|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|||
1999 STEEP III Progress ReportRESEARCH PROJECT TITLE: Developing Flex Cropping Options for Wheat-Fallow Rotations INVESTIGATORS:
INTERIM REPORT: OBJECTIVES:
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Major changes in the Federal farm program and continued decline of soil resources pose two difficult challenges to wheat producers throughout the dryland Pacific Northwest. This is particularly critical for producers who have traditionally practiced winter wheat-summer fallow rotations. In the next seven years the national farm program will transition from a subsidy based program to one that is market oriented. This transition is a major change in program philosophy from that of the past 60 years. Subsidy payments will be incrementally reduced to zero in the transition. At program conclusion, producers will receive no deficiency payment; they will receive the market price. In the past, deficiency payments have kept the price received by the producer at about $4/bushel. In the future return to the grower will be fully determined by the market, certainly a more risky system. To operate in this system, growers must become more flexible so they can react to market trends. Flexibility means such practices as planting different crops (those with better profit margins), growing different market classes of wheat or annual cropping in favorable years. This flexible system can be termed flex cropping (FC). A second challenge
facing wheat producers is the continued decline of soil resources. At
the farm and field level, erosion and loss of soil organic matter in winter
wheat-summer fallow (WF) fields threaten crop productivity and long-term
farm sustainability. At the watershed level they effect ecosystem health
and surface water quality. Fortunately, FC may assist producers in addressing
this challenge. Intensifying crop rotations and/or using rotation crops
in FC systems improves protection from erosion and increases the amount
of carbon cycled to the soil. Farmers, farms, fields and the environment
are all better off when FC replaces WF cropping systems. Higher risk,
greater workload, and the learning curve involved with changing systems
are factors that deter producers from FC. AGRONOMIC ZONE OF INTEREST: This project will focus on FC systems that have direct application in agronomic zones 3, 4, and 5 (Douglas et al. 1990). Soils in these zones are primarily Condon, Valby, Morrow, Ritzville, Shano, or Walla Walla silt loams with a few very fine sandy loam analogs. Annual precipitation ranges from 8 to about 16 inches. Information obtained during this project will also have application to agronomic zones 1 and 2. This project will be conducted in areas that traditionally have been in winter wheat-summer fallow rotation. The purpose of the project is to assist growers in developing flex cropping options that can replace summer fallow in these systems. ABSTRACT OF RESEARCH FINDINGS: This project was
initiated in the summer of 1997. Two split plot experiments have been
started to address grower questions and needs. On-farm trials were discussed
with cooperators in winter and established in the spring of 1998. Research
results will be discussed with participating producers and soil condition
will be evaluated in flex cropped fields and compared to traditional rotations. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION: Two experiments that address specific grower questions were completed during the 1998-1999 crop year. These trials were designed in consultation with participating growers and project investigator. When producers convert from fallow rotations to more intensive cropping, fertilizer and tillage management decisions must be made with little direct previous experience. Two commonly asked questions are: how should I prepare my fields and how should I fertilize in an annual cropping situation. Two experiments were conducted to investigate the interaction of phosphorus and sulfur fertility on annual crop spring wheat. Last season we investigated the interaction of sulfur, phosphorus, and chloride on spring wheat at Moro, Oregon. We applied 20, 10 and 10 lb/ac P2O5, S, and Cl respectively in different treatments (Table 1). We had no response to chloride, a 9-10 bushel response to sulfur, a 6-8 bushel response to P2O5, and a 13-bushel response to sulfur and phosphorus together.
This season we have continued to investigate the sulfur and phosphorus response. We have planted a sulfur X phosphorus trial, with several check treatments at both Moro and Pendleton. Treatments consist of increasing rates of both sulfur and phosphorus, along with the checks. Most P and S fertilizers contain nitrogen. We used 0-45-0 (TSP) and calcium sulfate (gypsum) as P and S sources respectively. This allows us to vary both P and S without varying nitrogen. Check treatments include common sources of P and S used by growers. This provides a control with the commonly used sources.
At the Sherman station
the experiment again should show a response to sulfur and a minor response
to phosphorus. The experiment at the Pendleton station did not show a
response to either phosphorus or sulfur. Yields at the Sherman station
respectively for 0, 10, 20, 30 lb/acre added sulfur were 18.4, 22.3, 21.2,
23.3 bushels/acre. The addition of 10 lb/acre sulfur increase yields by
about 4 bushel/acre or about 21 percent. INTERACTION (COOPERATION) WITH OTHER SCIENTISTS CONDUCTING RELATED ACTIVITY: This project is complimentary to other cropping system projects currently funded by STEEP III. Investigators in this project communicate with investigators to other cropping system projects. This includes Steven Guy, Frank Young, Dan Ball, and Bill Schillinger. In addition, communications and contributions from Dr. Jack Brown, University of Idaho, have been sought to facilitate the introduction of yellow mustard into FC systems. PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS: Results were presented at two field days, three industry meetings and to the Oregon Wheat Commission. |
||||
 Contact
us: Hans Kok, (208)885-5971
|
Accessibility | Copyright
| Policies | WebStats | STEEP Acknowledgement |
||||
