Farm Manager, Ron Gares

Successful farming is a business requiring decisions based on long term strategies. At the same time, many decisions must be made on a daily basis that could have an impact on the operation's future. From the time the crop is in the bin, until the following spring, a grower plans what crop will go in which field. Crop choice depends on previous field history involving factors such as disease, weeds, nutrient availability or residue abundance. These choices are also largely influenced by economics; farmers choose to grow the crops that are highly valued in the market place.

As a result many growers have had to reduce or even abandon their long term rotational planning, dropping the pea crop in favor of higher valued canola or reducing acres in cereals in favour of flax or more canola. Weather also impacts a producer's decisions. This was evident in 1999. As May came and went, crop options were reduced and yield potential decreased with each additional inch of moisture. One trial was moved three times in order to find a field that was dry enough to be seeded. Some of the farm was chem-fallowed because it remained too wet to seed even late in June.

During the late summer, some producers harrowed or even cultivated their fallow fields because of excessive weed growth or prevailing wet conditions. They felt that if left, it would be unseedable for the next spring. Our fallow field was seeded to winter wheat to reduce risk and for the long term benefit. In the fall of 1998, approximately 25% of the farm was seeded to winter cereals. In May when we received 9 inches of moisture these crops endured and thrived. Spring crops did not emerge until mid June. Although disease pressure was high in these fall seeded crops, yield potential was also high. The spring crops never did have this potential. In the end the fall rye yielded average, but the winter wheat yielded between 50 - 70 bu/acre. Our spring wheat yielded only 18 bu/acre. By seeding a portion of the farm to winter cereals in 1998 and again in 1999 (fallow stubble and canola stubble) the risk is reduced. There are also the benefits of spreading the workload, equipment costs and harvest operations; reducing herbicide usage; and making more efficient use of spring snow melt and deeper positioned nitrates in the soil profile.

Growing winter cereals such as fall rye and winter wheat requires good management, good seeding equipment and some good luck. Nutrients are also important. Winter wheat has a high yield potential, but that comes with a cost: high nitrogen requirements. Fall seed placed phosphorus and perhaps potassium are also important to root establishment and winter survival. Current varieties of winter wheat have stronger straw and better yield potential than those grown 10 or 15 years ago, but the disease resistance can still be poor. Fungicide use is often required to maximize yield. Following is a discussion on trials conducted on the zero tillage farm addressing some of these issues.

Winter wheat growers have commonly applied their nitrogen (N) early in spring by broadcasting ammonium nitrate (34-0-0). This was an effective method for the crop to obtain its nitrogen, but the product is more costly and not always available. This trial was conducted to determine if alternate sources of nitrogen such as urea (46-0-0) and anhydrous ammonia (82-0-0) could be as effective as ammonium nitrate at supplying N to the winter wheat plant.

In a thrice replicated study on plots 30' x 230', four treatments were applied: Anhydrous ammonia, urea (spring and fall applied) and ammonium nitrate. Clair winter wheat was seeded on September 9 at 120 lbs/acre with 30 lbs P₂0₅ and 10 lbs K₂0 per acre. The fall fertilizers (urea as broadcast; anhydrous knived) were applied on October 27/98. In spring the urea and ammonium nitrate (broadcast) were applied on April 27^th. All rates were 100 lbs actual nitrogen per acre. All plots were harvested with a straight-cut header on September 10^th.

After application of the anhydrous in fall the damage to the winter wheat appeared to be minimal. Frost occurred days later so N uptake was minimal. Once the crop started growing in May there appeared to be considerable damage to the plants. Upon closer inspection, many of the plants were struggling because of soil covering them. In table 1 these visual observations are verified with plant emergence numbers and head counts later in the season. There were significant differences between plant emergence counts for the anhydrous treatment and the three other treatments. This could have a large impact on final yield. Head counts showed a similar trend, but differences were not significant and variability was high.

Table 1 showing the effect of different nitrogen sources on plant emergence and spikelets in Clair winter wheat grown on the Zero Tillage Farm.

_________________________________________________

Fertilizer Plant Counts Spikelets

Type (#/0.25m²) (#/0.25m²)

-------- n = 9 ---------

_________________________________________________

Ammonium nitrate 52.6 201

Anhydrous ammonia 38.0 192

Urea in fall 55.2 210

Urea in spring 52.4 222

LSD (0.05) 12.2 N.S.

_________________________________________________

Winter wheat has the ability to compensate for a thinner stand in spring through tillering and exceptional head fill. In table 2 these results can be seen with the final yield and protein values. The urea applied in the spring yielded significantly higher than the anhydrous ammonia and fall applied urea treatments. The ammonia nitrate treatment yielded less than the spring urea treatment, but this was not significant. When designing the experiment, the spring urea yield was expected to be less than the others since it is more volatile than the ammonium nitrate and requires more moisture to move it into the root zone where it becomes available to the plant. The excess moisture in May reduced volatility and allowed this fertilizer to move into the rooting zone while the others may have moved too much (leached) reducing their effectiveness.

Protein values tended to imitate yield trends. The spring applied urea was significantly higher in protein content than the other treatments. Slightly more N was available for yield and also protein in the grain. Urea may be an effective N source if applied early in spring and close to a moisture event. The anhydrous ammonia may need to be applied with a different opener which will reduce soil throw.

Table 2 showing the effect of different nitrogen sources on yield and protein content in Clair winter wheat.

________________________________________________

Fertilizer Yield Protein

Type (bu/acre) (%)

________________________________________________

Ammonium Nitrate 57.6 12.2

Anhydrous ammonia 56.0 12.2

Urea in fall 54.8 12.2

Urea in spring 59.2 12.4

LSD (0.10) 2.9 0.1

________________________________________________

Fertilizer recommendations have been similar for winter and hard red spring wheats. However with newer varieties yielding 25% higher than spring wheat, more nutrients are required, particularly nitrogen. To determine the optimum nitrogen fertilizer rates for these newer winter wheat varieties such as Clair, small plot N response trials were set up at two sites on the zero tillage research farm. Site 1 and 2 had Clair winter wheat grown on canola stubble from 1998, but spring wheat stubble in 1997 (site 1) and pulse stubble in 1997 (site 2). Both trials were replicated four times on plots 4' x 20'. All fertilizer was applied on April 26^th by broadcasting ammonium nitrate (34-0-0) at rates from 0 to 200 lbs/acre. Data was obtained on height at harvest, lodging at harvest, final yield and protein content. All plots were harvested with a straight-cut header on August 20 (site 2) and Sept. 15 (site 2).

Plant height results can be seen in Table 3. At both sites, as the N rate was increased there was an increase in plant height. This leveled off near the highest rates. The higher N rates allowed for more plant growth and storage of N for later use. The spad readings (80/120) are a measure of chlorophyll content in the leaf. The more chlorophyll the less N required by the plant. The index was used here and compared to the amount of N applied, in these trials 80 and 120 lbs N per acre.

Table 3 showing the effect of increased nitrogen rates on crop height and lodging index of Clair winter wheat at two sites on the Zero Tillage Farm.

_____________________________________________________________

Fertilizer Rate Clair Site 1 Clair Site 2 Clair Site 1 Clair Site 2

(lbs/acre) --- Plant Height (cm) --- ----- *Lodging index -----

_____________________________________________________________

0 76.4 79.7 1.3 0.5

40 85.6 86.8 1.0 1.5

80 90.2 93.8 1.5 1.3

120 95.4 95.3 2.5 1.8

160 97.0 100.8 4.3 1.8

200 98.4 99.8 5.0 3.0

Spad (80/120) 93.4 89.5 2.8 0.5

LSD (0.05) 5.6 3.4 1.5 0.4

_____________________________________________________________

* Lodging index: 0 = vertical; 8 = flat.

The lodging ratings can also be seen in Table 3. The latest winter wheat varieties such as Clair are known as a tall semi-dwarf, which allows them to withstand more N without severe lodging. At site 1 lodging values only became serious when rates exceeded 120 lbs N. The 2nd site did not have severe lodging problems even at the highest N rate. Lodging values less than 3 are easily harvested and losses are greatly reduced.

Table 4 showing the effect of increased nitrogen rates on yield and protein content of Clair winter wheat from two sites on the Zero Tillage Farm.

____________________________________________________

Fertilizer Rate Clair Site 1 Clair Site 2 Clair Site 1

(lbs/acre) ----- Yield (bu/acre) ----- Protein Content

____________________________________________________

0 33.2 39.9 10.8

40 46.5 51.7 11.2

80 54.0 61.0 11.5

120 55.5 67.9 11.4

160 63.6 70.4 11.4

200 65.3 74.1 11.3

Spad (80/120) 60.2 56.7 11.0

LSD (0.05) 6.9 7.7 N.S.

____________________________________________________

The final yields appear in Table 4. Yields from both sites nearly double as N rates move up to the 200 lb level. At both sites yields increased even at the 200 lbs/acre rate. Protein content (Table 4) at site 1 increased up to the 120 lb N rate and leveled off at higher rates. This suggests some dilution and possibly a shortage of nitrogen. Future trials may need to be run looking at higher N rates or possibly later additions of N for protein boost.

Once the winter wheat crop is actively growing and all the fertilizing has been done, weed control and disease prevention are concerns. Winter annuals are the biggest weed control issue for winter wheat, although thin stands can have wild oat and green foxtail problems. If phenoxy herbicides were not applied in fall, spring application with or without a fungicide may need to be applied. Due to the high humidity and low temperatures in May of 1999, leaf disease occurred early when only 3 or 4 leaves were present. In order to save application costs, a demonstration trial was established to determine the benefits of an early fungicide (Dithane) with or without a broadleaf herbicide. These treatments were then compared with or without a late fungicide (Tilt) application.

In Table 5 the results for the tank mixes and later additions of fungicide can be seen. Treatments 1-4 had no Tilt applied, treatments 5-8 all had Tilt applied. Treatment 1 and 5 would be considered our untreated checks. In the first four treatments (no Tilt), Buctril M was applied to treatment 1 and resulted in a yield of 48.5 bu/acre. Applying Buctril M and Dithane separately (trt 2) improved the yield, but tank mixing these products together (trt 4) actually reduced the yield below the check. There may have been some phytotoxicity from the tank mix. Mixing Dithane with Attain (trt 3) resulted in a yield improvement over the check. Currently, tank mixing of Dithane with either of these products is not registered.

When Tilt was applied, all treatments (6-8) showed yield improvements except treatment 5. Without the early fungicide, damage was severe enough to reduce plant health to the point where the late fungicide did not help yield. Mixing Buctril M with Dithane (trt 8) resulted in a lower yield than when separate applications of these products were applied (trt 6). Tank mixing Dithane and Attain (trt 7) resulted in a yield improvement over the check and slightly higher than treatment 6.

Protein results were affected by increasing yields and the dilution effect. As yields increased less N was available for grain protein. The lower yields generally had more grain protein while the highest yields had reduced protein levels. Two exceptions occur (trt 4 and 8) in this study. The Buctril M tank mixes had reduced yield and reduced protein. This may be due to the phytotoxicity that occurred resulting in poorer plant health and less N uptake for a period of time. In the end there was less N for yield and grain protein with these two treatments. Remember that these results are not replicated and topography, plant stands and location of each treatment may have affected results over and above the applied treatments.

Table 5 showing the fungicide applications and final yields in Clair Winter Wheat at the Manitoba Zero Tillage Research Association Farm.

Fusarium head blight continues to be a large problem for wheat growers in Manitoba. From no incidence in 1996, to 25% infection in the 1999 winter wheat crop, development of resistant varieties and registration of preventive fungicides are required. This past year the province was able to obtain an emergency registration for one such fungicide called Folicur. Several trials were conducted around the province on spring wheat and we conducted one on the zero tillage farm on Clair winter wheat.

The trial consisted of four replicates with plots 15' x 75' and included five treatments. Besides the untreated check, there was one rate of Bravo (chlorothalonil @ 1 L/acre), one rate of Dithane (mancozeb @ 0.9 kg/acre) and two rates of Folicur (tebuconazole @ 118/177 ml/acre). All fungicides were applied at the 25-50% flowering period with 15 gallons of water per acre using a split (forward and backward facing) flat fan nozzle. Leaf ratings occurred at 10-14 days after application and head infection after 21 days.

In Table 6 the infection rates for leaf diseases on the 2nd leaf and flag leaf can be seen. The application timing for the 2nd leaf was too late. Even the best product had over 85% infection from Septoria/tan spot. The flag leaf damage was also high, but all products did a good job at preventing further spread of Septoria or tan spot to the healthy parts of the leaf. Folicur was significantly better than Bravo and Dithane at preventing the spread of rust on the flag leaf.

Table 6 showing the effect of several fungicides on control of Fusarium head blight in Clair winter wheat grown on the Zero Tillage Farm.

_______________________________________________________

Treatment Septoria/Tan Spot Rust

Applied 2nd leaf Flag leaf Flag leaf

--------------- (% Infection) --------------

_______________________________________________________

Untreated Check 100.0 70.0 33.8

Bravo (1 L) 100.0 40.0 52.5

Folicur (118 ml) 87.5 32.5 11.3

Folicur (177 ml) 90.0 30.0 11.3

Dithane (0/9 kg) 97.5 30.0 35.0

LSD (0.10/0.05/0.05) 8.7 13.9 16.0

_______________________________________________________

After 21 days the spread of fusarium in the plots was widespread. Visual assessments had to be aided with shelling of actual heads to determine infection rates. Bravo and both Folicur rates had significantly reduced rates of infection compared with the untreated check (Table 7). Dithane reduced the incidence of the infection, but was not significantly less than the untreated check.

Table 7 showing the effect of several fungicides on control of Fusarium head blight in Clair winter wheat grown on the Zero Tillage Farm.

_____________________________________________________

Treatment Fusarium Grain *Net

Applied Head Infection Yield Return

(per acre) (%) (bu/acre) ($/acre)

_____________________________________________________

Untreated Check 30.0 56.1 154.10

Bravo (1 L) 17.5 62.8 155.23

Folicur (118 ml) 20.0 68.9 172.07

Folicur (177 ml) 11.3 64.0 152.18

Dithane (0.9 kg) 22.5 60.6 155.14

LSD (0.05) 9.0 N.S. N.S.

_____________________________________________________

* Net Return = Gross (yield x $2.75/bu) - (fungicide cost + application cost) where Bravo = $13.45/acre; Folicur = $13.25/19.87 per acre; and Dithane = $7.42/acre; and application cost is $4.00/acre.

Yields (Table 7) were improved with the application of the fungicides, but due to the high variability in the study, none of the increases were significant. Net return was determined by subtracting the fungicide cost (including application) from the gross return (yield x $2.75/bu). Only the low rate of Folicur improved the return above the untreated check by a measurable amount and even that was not significant.

Even though disease incidence was high, other factors apparently affected yield over and above the leaf and head disease. Early application timing or split rates of fungicides may be needed in years with high disease pressure. Weather data including humidity and temperature need to be included when deciding on whether or not to use a fungicide.

Memberships exist today for many different types of farm groups, foundations, councils and professional organizations. Prices vary greatly from a few dollars to several hundred. If value is present, most people gladly contribute. A membership with the association does give value whether you are a farmer, industry rep, conservation group or an individual. Firstly, a member receives newsletters during the year keeping him in touch with farm research, upcoming events and fellow member activities. Secondly, invitations to the summer tour and winter research day are part of the package. Thirdly the annual report with all in-house and cooperator research is mailed out to each member. Fourthly, any farmer member can become a board member. Finally, as a member you have input into what research the farm does on an annual basis. A complete package is offered for only $50 ($35 U.S.) a year.

Hello, my name is Raelene Ostrom, the new MZTRA Extension Specialist. As you may have heard or seen, the MZTRA and several partners are beginning an initiative to establish local reduced tillage clubs. The clubs will create local centers of excellence in conservation management practices.

My objective is to make each center of excellence relevant to local area farmers. We can showcase reduced tillage practices, systems and ideas to all those individuals involved with the family farm operations for their local area. Early in 2000 you will be notified of the potential establishment of a Reduced Tillage Club in your area. Clubs will form for the purpose of meeting local needs, to exchange ideas, concerns, issues and to enjoy the company of fellow farmers. I wish to increase awareness to you, your neighbors and your community about the advantages, struggles, and rewards associated with reduced tillage. Soil conservation, and sustainable agriculture are some of the results that can make reduced tillage a beneficial fit in your farming operation. Initially, informal meetings will allow opportunities for neighbours who may or may not be experienced reduced-tiller’s to share their own personal trials and experiences, positive or negative, so that we can spread the knowledge of reduced tillage and conservative farming practices to your community.

My office is currently at the Brandon Research Center facility. My number is (204) 728-3646 or fax me at (204) 728-3858.