, and by using auto-steer
to run longer hours—plus being able to run after dark
more easily. All this while significantly upping the management on each acre. Ron says, “We’re trying to be in a
position to expand. For landlords to send land your way,
you need to demonstrate that you can handle it. You’ve
got to be timely, and have good crops.”
As for soil progress, Jacqueses have always been quite
diligent about soil testing annually, and Ron notes an
overall upward trend in P levels despite applying only
maintenance rates of P fertilizers. Ron comments,
“There are some very positive things happening in our
soils in long-term no-till.” Ryan adds, “Every year our
soil health gets better.” With improved soil structure,
Eric describes cutting wheat the day after a 1.6-inch
rain, never leaving a track, while all the tillage farmers
couldn’t turn a wheel. (Eric does show restraint in running their narrow-wheel Apache on wet soils.)
One thing that worries Ron is being able to keep enough
mulch on the soil, as the microbes apparently consume
it more rapidly than in the early years of no-till on his
farm, and occasionally torrential rains cause sufficient
runoff to float some of it away. Ron reflects on the
dizzying changes, and striving to stay out in front on
profitability: “When you’re doing no-till, you’ve got to
do things right. . . . After all these years, there are still
things to learn.” T
Non Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit No. 69
P.O. Box 379
Wamego, KS 66547-0379
Don’t miss an issue! Renew before date in upper right-hand corner of address info.
A year’s subscription consists of issues in January, April, and September.
500
Salina, KS