Soil Health. Low weed pressure. Good tilth. Sufficient depth. Large population of beneficial organisms. Good water storage and drainage

Transcription

1 Soil Organic Matter Image by Carlyn Iverson taken from: Moebius-Clune, B.N., D.J. Moebius-Clune, B.K. Gugino, O.J. Idowu, R.R. Schindelbeck, A.J. Ristow, H.M. van Es, J.E. Thies, H.A. Shayler, M.B. McBride, K.S.M Kurtz, D.W. Wolfe, and G.S. Abawi, Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health The Cornell Framework, Edition 3.2, Cornell University, Geneva, NY. Magdoff, F. and Van Es, H. (2009). Building Soils for Better Crops: Sustainable Soil Management. Third Edition. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program. Brentwood, Maryland.

2 Soil Health the continued capacity of the soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals and humans (USDA-NRCS, 2012) Good tilth Good water storage and drainage Sufficient supply, but not excess nutrients Sufficient depth Small populations of pathogens and pests Free of potentially harmful chemicals and toxins Low weed pressure Large population of beneficial organisms Resistance and resilience to degredation van Es, H., Schindelbeck, R. Ristow, A., Kurtz, K. and Fennell, L. (2017). What is soil health? Soil Health Manual Series Factsheet number Cornell University School of Integrated Plant Sciences, Soil and Crop Sciences Section. Retrieved at: Soil health webinar replays:

3 Cornell Soil Health Assessment First Cornell Assessment of Soil Health in made available in 2006 Deals with the intersection between chemical, physical and biological properties Initial protocol has been refined to include indicators of soil health based on: Relevance to key soil properties Response to management Complexity of measurement Cost of sampling and analysis Ease of interpretation Moebius-Clune, B.N., D.J. Moebius-Clune, B.K. Gugino, O.J. Idowu, R.R. Schindelbeck, A.J. Ristow, H.M. van Es, J.E. Thies, H.A. Shayler, M.B. McBride, K.S.M Kurtz, D.W. Wolfe, and G.S. Abawi, Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health The Cornell Framework, Edition 3.2, Cornell University, Geneva, NY. Download the soil health assessment handbook here:

4 Cornell Soil Health Assessment Four standard physical indicators Four standard and two add-on biological indicators One standard and two add-on chemical indicators Zero to 100 and five-color grading system: red (very low, 0-20) orange (low, 20-40) yellow (medium, 40 60) light green (high, 60 80) dark green (very high, ) Itemized constraints for each indicator Management recommendations included Moebius-Clune, B.N., D.J. Moebius-Clune, B.K. Gugino, O.J. Idowu, R.R. Schindelbeck, A.J. Ristow, H.M. van Es, J.E. Thies, H.A. Shayler, M.B. McBride, K.S.M Kurtz, D.W. Wolfe, and G.S. Abawi, Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health The Cornell Framework, Edition 3.2, Cornell University, Geneva, NY. Download the soil health assessment handbook here:

5 Soil Sampling Protocol Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Chautauqua County, NY. Available here: Soil web Google Earth plugin:

6 Soil Apparent Electrical Conductivity

7 Soil Apparent Electrical Conductivity Soil Conducts Electricity Soil solution Bound cations Connected solid soil particles Soil properties related to ECa: Soil texture (especially clay content) Soil moisture Soil CEC Ions in soil solution Soil temperature Whelan, B. and Taylor, J., (2013). Precision agriculture for grain production systems. Csiro publishing. Collingwood VIC, Australia.

8 Correlations

9 Soil Apparent Electrical Conductivity Sensors DualEM Produced in Milton, ON Flexibility in arrays for multiple DOEs ~$20,000 USD and up Geonics, LTD Produced in Mississauga, Ontario EM38-MK2 DOE: 0.75m (~2.5ft), 1.5m (~5ft) $18,700 USD and up

10 Soil Apparent Electrical Conductivity Sensors Veris Technologies, Salina, Kansas ECa sensor uses coulter electrodes in direct soil contact DOE 0.3m (~1ft) m (~1ft ~2ft) and m (~2ft - ~3ft) Beyond ECa, additional sensor packages available Fritz, R.M., Malo, D.D., Schumacher, T.E., Clay, D.E., Carlson, C.G., Ellsbury, M.M., Dalster, K.J., Field comparison of two soil electrical conductivity measurement systems. In: Robert, P.C., Rust, R.H., Larson, W.E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Precision Agriculture. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, Wisconsin, pp

11 NIR spectometry Soil reflectance affected by: Moisure Organic matter Particle size Iron oxides Mineral composition Soluble salts Parent material Near Infrared Spectroscopy Measures reflectance from soil at distinct wavelengths Can be passive or active Correlated to organic matter Data must be calibrated with infield sampling Veris Optical Mapper Image from:

12 On-the-go ph sensing Veris Technologies produces a system for spatial ph mapping Collects soil samples from depth adjustable from 4 15 inches Average cycle time of sampling mechanism is about 10 seconds Ionsensitive electrodes contact soil samples for 7-25 seconds Output is average of two measurements Electrodes are cleaned with water between samples Sampling density depends on ground speed and swath width Veris Optical Mapper Image from: Lund, E.D., Adamchuk, V.I., Collings, K.L., Drummond, P.E. and Christy, C.D., Development of soil ph and lime requirement maps using on-the-go soil sensors. Precision agriculture, 5, pp

13 Gamma-Ray Spectrometry Gamma radiation emitted by elements in rocks and minerals Gamma rays have variable energies indicative of isotope ( 40 K 238 U, 235 U, 232 Th, 137 Cs) Can detect: Parent materials Soil texture (sand content, clay content) Nutrients and other elements (Fe, K) Soil organic matter, O horizon thickness ph Bulk density Water retention Saturated hydraulic conductivity Image from: soiloptix.com

14 SoilOptix Mounted on farm vehicle, above soil Resolution of about 335 samples per acre Requires calibration with manual samples SoilOptix offered as service starting at $20/acre Pricing here: Images from: soiloptix.com

15 Nutrient Management Excitement and adoption If you have the technology, use the technology. By itself, it is unlikely to justify adoption Recommended budgets typically eliminate nutrients as a limiting factor Efficient use of fertilizer can lower externalities (pollution) and a moderate savings in gross expenses

16 Nutrient Management Adoption budget Soil samples Consultant/Extension mapping soils Variable rate fertilizer spreader $1,500 flow controller Hydraulic conversion from PTO or ground driven chain $5,000 Tractor computer (?) $2,500 GPS (?) Possibilities vs. Practicality Paying consultants and soil tests ($10 per acre) Buying a new spreader $20,000 - $30,000

17 Adoption Success Back to driving forces of profit. Vine health (size) Crop load Potential crop Potential crop size improvements facilitated by VRM of nutrients would justify even stand-alone adoption.

18 Contact Us Jackie Dresser com Kevin Martin