|
|
Amherst WI | I now considering strip till again. How much P and K do you guys feel comfortable cutting back on? I have heard as high as 50% from some guys. |
|
| |
|
Leesburg, Ohio | Have yet to hear anyone explain how or why a corn or soy or any plant will require less nutrients over time just because they are placed in a strip. I use strip-till, and I see nothing wrong with putting fertilizer in the row, except for the logistics of it. So we don't use row fertilizer for that reason. But if you put on less NPK than the crop uses, no matter where you put it, seems to me all you are doing is mining the soil of existing nutrients. If you want to do that for the short term, that's your decision to make, of course. |
|
| |
|
| Remove a pound of K or P and it is gone until you replace it. You can talk about better utilization when it is right in the seed zone, but if you take it and don't replace it you are mining the soil. |
|
| |
|
| You can get better utilization because the crop can get it before it gets tied up the soil. That's part of the idea of having it in a band. Our soils tie up a LOT of P.
|
|
| |
|
SWMO | I couldnt argue one way or another on P and K reduction but I would with N. |
|
| |
|
Driftless SW Wisconsin | "Cutting fertilizer" always has to start with the question of "cut from what". Obviously we should not cut below the crop removal rate. The problem is determining just what that removal rate is - and it will vary enormously due to many factors. When most folks talk about reducing fertilizer rates with strip till or "banding" application methods (Dr George Rehm at the U of MN has done alot of research on this), they are USUALLY referring to results that indicate by indexing the fertilizer to the plant location you can usually reduce rates from the older, standard, land-grant university soil-test based fertilizer recommendations. The implication is that these older, usually dry surface broadcast-based recommendations that usually come back with soil test results were applying MORE than the plant removal rates in most cases. "Cutting" fertilizer rates by say 1/3 from these older, university soil test based recommendations may have little to do with plant removal rates and may usually be done without "mining" the soil. In my opinion THAT is usually the reference base for suggestions that strip till, banding or other indexed applicatrion system may often permit significant reductions in fertilizer rates. That is my understanding also. This is also what I have seen at multi-year strip till farms. What should also be stressed in these "reduced rate" fertilizer discussions is the necessity to apply the fertilizer you do apply as uniformly, row to row and along the row, as possible. Some folks who go to a say 1/3 reduced rate and then have uneven crops blame the rate reduction when in fact their application system was putting out VASTLY different rates from row to row. This non uniformity is masked when we are applying excess fertilizer. When fertilizer is cheap then maybe it was not worth taking the time, effort and making the investment necessary to do this right. When fertilizer is high priced, looking into setting up to apply 1/3 less than previous soil test recommendations with on-planter application or strip till may make economic sense. I always suggest to folks to not take anyone's word for it but try a test field on your own farm before making across the board changes. jmho. Jim at Dawn
Edited by Jim 7/12/2008 03:46
|
|
| |
|
Aberdeen MS | The key to determining that question is to first sample. And sample extensively.
Granted that sampling isn't an exact science, but at this point in time.... it's the best we have to determine what MIGHT be for the upcoming year. Tissue sampling will verify IF the sampling is/was correct.
Like Jim mentioned, the 50% cut advise is from the "broadcast/build" recs that were commonly followed in years past, that is a finding of the U of Mn, not just some number pulled out of the air by the proponents of the idea.
A quick google search on P and K removal per bushel of corn and this report from the U of Mn was the third return.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/cropenews/2007/07MNCN37.html
"To calculate crop removal, anticipated or expected corn yields chosen were 150 bu. per acre at the Southwest Regional Center and 170 bu. per acre at the Southern Center. This report will deal with corn production only. Phosphorus removed in a bushel of corn was the same at both locations (0.15 lb. P per bushel = 0.35 lb. P2O5 per bushel). .........."
That translated into 22.5# of actual P removed in that test by 150bu/ac corn.
Another finding in the same article reports this:
"By using the crop removal concept as a guide, there is an implied assumption that rate of phosphate fertilizer applied should change with the relative level of corn yield. The yield data from the trial at the Southwest Research and Outreach Center do not support this assumption. The rate of phosphate fertilizer needed to achieve optimum yield did not change with yield level.
Use of the crop removal concept assumes that all of the nutrients applied in a fertilizer program are used by the growing crop. This, however, is not what happens when nutrients are applied to soil. Depending on the nutrient and the chemistry of the soil, utilization or uptake from various sources has ranged from 20% to 65% of that applied. Research has shown that instances are rare when nearly 100% of an applied nutrient is used by a growing crop."
The soil properties vary vastly around the country ... and even within the same field. By knowing that not all the applied nutrients are utilized in the application year, the concept of banding is to "super concentrate" the nutrient applied at the source to reduce the "tie up" capability of the soil and it's effect on the nutrient. It's like a sponge, take a small one in a glass of water... you have a lot of water left over when the sponge is full. Put a large sponge in the glass.... it will soak up all or almost all of the water leaving the glass empty. The soil in your fields is the sponge and it can only hold so much.
Once the soil surrounding the band is "saturated", the remaining nutrient is then available for the plant to use. Over time and by moving the "band" year to year, you MAY effectively create a soil profile that has increased in reserves. That has been researched again by the U of Mn, not just a theory dreamed up by the proponents of nutrient banding. The concept of banding has been around and verified for years. and proven that it works. If it didn't..... no till wouldn't be able to produce yields comparable to broad spectrum tillage. It's not a new concept. The concept is just getting more attention because strip till is a new venue for crop production.
One has to remember the reason soil sampling was initiated in the first place. Fertilizer dealers had no idea of what to recommend and show in black in white to a grower what to apply in the many many years past when commercial fertilizer was first being used. Fertilizer suppliers (not your local dealer) came up with "data" to show what was needed and its been an accepted practice over the last 60+ yrs or so. That all worked well and good when fertilizer was cheap, if X amount was good...that means that X++ amount has to be that much better, that's not the case anymore.
IMO, many dollars has been wasted over the years by constant over application of nutrients just because it was cheap and growers saw it as an insurance policy. Reality says a particular piece of ground will only produce Y amount of grain regardless of what the grower puts on it (unless of course it's a pampered piece like the record holders do in competition). I call that the "balance" of economic return and agronomic return. THAT number is different for every grower, every field, every growing practice that is implemented for each and every field across the US.
The challenge many are stepping up to now is attempting to find that balance and accept what their ground can produce. |
|
| |
|
Chebanse, IL..... | First-we don't strip, so I'm not qualified to answer your question specifically. I also have no college training in fertilizers or soil tests. Just basing thoughts on generations of same-farm experience. However, if you believe in crop removal rates, then therein lies the answer. My thought is that if your soil tests are very high, then you can apply something less than removal rates & coast for a long time before question marks start cropping up. Like a few other posters, I don't know that any tillage or non-tillage method makes any difference in fertilization needs & rates. However, again on a non-scientific personal note, I'd hope that our corn & bean roots would grow & feed from more than a narrow band on which they reside. I believe roots grow towards moisture, not nutrients. Could be wrong however. Also, if you use less than removal, it'll take quite a number of yrs until deficiencies show. You might be dead & gone by then & have beat nature's odds. Or-your farm might have finally turned into a mall, subdivision, or interstate highway where fertility means nothing. IF I were stripping, I'd not cut back anything. Now, maybe I can't realistically jam it all down a slot, but I'd still not cut. Might need some broadcasting unless your removals (= yields) are low. Again, I write no articles & am seldom quoted except by my wife, but those are my thoughts. |
|
| |
|
Aberdeen MS | Some roots go for nutrients....other roots go for water.
In a corn plant.... the majority of the nutrient roots are in the top 4" of the soil profile. The deeper roots are mostly for the water up take according to the U of Mn. |
|
| |
|
| Cutting fertility rates is not a good idea no matter how you apply. I have had great experience with root zone banding in the fall and think its a great concept with P & K but would NEVER cut the rates. With the need to produce maximum yields especially in todays economic environment cutting fertility is not a place to save money. Strip till is a good method of farming as well but doing it while cutting fertility rates is not a a good practice. A crop needs fertility to produce to its potential. When you have times of stress ie drought, heat, cold etc you need your fertility to be well balanced to get you thru it not short because you decided it cost too much. How much fertilizer can you buy for 25 bushel x $6/bushel ? In most cases you don't need that much so don't short cut it. If you do it will be money well spent. |
|
| |
|
SW Idaho | I agree 100%. Not only looking at yield but it takes the same amount of chemicals, seed, fuel, time, ect. no matter if you get 100bu or 200bu.
With that said we are new to banding in our area. Some guys have tried it and are having good results. This year it sounds like we are going to be "forced" into banding on row crops. Now if we are not using less fertilizer over broadcast then what is the advantage other then if liquid is less/unit then dry? they are telling us we can use 20-30% less cause all that the plant needs will be placed right under it instead of having some of it mixed in the soil between the rows. As mentioned earlier our broadcast recomendations may have been 20-30% higher cause we were broadcasting. Guess I need to check into that further. |
|
| |
|
| Ron - "...I write no articles & am seldom quoted except by my wife...." They DO seem to remember everything we say....especially what can be used against us in later 'discussions'.  |
|
| |
|
| I think that where the advantage would be is on lower fertility ground the crop is going to get more use out of the banded product at lower rates. We have a couple of rented farms with older landowners that have lower fertility levels but only year to year leases and I think banding would pay on those farms but it's very difficult to find any research to back it up with.
|
|
| |
|
East Central Wisconsin | I been striptilling for seven years(without banding). We will be banding P,K this fall because of prices and it looks to me that broadcasting P,K(and even N) don't get to the plant with no-till or striptilling over working the same ground. It seems the top 2" are loaded(P,K) and below that it is low when you broadcast with no-till(strips)
The Kid |
|
| |
|
Aberdeen MS | Cliff...I sent you an email
|
|
| |
|
Thumb of Michigan | Very good advice, Jim. I find an awful lot of variance on my farm between fields. I've found different things work better sometimes in different places. Only broadcast we've done in many years is an occasional application of potash. All P and K are going in more concentrated band type deals, either with the planter or a coulter applicator for N sidedress.
I religiously soil test at least every 3 years, our soil tests continue to either be the same or sometimes higher depending on the nutrient. I blame that on nutrient stratification due to no till. Nutrient stratification is a good thing in my book. Bring it on.
I was in a cut fertilizer mood maybe 10 years ago. Had been no-till for 10 years or so at the time. Met with a supplier I trusted and a university guy that I trusted. Like you said, cut from what? I was already pretty low application rates compared to the "norm", whatever that is. Decided to stay right where I was, which is kind of sort of replacement values. Or less. My soil tests are still high enough that I can cut some stuff pretty deeply without an adverse consequence as long as fert prices are where they are currently. I also do believe that there are different things happening in our soils with less tillage. Usually positive from what I can tell. Hard to measure that soil test wise when you're trying to use technology developed a hundred years ago based on full tillage operations. Not that I have a better answer, just an observation. Sure would be nice to have an economical way to measure all the little fungi and mychorrizie and other stuff I can't pronounce or spell that increase as tillage decreases. And a good way to interpret the results while we're at it.
One thing I've noticed quite often when guys are going from band back to broadcast, or vice versa, is a sometimes large difference in weed control. Not as noticable in already high fertility soils, but quite noticable on lower testing soils. With the fert placed for the crop rather than placed for everything else including the crop, the crop can usually get enough of a jump on weeds to make it worth while banding somehow just in weed control savings. I can't bring myself to apply fert out away from the crop just for the benifit of that lambsquarter or pigweed I know is going to appreciate it. I have enough trouble with them as it is without giving them a push.
So short story long- I think the only one on this here site who'll be able to arrive at the correct answer is the one looking for the info. Sorry I can't help more.
Edited by pat-michigan 7/12/2008 22:34
|
|
| |
|
| i have cut my p&k 30%-40% over the last 5 years of strip-tilling and have yet seen a depletion of nutrients, i use the university numbers, which seem to run 30-40% lower then 3 different soil sampling places. go figure. |
|
| |
|
| good luck because you will eventually. You can't rob peter to pay paul forever. Look at it this way if you have two pens of hogs and you feed one the correct way to get to market in a good time frame as efficient as possible with the right nutrient package vs another group you just fed corn and half the soybean meal/premix that was needed to save money which over time would get to market quicker and make you the most money? P & K don't manufacture themselves and have to be replaced back with levels removed. Anything short of that you are mining the soil and over a long enough period of time you will deplete the "savings" acct to where you have nothing left. Simple math and economics I don't care what the universities or labs say. |
|
| |
|
Aberdeen MS | If you soil sample, then you are utilizing what the universities and labs say regardless of what their recommendations say.
That is the basis of what we have used to date. The universities and labs have told us what the crop removes (via lab tests), they tell us what reserves are in the soil (via lab tests), and they SUGGEST what to do to replace. Many growers write their own recs to give themselves the best economic return on their soils. The results of data from the U of Mn probably don't hold water for MO if used verbatim, nor do they work verbatim for Ed's soils in OH. But they do offer an insight and launching platform to answer some of the "what ifs" for those that don't see certain responses to broad spectrum applications.
It requires a higher level of micro management. Some are comfortable with that higher level, others are not. Does not make one grower better than the other one.
No different than one grower going totally 100% triple stack latest greatest hybrid offered this year, and the guy across the road taking a less "aggressive" approach to his hybrid selection.
As a seed sales person, you know that different hybrids will react differently in different fields. You work with what you have to maximize economic return, and if that means cutting back in certain areas or fields, then to stay in the game, that is what one has to do.
Many times I personally when utilizing starter have had areas that got it, and areas that didn't get any. Yield monitor showed no difference at all in yield. Comparing soil samples showed no difference in reserves. One can deplete the reserves to come under maximum economic return, but you cannot deplete a soil down to nothing. Those that stay on top of what is happening in their fields will correct when correction is needed and not before. Other that operate "cause it's what we've always done and it works" will have no clue when the time for correction comes due.
Without being on halfbaked's fields, seeing his data, or his fertility program, you are painting with a very very wide spectrum brush that MAY be very skewed in the wrong direction. |
|
| |
|
Dry side of Oregon | To better your agronomic practices, acquire as much data as possible and start variable rate application of all inputs. If you put more or less of something in a certain area of a field and the crop does not respond to the change, that area of the field has something else going on with it than what you or your agronomist anticipated. The key here is if you do not measure what you harvest in a site specific manner, you can not adequately adjust your variable rate prescription. Many argue that measuring protein is a waste of time because you are not paid for protein but protein content can illustrate variances in your field and show where you need to soil/tissue test. You cannot go wrong with acquiring more information, and if you don't start measuring today, you can't start to better your input dollars tomorrow. |
|
| |
How much fert can a guy cut out with strip till?
