|
PNW
STEEP II EXTENSION
CONSERVATION
FARMING UPDATE - MAY1996
--
Returning CRP to Crop Production --
A Preliminary
Management Resource Guide and Review of Research in 1996
Authors: Roger Veseth,
WSU/UI Conservation Tillage Specialist, Moscow, ID; Baird Miller, WSU
Agronomist; Tim Fiez, WSU Soil Fertility Specialist; Tim Walters, WSU
Graduate Student; Pullman, WA; and Harry Schafer, WSU Research Technician,
Ritzville, WA.
A Washington State
University research project was initiated in 1994 to evaluate management
strategies for returning Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land to crop
production. A preliminary research summary was published in March 1996
as WSU Cooperative Extension Crop and Soil Sciences Dept. Technical Report
96-2. It provides an in depth description of the field trials and results
available to that time. The trials will be completed in 1996 and results
published in early fall.
The project goal
is to identify management strategies that optimize agronomic performance
and profitability of the first crops following CRP take-out, while providing
effective soil erosion control, and preservation of soil improvements
gained during CRP. There are two primary research thrusts in this statewide
project: 1) evaluate management strategies for returning CRP land to winter
wheat production following a summer fallow period; and 2) evaluate management
strategies for returning CRP land to spring crop production. Additional
research efforts focus on fertility management in CRP take-out, herbicide
application rates and timings for killing CRP grass, changes in soil quality
under different take-out systems, and economics of management options.
Planning and management
of the trials with field scale equipment directly involve 13 grower cooperators,
as well as more than 20 other scientists and Ag support personnel in the
region. This research project is funded in part by two grant programs
from the USDA Cooperative States Research, Education and Extension Service
(CSREES): STEEP II (Solutions To Environmental and Economic Problems)
and the Columbia Plateau Wind Erosion/Air Quality Project.
CRP Background
The Pacific Northwest has more than 2.5 million acres of cropland
in CRP. In Washington State there is over 1.045 million acres. This represents
nearly 14% of the 7.6 million acres in a 20 county area of eastern Washington.
More than 70% of the CRP acres under contract are scheduled to expire
by the fall of 1997. In addition, growers now have an early release option
on CRP contracts underway for at least 5 years, allowing them to participate
in the 7-year Farm Bill payment program on crop base acreage in the CRP
contract.
A majority of the
CRP land in Washington and the Northwest is in the low rainfall, winter
wheat summer fallow regions. These regions typically receives from 7 to
14 inches annual precipitation and are commonly vulnerable to wind erosion.
Crested wheatgrass is the predominant CRP grass. Serious soil erosion
problems could result if intensive tillage and residue removal practices
are used in returning CRP land to crop production. Prior to this project,
only limited research has been conducted on converting perennial grass
cover to crop production in these dryland regions. Conservation tillage
technologies have also changed dramatically over the last 20 years. A
research knowledge base is needed to evaluate the profitability of different
management strategies for returning CRP land to crop production, and their
effectiveness of erosion control and preserving soil benefits gained during
CRP.
Overview
of Field Trials Established in 1994 and 1995
Seven large-scale on-farm trials for evaluating CRP take-out were established
in 1994 and 1995, but only three with spring crops have been harvested.
Most trials include 4-5 tillage and residue management systems or “treatments”
that result in a range in surface residue and roughness levels.
This field research
project uses large, replicated experiments with farm scale equipment operated
by growers. This approach increases grower confidence in the research
results and facilitates rapid grower adaptation of research results. Treatment
area for each plot is generally 30 to 50 feet wide and 800 to 1,000 feet
long, depending on the implements used and field size. Each treatment
is replicated four times. Trials are generally 15 to 35 acres in size.
In cooperation with
other university and industry researchers, satellite experiments are also
being conducted to evaluate alternative spring crop choices, fertilizer
application options, nonselective herbicide rates and timings and other
management questions.
Three trials in
Franklin, Adams and Lincoln Counties are evaluating different tillage
and residue management systems of fall and spring take-out with summer
fallow and soft white winter wheat to be harvested in 1996. A 1995 spring
take-out trial in Garfield County is evaluating four management systems
with soft white winter wheat after summer fallow. It also includes soft
white spring wheat under two spring take-out systems in 1996.
Spring take-out trials
with soft white spring wheat were completed in Columbia County in 1994
and 1995. A small plot satellite study to compare soft white spring wheat,
hard red spring wheat, spring barley and spring oats under high and low
residue systems was also conducted near the large trial in 1995. The second
crop on both large trials will be harvested in 1996; winter wheat after
summer fallow on the 1994 site and recrop spring wheat on the 1995 site.
A direct seeding trial with spring barley compared two preplant application
rates of Roundup in Columbia County in 1995.
Overview of New
CRP Take-out Trials in 1996
Four new trials on spring CRP take-out with spring cereals were established
in 1996 in Adams, Lincoln and Douglas Counties. The following are brief
descriptions of the research trials:
Direct Seeding
Strategies for Hard Red Spring Wheat - Adams County:
The trial is located on the Wellsandt Road 2.5 miles east of Ritzville
on the Dale and Gary Galbreath farm in a 10- to 12-inch annual rainfall
zone. The field has been in crested wheatgrass for 9 years. Several direct
seeding systems with a Yielder drill are being compared with a “reduced”
tillage system and seeding with a John Deere double disc drill. All treatments
were sprayed with 3 pints/acre of Roundup RT. Five tillage and residue
management treatments are included in the trial: 1) direct seed in undisturbed
grass; 2) direct seed with a fertilizer/starch blend in undisturbed grass;
3) spring flail - direct seed; 4) spring burn - direct seed; and 5) a
minimum tillage take-out system consisting of one discing, fertilizer
injection, coil-packing and seeding with convention IH double disc drills.
Drill Comparison
for Direct Seeding Hard Red Spring Wheat In CRP and Recrop Spring Wheat
- Douglas County:
This research trial and a demonstration of 5 direct seeding drills
are being conducted in collaboration with the June 18, 1996 “Fields of
Tomorrow” program sponsored by Monsanto in cooperation with WSU, UI and
a number of area grower groups, and Ag support agencies and industries.
The trial is located east of Waterville (2 miles west of Farmer) on the
Tony Viebrock farm in an 11-inch annual rainfall zone. The field is in
its 9th year of crested wheatgrass. The grass residue was cut and chopped
with a combine in fall 1995. All treatments were sprayed with 3 pints/acre
of Roundup RT. Hard red spring wheat was planted with 5 direct seeding
drills and air seeders, and under a conventional tillage system. Direct
seeding implements include: Concord airseeder; Flexicoil 5000 and 1330
airseeders; John Deere 750 disc drill; and John Deere HZ deep furrow drill.
The conventional tillage operations included a discing, conventional fertilizer
injection, second discing, and seeding with the John Deere HZ drill. The
trial is repeated in undisturbed CRP grass and in spring wheat stubble.
Drill Comparison
for Direct Seeding Hard Red Spring Wheat - Adams County:
This research trial and a demonstration of 7 direct seeding drills
are being conducted in collaboration with the June 20, 1996 “Fields of
Tomorrow” program sponsored by Monsanto in cooperation with WSU, UI and
a number of area grower groups, and Ag support agencies and industries.
The trial is located west of Ritzville (Rosenoff and Dewald Roads) on
the Ron Jirava farm in a 10- to 12-inch annual rainfall zone. The field
is in its 10th year of crested wheatgrass. Hard red spring wheat was planted
with a number of direct seeding drills and air seeders, and under a minimum
tillage system. Direct seeding implements included: Concord airseeder;
Flexicoil 5000 and 1330 airseeders; John Deere 750 drill; John Deere 9400
hoe drill on 15" spacing; John Deere 9400 hoe drill on 9" spacing
with deep fertilizer banding; and John Deere HZ deep furrow drill with
deep fertilizer banding. The minimum tillage system included one pass
with a sweep and attached single gang of skewtreaders, conventional fertilizer
injector, coil-packer and seeding with a John Deere double disc drill.
Tall Wheatgrass
Tillage and Residue Management Options for Spring Barley - Lincoln County:
The trial is north of Sprague on the Andy and John Rustemeyer farm
in a 13-inch annual rainfall zone. The field is in its 10th year of CRP
and is predominantly tall wheatgrass. Four different tillage and residue
management combinations are being compared. Prior to the initial field
operations, Roundup RT was applied at 0, 16, 24 and 32 oz/acre in a split
plot experiment across all the main tillage plots. Primary treatments
included: 1) flail-2X sweep/tine harrow; 2) 2X disc-cultivate/tine harrow;
3) burn-2X sweep/tine harrow; and 4) light disc-burn-2X sweep/tine harrow.
After the above primary tillage and residue management treatments have
been established, the trial was managed as one field with a conventional
fertilizer injector, cultivator/tine harrow and seeding with conventional
IH hoe drills on 9" spacings.
Cooperative
Research Efforts
Managing Nitrogen
Fertility in CRP Take-out
Nitrogen fertilizer rate trials were established across the main plots
of large-scale trials with winter wheat after summer fallow in Franklin
and Adams Counties. Application were made in June of 1995 in the fallow
year. A similar study was established in the Lincoln County spring take-out
trial with spring barley. Four nitrogen rates and a non-fertilized check
are being compared at each of the sites.
Economic Analyses
of the CRP Take-out Systems in the Large-Scale Trials:
Doug Young, WSU agricultural economist, and Kate Painter, WSU economics
research associate, are conducting the economic analyses of the CRP take-out
systems for this project. The economic comparisons are underway and will
be completed after harvest of the trials in 1996.
Soil Quality Changes
with Different CRP Take-out Systems:
Ann Kennedy, ARS soil microbiologist in Pullman, is cooperating in
the evaluation of soil quality changes as the CRP land is returned to
crop production under different tillage and residue management systems.
Soil samples will continue to be collected and analyzed for several years
after CRP take-out to document longer term impacts of management practices.
Additional
Report Copies and More Information on CRP Take-out
Additional copies
of the preliminary research report on CRP take-out (WSU Technical Rpt.
96-2) are available here in pdf format.
For more information
on the WSU CRP take-out research project contact the project leaders:
Roger Veseth, WSU/UI Conservation Tillage Specialist, Plant, Soil and
Entomological Sciences Dept., University of Idaho, Moscow, 83843-2339;
phone 208-885-6386; FAX 208-885-7760; E-mail: rveseth@uidaho.edu.
Baird Miller, WSU Agronomist, Crop and Soil Sciences Dept., WSU, Pullman,
WA 99164-6420; phone: 509-335-2858; FAX 509-335-1758; E-mail: millerbc@wsu.edu
Tim Fiez, WSU Soil Fertility Specialist, Crop and Soil Sciences Dept.,
WSU, Pullman, WA 99164-6420; phone 509-335-2997; FAX 509-335-1758; E-mail:
tfiez@wsu.edu
For
herbicide application recommendations, refer to product labels and the
Pacific Northwest Weed Control Handbook, an annually revised extension
publication available from the extension offices of the University of
Idaho, Oregon State University and Washington State University. To simplify
information, chemical and equipment trade names have been used. Neither
endorsement of named products is intended, nor criticism implied of similar
products not mentioned.
|
