Manitoba Zero Tillage Research Association:

Spotlight on the Research Farm

Farm Manager, Ron Gares

In the wet years of the nineties, why would you move into zero tillage management? You would because it is an opportunity for you to grow more to feed a growing world population and for your farm to survive you must be more efficient than your competitors. Efficiency can take several forms. Being efficient with your time and equipment is possible with zero tillage since you minimize operations. You can also be more efficient with moisture conservation. When we move into a drier cycle (and we will) every extra drop of moisture you can save may mean the difference between breaking even or losing money.

Zero tillage helps reduce some of your equipment costs by reducing the number of pieces of equipment and reduces fuel expenditures at the same time. The zero tillage system and moisture efficiency starts in the winter with the standing stubble with catches and holds snow until the spring melt and then keeps the moisture intact until seeding time. Even though May of 1996 and 97 were dry on the zero tillage research farm, moisture was just below the surface each year. Whether peas were being sown or canola, depth was never greater than 1.5" and 1" respectively. When the windy, warm days in May occur, moisture loss is reduced because a majority of the straw remains standing slowing the wind and the thatch layer inhibits evaporation. This system also produces a micro-climate which protects the young emerging seedlings giving them an opportunity to grow quickly to out compete the weeds. A farm operated under zero tillage management is a farm that is growing with the future. It is a farm adjusting to constant changes to meet the challenge of the next millennium. As a farmer who plans to be in business in the future do not miss this growing opportunity. Move to zero tillage.

As you move into a zero tillage system or even if you have been farming this way for many years, you may have problems with weeds, fertility, crop rotations, disease, crop competition, or others. The Manitoba Zero Tillage Research Association (MZTRA) Research Farm was developed in 1992 to meet these challenges. On the 640 acre farm 11 miles north of Brandon an applied research program operates annually to solve production problems for the membership. The farm follows a systems approach which encompasses crop sanitation, crop competition, crop rotations, crop economics, environmental interactions, and crop nutrition. The research program changes from year to year because it is developed directly from the membership through surveys, supper meetings, farm meetings, winter research meeting and phone calls. The research committee prioritizes all the requests annually and with the farm manager develop the annual "IN-HOUSE"

research program. This group meets throughout the year to monitor trials and go over the results. An annual report and quarterly newsletters pass on this information to the membership.

To compliment the in-house research program there is also a substantial cooperative research program on the farm. This cooperating group includes Ducks Unlimited, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, University of Manitoba, and Manitoba Department of Agriculture. All of the cooperative research is done under zero tillage management and fits into the objectives of the association. The cooperative research is showcased as part of the farm tour in July and all the data collected from these trials appears in our annual report.

To allow you to better understand the scope of our research program some trial information is presented.

As costs increase, growers are purchasing seeding equipment with wider and wider row spacing. From 6, 7 or 8" many farmers now seed with 10" and even 12" machines. To address this issue, a trial was conducted to determine if moving from 8" to 12" row spacing would affect plant emergence and yield at three N fertilizer rates (53, 70 &105 lbs/ac). Identical trials with four different crops including canary seed, canola, flax and wheat were planted. In this issue only the data from the canola trial will be presented. In all trials plots were 14.5' x 2-300' and replicated four times. All crops were seeded with Edwards drills equipped with Atom jet openers set up with either 8" or 12" row spacing. All fertilizer was applied as a surface dribble using liquid nitrogen (UAN - 28-0-0). Data was collected on plant emergence and yield and appear in Table 1. Plant emergence counts were significantly higher for 8" vs 12" on only the 1.0 N (70 lbs N per acre) rate. Although this trial was randomized, treatment 5 (Edward 12" @ 1.0 N) plots were near wet spots or partly under water in 3 out of 4 cases. Yields were all equivalent to one another with less than 2 bu/ac from high to low N rates, and only 1.3 bu/ac difference between 8" and 12" row spacing.

What does this mean? It appears that moving from narrow (6-8") rows to wider (10-12") rows may affect initial plant canopy, but in a year with no frost damage or excessive moisture the canopy should provide sufficient cover and good competition against weeds. If yields from wider row spacing remain identical to narrow rows, there should and will be an economical advantage to the producer. Equipment costs will be less, for example if a 30' machine had 9" row spacing or 40 openers, the same machine with 12" spacing would only require 30 openers, a

reduction of 25%. Fewer openers also means less disturbance and less draft

requirement so a smaller tractor can be used which would use less fuel.

Table 1 showing the effect of 8" vs 12" row spacing with 3 rates of nitrogen on canola emergence and yield in this trial conducted on the zero tillage research farm.

___________________________________________________

Application Plant Emergence Yield

___________________________________________________

Edward 8"@ 3/4 N* 34.8 40.6

Edward 8"@ 1.0 N 37.3 41.7

Edward 8"@ 1.5 N 36.8 41.7

Edward 12"@ 3/4 N 30.8 40.1

Edward 12"@ 1.0 N 24.8 40.0

Edward 12"@ 1.5 N 31.9 40.6

LSD (0.05) 7.0 N.S.

___________________________________________________

* 3/4 N, 1.0 N & 1.5 N were applied at 53, 70 and 105 lbs N per acre.

In 1999 we would like to continue this research on row spacing with some changes such as keeping the nitrogen rate constant, but increasing the number of replicates. Plot width could also be increased and disease ratings observed.

Over the years canola seeding rates have slowly decreased from high rates of 10 - 12 lbs/acre to current rates at or below 5 lbs/acre. Better seed, improved seed placement and higher seed costs have all contributed to this lower rate, but can we go lower and still maintain a good stand to combat weeds while ensuring a good final yield? Will increasing the seeding rate improve crop competition and final yield? This past spring we established a seed rate trial to answer these questions. The canola of choice was LG 3295 and it was seeded at 2.5, 5.0 and 10 lbs/acre. Crop emergence counts were taken and final yields obtained to determine if differences occurred in competition and profitability in this replicated trial. Table 2 clearly shows that the three seeding rates made an impact on plant emergence

numbers. Although the lower seeding rates had fewer plants in a given area, they also had more branching later in the growing season. This resulted in good weed competition for most of the growing season.

Table 2 shows the young canola seedlings that were present in a quadrat (1/4 square meter) averaged over 3 counts per plot and 4 replicates of the trial.

_______________________________________________

Seed Rate Seedling Numbers *LSD

(lbs/acre) (#plants per 1/4m²) (0.05)

_______________________________________________

2.5 27 A

5.0 34 A

10.0 54 B

_______________________________________________

* Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

The final yields are seen in Table 3. There is only a slight increase in yield moving from the 2.5 to 5.0 lb rate and the 5.0 to 10 lb rate. True yield differences (those affected by seed rate only) only occur between the 2.5 lb and 10 lb seeding rates. Does the extra yield obtained pay for the increased seed costs? Looking at the table there are two return scenarios based on two canola selling prices and subtracting the seed costs. At the lower selling price, both the 5.0 and 2.5 lb seed

Table 3 shows the final yields of the canola averaged over the four replicates of the trial. The net return based on two canola selling prices is also indicated.

___________________________________________________

Seed Rate Yield LSD *Net Return

(lbs/acre) (bu/acre) (0.01) ($7.50/bu) ($9.00/bu)

***dollars per acre***

___________________________________________________

2.5 27.7 A 199.15 240.70

5.0 29.4 AB 203.30 247.40

10.0 30.4 B 193.60 239.20

___________________________________________________

* Net return based on subtracting the seed costs at $3.44/lbs.

rates earn more than the highest seed rate. At the $9.00/bu rate, the 5.0 lb seed rate earns more per acre than the 2.5 and 10 lb seed rate. From this trial it appears that the 5.0 lb rate of seed gives adequate plant populations to out-compete weeds, and also returns a good profit.

Membership with the association was changed at the 1998 annual meeting. It was decided to change to an annual membership fee structure in order to attract more new members and to increase involvement with the existing membership. Active members receive the annual report, quarterly newsletters, an invitation to the summer tour, an invitation to the winter research day and input into the research program at the farm. For those interested in becoming involved with the operations of the farm there are board positions available on a yearly basis. Consider becoming a member today in a progressive applied research organization doing research on your behalf.