Evaluating an agro-ecosystem approach in NW Kansas

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Evaluating an agro-ecosystem approach in NW Kansas"

Morgan Hodges
6 years ago
Views:

1 Evaluating an agro-ecosystem approach in NW Kansas Draft 1: February 8, 2014: DLK This document will be updated as new information comes in. Additionally, I m not really paying much attention to grammar, structure, and organization as I m simply trying to get my thoughts thrown down in this first draft. Statement of Purpose: Our traditional notill systems have provided tremendous advantages to us as compared to our older tillage based systems. These advantages have led to increased soil organic matter (approx. 1.5% to 2.5% in about 15 years (Draft 1 guess, will fix this after I dig in more)), increased profitability, reduced soil/system degradation, and more consistent, and increased productivity over time. Partial notill was quickly adopted (1991) because immediate benefits were realized through converting enhanced water savings into profit (primarily through the addition of fall crops to the rotation). Moving to 100% notill was slower (2003) as the gains to wheat were not as easily defined, and in fact there were more challenges for growing notill wheat. As such, even with the overall benefits (with many of the challenges mitigated) in place now for 20+ years (KSU Tribune has hard data for 25+ years now), there are still many acres that see tillage, and there are still a lot of summer fallow acres (across both tillers and notillers) as folks have struggled to identify rotations more profitable (with equivalent risk) on average than the notill eco-fallow rotation: Wheat Fall crop Fallow (WCF). Existing notill rotations have not been immune to both old, and new problems (e.g., stand establishment for wheat, resistance to herbicides, etc.). When we moved from tillage to notill based systems, we largely simply took the tillage out and still followed most of the same philosophies and management practices. To move beyond economic plateaus associated with our current practices, we have constantly sought technological solutions (machine control, stripper heads, precision agriculture, variable rate application of nutrients and seed, improved genetics, herbicides, nutrient management programs, etc.). Most recently we have added yellow peas to the rotation (not fully adopted yet) as the economics look good and adding a legume to our grass dominated rotation should prove to be a benefit to our soil (based on existing research). Adopted technologies have improved economic returns at various levels of significance. Some of these technologies have been fast adopting (no economic advantage over the long run) while others have been slow (minor, but consistent economic advantage over the long run). Kastens Inc. has always had the following the core philosophy around technology adoption: 1. Adopt fast moving stuff quickly, because you have to just to survive as your neighbors will be adopting this quickly as well. Gains are quickly bid back into land (increased land value or increased rental rates).

2 2. Focus, and invest in slow adopting technologies as these technologies (if realized) enhance long term profitability as the gains won t be quickly bid back into land (.i.e, because your neighbors won t be doing it). There has been more and more emphasis both from some in Academia as well as some producers that our natural agro-ecosystems (flora and fauna) are capable of providing much more benefit to the production of crops than what was previously thought. If developed (and managed correctly), this enhanced system could lead to increased profitability by reducing costs, and/or increasing overall productivity. Due to the unknowns, and uncertainty with this approach, we believe this could be a worthwhile slow adopting technology that offers significant economic advantage over the long run. Consequently, this research project seeks to explore this new approach and compare it to our traditional system in order to determine whether this technology (or components thereof) might create gains not quickly put back into land (.i.e., increase long term profitability). Although this approach is often promoted as more natural, more sustainable, or more palatable to a consumer base that is becoming more knowledgeable and conscience about how natural resources are managed as part of the food chain, we consider these potential benefits to be of secondary priority to us at this point in time, and consequently won t be evaluated as part of this research. Opportunity: Recent presentations and research observed during the winter of 2014 suggests some of the following changes might be realized in a properly functioning agro-ecosystem: Reduction of Applied Plant Nutrients: Reduction of Pesticides: Reduction of Herbicides: Increase in soil organic matter: The cost savings of such reductions are only worthwhile if overall gross sales can be maintained at similar levels to our current system. Most current observational evidence suggests that these costs can be realized, while gross sales actually increased. To accomplish these three goals, the following concepts are followed: 1. Optimal Crop Rotation and Crop Diversity 2. Managing for optimal soil surface protection 3. Enhancing diversity and soil surface protection through the use of multi-species cover crop mixes when applicable 4. Doing no harm to the system biology (e.g., using products that either destroy or prevent establishment of above/below ground critters)

3 5. Adding large fauna (cows) to the system 6. Having growing plants/living roots in the soil for the maximum number of days per year (cover crops are used to fill in the fallow and non-growing season parts). Overall Project Goals: 1. Replicate concepts coming from other producers and academia 2. Measure and quantify changes to the system (absolute and temporal) 3. Evaluate overall economics as compared to our current system Project Definition: Test plot area: A small acre test plot will be established on two field locations, and at two different starting points. Each plot will be divided in half, with each half representing either control or test areas. Ideally, each plot will be comprised of at least 30 acres, with actual data collected on 10 acres for each the control and test areas, while the balance (10 acres) will be considered a buffer zone between treatments. The respective buffer zone areas will be managed in similar fashion, but data will not be collected from these areas. Current System (Control): The current system (control) that will be used in this study is the Wheat-Corn-Pea (WCP) rotation. Some basic information about this system: 1. Fertility will be managed using our current methodology, and through the application of synthetic fertilizers. 2. Our weed management program will follow the current approach we take where emphasis is placed on keeping fields clean, especially during fallow periods, as well following current recommended guidelines. 3. Pesticide use has never been a significant part of our operation and practically is only found during the corn leg of the program either through seed treatment (Poncho250) or genetics (Corn borer and/or corn rootworm) or in the wheat leg with the use of foliar applied fungicide. 4. The whole rotation is managed for high residue (stripper harvest of wheat, no cattle grazing, no residue removal) Non-Traditional System (Test): Our base WCP rotation will be used and modified in the following manner (subject to change as more pre-test information is obtained): 1. Cover crops will be potentially placed in the following locations a. In wheat ground after wheat harvest for either no harvest (green manure) or early fall and/or winter grazing by cattle b. Either in-season with corn (inter-seeding) or post corn harvest for winter grazing

4 2. Cattle will be potentially used in the system here: a. During winter months on corn ground after corn harvest b. During summer and/or winter months in wheat ground after wheat harvest 3. Use of fertilizer, herbicide and Pesticide a. No fertilizer will be amended to any of the crops (after the project is initiated) b. No pesticide will be used to any of the crop rotations (immediately) c. Herbicide will be used judiciously Test Duration: As accurate comparison can only be accomplished after the agro-ecosystm is functioning, this test will last a minimum of 6 years (two complete crop cycles). Part of the study is to determine the time parameters around the system changes, so the end point of the test will be left open. Test Evaluation: Although this type of project is very open-ended (like with the notill system in general), the following attributes will be used to measure differences between the test and control areas: 1. The ultimate measurement is of course the overall rotation economics. Regardless how many environmental improvements might be accomplished, if the profitability is found to be reduced over the long-run for using the non-traditional approach, then the likelihood of adoption is very low. 2. Some absolute measurements that will be collected a. Changes to soil features such as SOM, nutrient load/availability b. Rainfall/moisture received, total biomass produced, yields, c. All economic costs and returns (including secondary costs like fence construction during grazing periods). Clearly, with a project like this there is a lot of noise that can come in and influence the test, especially in the early years when we will be figuring stuff out. There is no cookbook for any of this, so we will be learning on the fly and trying to adopt/modify some attributes (like cover crop species/blends) to match our local environment and management style. Project Setup: Before we initialize this project, we need to define test areas and then collect as much information as possible so that baselines can be established. I will update this section as I work through that component over the next week. What decisions have to be made in year 1? We need to get more details on how to initialize the project. We have growing wheat in one test location and ground going to yellow peas in the other. So not much can be done with the ground that is going to peas until July of 2015 when the wheat crop comes off. In the case of the wheat ground, we will

5 need to determine how we are going to manage this in year 1. In the mature system, this rotation would employ a cover crop for grazing. However, feedback will be obtained first as to how hard we can push things. In other words, starting with a green manure crop (not grazed) might be better. We ve already got fertilizer scheduled for the plot areas and it might be difficult to shut that down on short notice since I don t even know where the plot lines will be yet. ***************End of Document*************** For Dietrich: -Lay out plots in GIS (if possible re-do fert maps so we can begin the no-fert component in year 1 already) -Obtain feedback on how to initialize plot as well as specific details from producers already employing the non-traditional approach. As soon as weather breaks, start sampling ground. Before that, do the research to determine which tests should be used over the course of the study.

This is Ag Outlook on 1420 KJCK, I m Chuck Otte, Geary County, K-State Research and

This is Ag Outlook on 1420 KJCK, I m Chuck Otte, Geary County, K-State Research and Ag Radio Programs for September 24-30, 2018 Late Season Hay Harvesting Extension Ag & Natural Resources Agent. Have you noticed how much brome grass and native grass have been growing this month given