Whether through granular or liquid application, some farmers are incorporating new fertility insights to increase their fertiliser efficiency, while reducing costs.
mise between conventional and no-till sys- tems. He reiterates, however, that basic agronomy practices need to be followed in all systems. “We need to do a better job of soil sampling in Ontario,” he says. “It’s hard to make recommendations without good soil test data.”
3. Practical info for strip-till users and potential adopters Other research in Ontario has shown greater opportunities that are specific to fertiliser tim- ing and placement. An ongoing three-year pro- ject (from the province’s agriculture ministry) featuring four to five different annual corn tri- als, was designed to determine the efficiency of fertiliser placement in both autumn and spring applications. In order to better highlight fertil- iser response potential, the test plots were also placed on locations with low P and potassium
NEED TO KNOW:
▶ Absorption of P in spring occurs faster in strip-till systems, but that absorption levels out over time. ▶ Differences in field site can matter just as much as the characteristics of fertility treatments. ▶ More accurate and widespread soil sampling is imperative to both reducing the environmental costs of fertility treatments, and making those treatments more effective in the field. ▶ Spring strip-till fertiliser applications have been shown to improve corn yields in lower fertility soils. ▶ Yield increases from spring strip-till fertiliser applications may not be as dramatic.
54 ▶ FUTURE FARMING | 22 May 2020
fertility. The impact of different tillage and fertiliser placements methods are also being analysed. This includes measuring phosphorus loss in strip-till systems where nutrients are in- corporated and comparing it to broadcast ap- plication in conventional tillage. Ben Rosser, corn specialist for the provincial ministry – and the head researcher behind the project – says the results are intended to translate to practical fertiliser application strategies for farmers get- ting into or already using strip-tillage.
Considering soil quality Data from the first full project year suggests that there was a positive yield response for spring strip-till fertiliser application compared to spring full-width tillage with broadcast fertiliser. Rosser says this was true ‘across most locations’. “We can’t truly say whether this was fertility place-
PHOTO: MATT MCINTOSH
ment response or difference in tillage systems, but we can speculate that it was more fertility related,” he says. He elaborates by saying this is because the research began using low-fertility test soils, moderate amounts of applied fertiliser, and other application factors. “I’m surprised there was not much response for moving a por- tion of broadcast fertiliser to starter placement for full-width tillage. We would have expected a strong response,” says Rosser. Other results showed consistently higher yields for spring strip-till fertility compared to autumn strip-till fertility (149 to 141 bushels per acre). “We can’t say whether the response is due to the spring fertility or spring tillage, or some combination of the two. Given spring conven- tional till yields, I would speculate that a large part of this response is from fertility,” says Ross- er. The yield performance in strip-till systems was, on average, very similar to yields in full- width tillage. “Because of fertility applications, we don’t have a true apple-to-apple tillage comparison. The spring strip-till fertility treat- ment was much higher yielding, but I suspect this was strongly influenced by high-rate fertil- iser placement, not just tillage. Like Breimer and the Veritas research team – and from a grower recommendation perspec- tive – Rosser adds that it might be important to consider whether the same yield response would be seen on better, more fertile soils. “The results are only from one growing season at this point, so we should interpret this with caution.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
