Integrated System for Sustainability of High Value Field Crops

1. Develop high residue sustainable agriculture cropping system for the production of corn, dry beans and sugar beets using reduced tillage, cover crops and a total integrated cropping system to reduce soil erosion and increase farm family income.

After the first year of the project, the members realized that they just could not put the seed into the soil using an alternative tillage equipment and hope for success. They found out that they needed to implement a system. That meant adjusting fertilizer placement, herbicide placement and planting rate. Once that concept was put into practice, the alternative systems generated better results.

Following the initial year, the group switched from eight-wave coulters on the planter to 13-wave coulters. The additional waves were helpful in making a better seedbed at the slower planting speeds. Sugar beets are planted at 3.5 to 4 mph. The eight-wave coulters work well with soybeans or corn when planted at faster speeds. By changing the coulter, the emergence and stands improved.

Another change in the last year was the addition of the Martin spoke closing wheels. The spoke wheels worked the soil one more time and fractured any sidewall compaction that might have occurred. This year, the members noted that with the wetter conditions, sidewall compaction had occurred; but, the wheels had broke it up. There was an excellent seed/soil contact resulting in a very good stand of dry beans.

Using three coulter system and spoke wheels is very important for this part of Michigan. The soils are silty clay loam, tightly compacted, slow to dry and slow to warm up. In the spring, because of water on three sides of the "Thumb", there are many cool cloudy days. We may have dense clouds while 30 miles further south it may be sunny. Therefore, we need to develop a system that fits our soils and weather conditions.

There are also a few myths that need to be clarified. One myth is that dry beans could not be planted into corn stalks and another is that fall plowing must occur prior to planting beets.

In reality, the sugar beet crop has responded better to reduced tillage systems than dry beans. Stand establishment has been good and has been aided by the use of cover crops. Seedling diseases are a problem with sugar beets. The cover crop was very important during the spring of 1996, which was wet and cold. The rye cover crop drew moisture out of the soil allowing for the trans-till and zone-till systems to be planted earlier at the Voelker Site. Since the soil was drier, there was less seedling disease and a better stand was established which produced higher yields.

This is the second year that sugar beets have been planted into cover crops. Wheat, rye and triticale have been tried. Rye has produced good results, but is harder to burn down. Overall it appears that sugar beets can be successfully produced with reduced tillage systems.

One of the main obstacles for dry beans was the herbicide program. Dry beans, being a minor crop, have very few herbicide options. The most commonly used herbicide program relies on pre-plant incorporated products.

The IF group tried a granular application of Eptam and it worked fairly well, if the applicators were properly calibrated. This year, the group applied Eptam and Treflan in a 10-inch band in front of the planter. The herbicide was immediately incorporated with the three coulters. Weed control was excellent with minimal damage to the beans.

No post emergent herbicide was applied at the one site and a band of Basagran was applied one time at the other site. Weed control was effective and done with traditional products applied in a non-traditional manner.

After the first year, the economic data shows that the systems are generating fairly close total net profits. There is variability within the reduced tillage systems, BUT there is also variability in the plow system.

It appears that by using the correct coulters, herbicide and fertilizer placement programs, the reduced tillage systems will work.

In addition, the soil health data is showing that changes are occurring in the soils. Water infiltration, bulk density and carbon/nitrogen ratios are improving.

2. Help policy makers, agency representatives and agribusinesses become part of the solution and limit barriers to the adoption of new technology.

A key part of this project is involving the entire community in the project. Therefore, local lenders, agribusiness suppliers, agriculture industry, governmental groups, environmental groups and legislators have been invited to participate in the project.

Currently, there are 52 sponsoring partners. They have provided financial support, field supplies or equipment. A complete list is enclosed.

It is important for the sponsors to be involved, so that when an IF members decides to make the transition to an alternative system, the technical support will be available. If a farmer tried a new system and it did not work because the wrong equipment was used or the fertilizer was not placed correctly or the wrong weed control program was implemented, the transition would probably not be made.

Last year, the Huron County Board of Commissioners nominated the IF Project for a National Association of Counties Achievement Award.

This year, the IF group, along with the Michigan Integrated Food and Farming Systems (MIFFS) Project sponsored an Agricultural Policy Tour. Twenty-nine legislators, governmental representatives and ag policy representatives attended the tour.

Innovative Farmer members met with the group at five different sites to discuss barriers to change in a number of agriculture practices. Practices discussed were manure management, filter strips, irrigation, wetlands, drain laws, and on-farm fertilizer and petroleum issues. The tour will probably be held next year, as everyone thought it was a good idea.

One barrier to farmers changing tillage system is the fear by landowners that weed control will not be good. There is a perception that alternative systems result in weedy fields, while landowners want clean fields. A farmer may want to change to another tillage system, but cannot afford the loss of their land base for economic reasons, which is a very difficult barrier to overcome. The more the community is involved, the more we will be able to overcome barriers like this.

3. Develop techniques for farmers to learn farmer-to-farmer and for them to be actively involved in the process to find solutions to societal problems.

One of the main focuses of this project is to have the farmers explore alternative cropping systems. A system needed to be developed that would encourage the farmer members to share ideas and take active roles in the planning.

In the first year, the group was divided into three groups: corn, sugar beets and dry beans. The committees were given the responsibility of planning the cropping programs for their crop in all four tillage systems.

Unfortunately, as Henry Ford stated, "If you want something to work, it will; and if you want it to fail, it will." Members were planning systems with limited knowledge that they were not interested in. It is difficult for farmers who have always plowed to plan a zone-till system. Also, it was easy to "hide" in large groups with one or two individuals occupying the discussions.

Therefore, in the second year, the group was divided into rotations. One rotation included wheat and the other did not. They then decided which system they wanted to work on within their rotation. Eight committees were formed.

The groups were smaller and were working only on the system that they wanted to. As a result, better planning was put into place. More discussion occurred within the groups and everyone felt more involved. At the end of each meeting, time was allowed for the different committees to share their ideas with the other groups.

We are now engaging in more detailed discussions. The groups are asking questions between groups, and individuals from different parts of the county are talking after the meetings. The system appears to be working.

At the last two Annual Innovative Farmer Tours, over 20 members have served as speakers or tour guides. They present information on the plots. They have become more aware of what is happening at the sites, and as a result, are more comfortable with the systems.

In addition, the Huron County IF group has hosted farmers from Ontario for a visit to their sites. This year, the IF group sponsored a bus tour to Ontario. Farmers from other Michigan IF groups and six counties participated in the tour. The bus trip promoted the sharing of ideas.

We are trying to move the members out of their safety net and on to different ways of thinking. With the change in committee arrangement, tours and newsletters, more sharing is occurring.

4. Reduce the dependency upon commercial fertilizers and pesticides in the production of high value field crops, such as sugar beets and dry beans.

The Innovative Farmers Project has allowed the group to look at a number of cost saving practices in greater detail.

In 1995, the "Zone-Till" group wanted to apply all of their nitrogen at planting. The other groups decided to follow a sidedress soil nitrate test. As a result, the other groups, plow, chisel and trans-till, generated 149 to 155 bu./acre with 80 lbs. of nitrogen. The zone-till group's plot produced a yield of 153 bu./acre with 170 lbs. of nitrogen.

In 1996, plot comparisons again showed that the sidedress nitrate program generated a three bushel increase over the full rate nitrogen plot.

These two plots continue to verify the value of the sidedress nitrate program. Several members started to use the sidedress test this year.

The dry bean programs were changed this year to use banded, rather than broadcast applications, of herbicides. The herbicides were banded in front of the planter and incorporated with the three coulters. This system worked very well and combined with cultivations resulted in excellent weed control. The plots showed that it could be done.

The groups are following Michigan State University soil test recommendations. As a result, only nitrogen is used at one site and the yields are being maintained. At the second site, where the soil fertility is lower, nitrogen and potash have been applied, but no starter phosphorus.

This year, there was interest in a complete liquid starter being applied directly to the seed to serve as a pop-up fertilizer, even on the high testing soils. Several comparisons were set up and the data shows it did not work. Six replications of 3.4 gallons of an 8-19-3 vs control showed that the control plots had a yield of 154.9 bu./acre while the treated plots averaged 154.3 bu./acre. In addition, the 3.4 gallons had a cost of $9.73/acre.

These are examples of plot work showing that the Michigan State University soil test recommendations work. Farmers are always questioning the recommendations and are concerned about the risk of not applying enough fertilizer. Hopefully, these plots will help the farmers become more confident in the recommendations, as they were involved in planning the plots.

5. Demonstrate that zone-tillage is agronomically and economically feasible for the row crop rotation used in Eastern Michigan.

The question being addressed is, "Can a rotation of dry beans, sugar beets and corn be produced using reduced tillage techniques and be economically viable and competitive with the traditional plow system?" Based on three years of data, the answer appears to be "yes".

There was and is concern that the high value crops (sugar beets and dry beans) cannot be produced successfully in reduced tillage systems. The data in Appendix C illustrates that over the three years, the chisel system appears to generate the highest net profit. The plow system is second with trans-till and zone-till following closely. There is not a great deal of difference between the plow, trans-till and zone-till.

The most profitable tillage system is the chisel system over the three years of the project. There is a large gap to the other systems, and the plow, trans-till and zone-till are fairly close to each other. Some of the difference in economic returns is due to individual practices the members initiated or failed to implement.

For instance, the zone-till group decided to apply all their nitrogen at planting, while the others utilized the soil nitrate-N soil test. The result was that the zone-till group over applied nitrogen by 90 lbs. costing them $30/acre. A lesson was learned about implementing a "system".

The members hope that over time the yields will actually start to increase in the reduced tillage systems as the soil quality improves.