|
Many farmers, including zero
tillage farmers, are moving from narrow row spaced equipment (6, 7 and
8”) to wider spaced equipment (10 – 12”). With this change comes new
challenges to the growers. Only small amounts of fertilizer can be seed
placed so alternative placement types are needed. Will wider rows work
with less competitive crops like flax or affect competitive crops like
canola? Immediate benefits include reduced seeding equipment costs and
fuel savings due to reduced draft. At the same time, there may be
concerns over weed control in some less competitive crops such as flax.
Operators who have adopted one-pass seeding systems also have to reduce
the amount of seed placed fertilizer such as phosphorus that is used.
Because of the reduction, there may be a shortfall of the nutrient,
which may limit crop production. To ensure an adequate supply to the
root system of the crop in question, an alternative placement option
should be considered.
1998:
After one year of study, it appears
that in Trial 1 seedling germination was not negatively affected by any
of the four treatments. Trial 1 and 2 compared four placement options
for phosphorus; seed placed, surface dribble, midrow band and deep band
in flax and canola. Trial 3 and 4 compared 8” row spacing with 12”
spacing and three nitrogen fertilizer rates in flax and canola. In 1998
both flax trials indicated there were no seedling emergence problems,
but canola damage was present with some treatments. Tissue analysis
indicated the same % phosphorus levels across all treatments (Trial 1
and 2). The % nitrogen in flax tissue (Trial 3) closely followed the
nitrogen rates applied. Soil test levels for phosphorus and nitrogen
were variable and higher in fall than in July in most treatments.
Mineralization of both nutrients during the growing season could have
been substantial. In Trial 1 and 2, the % phosphorus in the grain was
the same for all treatments and yield was not affected by application
type. In Trial 3 and 4, protein was not affected by nitrogen or row
spacing, but yield was affected by nitrogen rate in flax. Row spacing
did not affect yield of flax or canola in this study. Net return was
not affected by row spacing or nitrogen rate.
1999:
In the second year of the
study, Trial 1 and 2 compared four placement options for phosphorus: no
P applied (check); seed placed; surface dribble; and midrow banded in
flax and canola. Trial 3 and 4 compared three row spacing options; 8”,
10” and 12” in flax and canola. Up to 30 lbs of phosphorus did not
impede germination in either crop with any of the treatments including
the seed placed treatment in Trial 1 and 2 in 1999. Tissue phosphorus
content varied in both crops, but was not significantly different.
August soil tests showed significantly higher values of available
phosphorus for the seed placed treatment in canola, but not in flax.
Between row phosphorus levels were higher in fall for the flax, but
reduced in the canola trial suggesting some movement of phosphorus
during the growing season. Yields were variable in the flax and canola,
with differences from low to high of 2.3 and 2.9 bu/acre, respectively.
Neither trial showed a yield response to the added phosphorus nor were
treatment differences significant. In Trial 3 and 4, there was no
negative affect on seedling emergence caused by the varying row spacing.
In Trial 3, the flax tissue content was equivalent across all three
treatments. Yields tended to be higher for the wider row spacing, but
the differences were not significant. In Trial 4, there was a
significant yield improvement when moving from 8” to either the 10” or
12” row spacing. Intra-row competition may have been a factor.
2000:
In the final year of the study, Trial 1 and 2
compared four placement options for phosphorus: no P applied (check);
seed placed; surface dribble; and midrow banded in flax and canola in
2000. Trial 3 and 4 compared three row spacing options; 8”, 10” and 12”
in flax and canola in 2000. Up to 30 lbs of phosphorus did not impede
germination in flax, but may have affected canola emergence in 2000.
Tissue phosphorus content varied in both crops, but was not
significantly different. Soil tests showed significantly higher values
of available phosphorus for the seed placed treatment in canola and flax
in July. Between row phosphorus levels were generally reduced in fall
for the flax and canola trial suggesting some movement of phosphorus
during the growing season. Yields were not improved in the flax, but
the canola yields were significantly higher for all +P treatments. In
Trial 3 and 4, there was a negative affect on seedling emergence density
caused by moving to a wider row spacing. In Trial 3, the yields tended
to be higher for the 10" row spacing, but the differences were not
significant. In Trial 4, there was a significant difference in canopy
closure between the row spaced treatment. Yields were not impacted in
moving from narrow to wider row spacing.
Conclusion:
In the end, yield was not affected by moving to wider
row spacing. This, in part, was due to good weed control and adequate
moisture levels during the first 60 days of growth. Moving to wider row
spacing equipment appears to be positive for canola and flax. Years
with sparse canopies could skew results due to a less competitive crop.
Harvestability was never a problem.
As wider row spacing and one pass seeding systems are
adopted by more farmers, they will need alternative methods to safely
apply phosphorous to their canola crop. This project verified
efficiency of an alternative placement type and fertilizer source and
provided economic benefits by increasing the production per acre while
also reducing the input costs associated with placing fertilizer in the
ground. Improved quality (low green count) of the product may be an
added benefit as a result of a more even stand and less lodging. As
adoption of this new application method and fertilizer source takes
place, the economic benefits should be immediate.
Acknowledgement:
This project was made possible
due to funding from the Governments of Manitoba and Canada through the
Canada-Manitoba Agri-Food Research and Development Initiative (ARDI).
|
HomeContact
UsAbout
ManitobaDepartmentsLinksPrivacy 
