By A.P. Hargrave, D.R.S. Rourke, H. Xie and S. Gorrie

CONSERVATION TILLAGE PRODUCTIVITY CENTRE

(PLUS OTHER RELATED PROJECTS)

1995 BULLETIN

The Conservation Tillage Productivity Centre is located on 50 acres of land bordering highway #10, 1/2 mi. northeast of Minto, MB.

The Centre is sponsored by the Manitoba - North Dakota Zero Tillage Farmers' Association and is funded jointly by the federal and provincial governments through the Green Plan. The Centre is a commitment by the cooperating partners to support the development of agricultural production through the development of agricultural practices that are economically and environmentally sound.

The Centre was established to fulfill two main objectives.

1. To develop, evaluate and demonstrate conservation tillage techniques and procedures.

2. To provide farmers with information on conservation tillage, in particular, the results of the Centre's research activities.

All CTPC activities are designed to support and compliment on-farm soil conservation organizations in Manitoba and North Dakota.

Conservation tillage activities at Minto focus on evaluating:

• crop rotations in reduced tillage,
• seeding into heavy crop residues,
• diseases in pulse crops and cereals,
• performance of conservation tillage implements,
• intensive weed management, and
• fertilizer / seed placement geometry and rates in conservation tillage systems.

Projects in 1995 included a Tillage x Rotation x Fungicide trial in Minto, a satellite Conservation Tillage Productivity Centre including a field scale Rotation x Tillage trial with four stubble / tillage combinations (sponsored by ManDak ZTFA) in La Salle MB. on a Red River clay and a Pulses Productivity Centre (sponsored by the Manitoba Pulse Growers) in Minto. There was also continued work on one pass seeding with anhydrous (Concord) and integrated weed management and row spacing in a one pass system (Ducks Unlimited and NSERC).

A. ROTATION X TILLAGE X FUNGICIDE

Zero tillage provided an increased soil available water base compared to minimum till and conventional till in each year (Figure 1). The actual values and differences varied from year to year. The differences were largest in years with limited fall moisture and snow fall such as in 1993. Even in years such as 1995 where soil moisture was not as limiting there was a difference in soil moisture. In dryer years the additional soil moisture resulted in earlier emergence and a more vigorous stand. An additional benefit to zero till was that increased trash cover increases infiltration rates and reduces evaporative losses often leading to higher yields.

In 1995, the incidence of C4 weeds such as green foxtail and red root pigweed as well as Kochia and wild oats was much lower in the zero till treatments. This can lead to reduced use of herbicides and lower input costs, not to mention less susceptibility to weed resistance. Pursuit-Smart canola was used in 1995. Weed control in canola and peas with Poast plus Pursuit was excellent although the peas were set back about 2 weeks.

Figure 1. Effects of tillage on available soil water at seeding. Minto 1992-1995.

Wheat yields responded to both tillage and rotation based on a five year average (Figure 2). Wheat yields increased as the rotation diversified from a monoculture wheat rotation for all tillage practices. Tillage did not greatly affect yields in the 100% or 75% cereal rotations. When the rotation was diversified to a 50% cereal rotation, the zero till system had a yield advantage. Increased soil moisture under zero till and reduced soil borne diseases under a diverse rotation combined to increase yield potential under a zero till 50% rotation.

The use of seed treatment combined with a foliar fungicide improved yields in 1994 Figure 3). A cool seedbed and soil borne diseases reduced plant stands. Combining a 50% rotation with seed treatment tended to improve plant stands, improving plant vigour and delaying the onset of foliar diseases for all tillage systems.

Wet weather conditions in 1995 delayed seeding by 3 to 4 weeks from normal. By the time soil conditions were passable, soil temperatures were quite warm and combined with warm air temperature and good soil moisture, seedlings emerged quicker than normal. This reduced the incidence of losses due to soil borne diseases and as a result, the difference in plant stand between treated seed and untreated seed was reduced compared to 1994 (Figures 4). There was still an increase in plant stand by diversifying the rotation. Crop vigour or the early incidence of disease tended not to differ greatly by seed treatment, but a 50% cereal rotation tended to improved crop vigour and delayed the onset of foliar disease.

Averaging the two contrasting years of 1994 and 1995, it appears that seed treatment is an economical insurance. At $2.05 per acre, the yield benefits far exceeded the cost (Figure 5). Rotation improved yields with or without the use of a seed treatment.

The benefits of foliar fungicides in wheat varied from year to year. Cool, moist temperatures in 1994 combined to slow crop development and enhance disease infection. This combination made it easy to spray wheat with a foliar fungicide. Economic returns were substantial (1994 report). Warm and dry conditions in 1995 speeded crop development and inhibited disease infection 'decreasing the need for a foliar fungicide. The addition of droughty conditions in August further decreased the need for a fungicide application. If foliar fungicides were applied only in years where conditions were right for disease infection and good yield potential. for increasing annual yields (Figure 6) and ultimately, net profit. Spraying a fungicide when conditions warranted the application improved average yields by 5 bu/ac (50% cereal rotation) - Yield losses from fungicide applications can actually reduce yields. Therefore, applying every year may not give an overall yield advantage over not applying fungicides. Factor in the costs of the fungicide and net profits may be reduced by applying every year. Monitoring crop and disease development to make the decision whether to spray or not could increase yearly profits substantially.

Figure 2. Effects of tillage and rotation on wheat yields. Minto 1991-1995.

Figure 3. The effect of seed treatment and rotation on wheat emergence in zero till. Minto 1994.

Figure 4. The effects of seed treatment and rotation on wheat emergence in zero till. Minto 1995.

In past years, an economic analysis has shown that a 50% cereal rotation, regardless of tillage has been the most economic rotation partly due to lower wheat and barley prices and reduced yields of cereals in a prolonged cereal rotation. Higher cereal prices in 1995 and higher relative yields in continuous wheat crops changed this trend for 1995 in the conventional till and minimum till treatments. (Figure 8). However, the trend did hold true for zero till. Higher yields in canola, flax and peas in zero till compared to minimum till and conventional till and higher wheat yields in a 50% cereal rotation resulted in the zero till 50% rotation being the most economical treatment in 1995.

Figure 5. Effect of seed treatment on wheat yields (no foliar fungicides). Minto 1994-95.

Figure 6. Effect of foliar fungicide on wheat yields. (TT=treated, TU=treated 1994 only, UU=untreated). Minto 1994-95.

Figure 7. Effect of foliar fungicide on net profit in wheat (TT"'treated, TU=treated 1994 only, UU untreated). Minto 1994-95.

Figure 8. Effects of rotation and tillage on net profit. Minto 1995.

Average revenues and expenses for 1991 to 1995 are listed in Table 1 - Machinery costs were higher in a conventional till system and tended to decrease with reduced tillage. These differences have tended to increase with each passing year due to higher field and equipment costs. Herbicide costs have tended to be higher in zero tillage, but the difference has been reducing every year because of reducing herbicides and a greater reliance on herbicides among conventional tillers on herbicides such as Roundup. Weed populations have also tended to reduce in zero tillage

The bottom line... revenues increased and expenses decreased as tillage was reduced. A good rotation was important for maximizing profit in zero till, but did not appear to be beneficial for minimum till or conventional till.

Extrapolating the results from a trial scale to a 1000 acre farm, the zero till 50% rotation would have netted $12,000 more than any other tillage / rotation system (Table 2). in past years, when cereal prices were lower, the difference was even larger The net profit zero till was double that of minimum till with a 50% rotation and 35% higher with a 75% cereal rotation. Net profit was about equal between minimum till and zero till when a continuous cereal rotation was utilized.

The verdict after 5 years still appears to be: ZERO TILL + ROTATION = MORE $

B. PULSE CROPS

The Pulse Crops Productivity Centre (PCPC) was established in 1994 with a four year mandate. The objectives of the Centre were to develop and demonstrate the management component necessary to provide economic control of diseases in the production of peas and lentils under reduced tillage conditions. The project was divided into four parts consisting of: 1) monitoring of disease and disease control in commercial fields, 2) monitoring of disease and disease control in crop varieties and fungicide trials, 3-) incorporating the us': of cultural control with chemical control measures to monitor the success and economics of an IPM approach to control diseases in pulse crops and 4) working with chemical companies who would wish that their fungicide be evaluated for the control of diseases in peas and/or lentils.

Soil moisture conditions were very wet and warm in the spring of 1995. The use of a seed treatment in wheat, canola and lentils did not improve emergence rates in these crops because of rapid emergence. A longer time to emergence led to a greater incidence of fungal growth in peas compared to the other crops. The use of Vitaflo 280 seed treatment in peas, therefore, resulted in a 30 to 400/o increase in emergence compared to an untreated check. This higher rate of emergence resulted in a higher yield (Figure 9) and net return Figure 10). Lower than normal incidence of Asoochyta blight reduced the cost effectiveness of Bravo 500 although there was an increase in yield. Both Bravo 500 and Vitaflo 280 independently economically increased yields

Disease pressure in lentils were low in most fields in 1995. Even with low overall disease pressure, an intense lentil rotation resulted in a large yield reduction in yield and a seed grade reduction when fungicides were not applied. (Figures 11 and 12). The application of fungicides were very economical Figure 13). Averaging two sites where disease pressure was low and lentils were not as intensively produced late incidence of Anthracnose and to a lesser extent, Asochyta led to an increase in the percentage of harvested diseased seed in the untreated check (Figure 14). All treatments did receive a #1 grade. Three applications of Dithane @ 0.9 /ac and 2 applications of Bravo 500 @ 0.8 L/ac both resulted in economical yield over the untreated check (Figure 15 and 16).

Figure 9. Effects of seed treatment and foliar fungicide on yield on Express pea yields. Minto 1995.

MISSING!!!!!

Figure 10. Effects of seed treatment and foliar fungicide on net return in peas.Minto 1995.

Figure 11. Effects of foliar fungicides on disease in harvested lentil seed in a poor rotation. Minto 1995.

Figure 12. Effect of foliar fungicides on lentil yields in a poor rotation. Minto 1995.

Figure 13. Effects of foliar fungicides on net return in lentils in a poor rotation. Minto 1995.

Figure 14. Effect of foliar fungicides on disease in harvested lentil seed in a good rotation. Minto 1995.

Figure 15. Effects of foliar fungicides on lentil yields in a good rotation. Minto 1995.

Figure 16. Effects of foliar fungicides on net return in lentils in a good rotation. Minto 1995.

* All fungicide timings in Figures 11 to 16 were at early pod and early flower. With the exception of Dithane 1, which had an additional application at early podding. Rates per application were: Dithane land Dithane 3 - 2 lb./ac, Dithane 2 - 2.9 lb./ac and Bravo -0.8 L/ac.

Table 1 - Average revenue and expense report by rotation and tillage Minto 1991 - 1995.
	Conventional Tillage			Minimum Tillage			Zero Tillage
	100%	75%	50%	100%	75%	50%	100%	75%	50%
Revenue	$204.05	$206.06	$190.36	$214.77	$206.78	$195.53	$207.12	$216.2:	$229.09
Expenses
Machinery	$46.39	$47.02	$47.02	$37.89	$38.57	$38.57	$29.68	$30.36	$30.36
Herbicide	20.49	25.77	26.15	21.80	27.09	27.46	24.42	29.70	30.08
Fungicide	2.54	10.48	10.48	2.54	10.48	10.48	2.54	10.48	10.48
Fertilizer	34.49	30.47	28.70	34A9	30.47	28.70	34.49	30.47	28.70
Seed	10.52	10.24	9.27	10.52	10.24	9.27	10.52	10.24	9.27
Crop ins.	5.86	6.41	6.68	5.86	6.41	6.68	5.86	6.41	6.68
Land Taxes	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00
Storage	3.50	2.32	1.51	3.67	2.34	1.55	3.53	2.39	1.72
Land Investment	20.71	20.71	20.71	20.71	20.71	20.71	20.71	20.71	20.71
Other Costs	7.50	7.50	7.50	7.50	7.50	7.50	7.50	7.50	7.50
Interest	4.13	4.09	3.98	4.13	4.09	3.98	4.13	4.09	3.98
Total Expenses	161.13	170.01	167.00	154.11	162.90	159.90	148.38	157.35	154.48
Net (FOB Farm excluding labour and management)	$42.92	$36.05	$23.36	$60.66	$39.82	$33.63	$58.74	$58.93	$74.61

Table 2. Effect of crop rotation and tillage on a "1000 acre farm". Minto 1991 - 1995.
Crop Rotation	Tillage	Net Profit ($/ac)				Total Profit $/1000 ac
		Field 1	Field 2	Field 3	Field 4
100% Cereals	Con Till	54.87	38.83	33.43	49.76	43695
	MinTill	73.14	55.24	54.56	65.32	61321
	ZeroTill	71.89	55.53	37.56	75.18	59322
	Con Till	74.18	65.48	42.08	(28.34)	37890
75% Cereals	Min Till	82.36	75.43	57.64	(22.90)	47556
	ZeroTill	93.52	89.49	63.88	12.91	64171
	Con Till	77.09	(7.26)	66.72	(33.26)	25436
50% Cereals	MinTill	90.56	12.30	86.10	(34.15)	38239
	ZeroTill	110.81	66.46	117.44	14.31	76327
Crop rotations: 100% cereals: wbeat/'wbeat/wheat/barley (1991-93) wheat/wheat/wheat/wheat (1994-95) 75% cereals: wheat/barley/wheat/mustard (1991-93) wheat/wheat/wheat/canoIa or peas (1994-95); 50% cereals: wheat/flax/barley/mustard (1991-93) wheat/flax/wheat/canola or peas (1994-95)

Three factors (tillage, fungicide and seed treatment were evaluated in Eston lentils and Express peas. Overall, zero tillage improved lentil yields by 458 lb./ac and pea yields by 3 bu/ac over conventional tillage. A two time application improved lentil yields by 185 lb/ac and pea yields by nearly 6 bu/ac. The fungicide had a more beneficial in conventional till than in zero till.

Increasing seed rate improved lentil yields up to a rate of 68 lb./ac (Figure 17). The increase was larger in zero till than conventional till. The high yielding treatment was zero till with a high seeding Bravo 500 (Figure 18). A seed rate of 170 lb./ac increased pea yields by 3.3 bu/ac compared to 115 lb./ac.

Figure 17. Effects of seeding rate on lentil yields. Minto 1995.

Figure 18. Effects of seed treatment, tillage and seeding rate on lentil yields. Minto 1995.

Other studies conducted included one pass seeding with anhydrous ammonia (Concord Inc), one pass seeding with liquid fertilizer (Simplot Inc), row spacing (Ducks' Unlimited), integrated weed management (NSERC) in Minto and a CTPC at La Salle MB. The row spacing and integrated weed management is reported in an attached paper - "Effects of Agronomic Practices on Wild Oat Competition in Wheat and Canola". The CTPC (La Salle) report is attached in the "1995 Report of the Conservation Tillage Productivity Centre - La Salle, Manitoba These papers plus one pass anhydrous will be included in the next issue of the 1995 CTPC report coming to a CTPC booth nearest /you.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

The work conducted at the CTPC was sponsored by the North Dakota Zero Tillage Farmers Association. The PCPC was sponsored by the Manitoba Pulse Growers Association.

Financial assistance was provided by CMASS, NSERC, DucksÌ Unlimited and Concord Inc.

Special thanks to Anderson Machine Shop, Dutch Ind DJ Manufacturing and Gen Manufacturing for the provision of equipment.

Assumptions:

Crop Prices:

wheat	S186.25/MT
barley	$128.25/MT
mustard	275.75/MT
flax	292.41/MT
canola	378.18/MT
peas	195.00/MT
lentils #1	0.24/1b
lentils #2	0.1 8/1b

Fertilizer and pesticide costs were based on local prices and actual usage. Other costs were based on the 1995 "Farm Rental and Custom Rate Guide" and the "Guidelines For Estimating Crop Production Costs" both published by Manitoba Agriculture.