To manage adaptively means to evaluate impacts in your decision cycle. The metrics you evaluate need to reflect impacts important to your local farming system. Three key outcome metrics are farmland productivity, soil health, and nutrient use efficiency. The three directly relate to nutrient stewardship practices, complement each other well, and connect to the farther-reaching impacts of crop nutrition. Applying the right source of nutrients at the right rate, time and place boosts a cropping system’s productivity while maintaining soil health and optimizing nutrient use efficiency.
Fertilizer inputs make cropping systems more productive. They increase yields, and can also increase the nutrient density of crops. Of course, many other crop management factors also influence yield and quality. The same can be said for the health of soils. Soil health depends on maintaining nutrient reserves, as well as practicing soil conservation. Nutrient use efficiency, in the same manner, is influenced by applying the right source of nutrients at the right rate, time and place…but can be influenced just as much by any management factor affecting yield, and by the health of the soil.
Considering the three key metrics together helps the manager seek sustainable synergies. Overemphasis on nutrient use efficiency can lead to nutrient-depleted soils and foregone productivity. Overemphasis on productivity can lead to poor nutrient use efficiency. But when source, rate, time and place decisions are evaluated by all three metrics, the combinations that produce the most sustainable results are favored for adoption.
What are the farther-reaching impacts of crop nutrition? These include water quality, air quality, and carbon footprint. Negative impacts in these three areas arise from nutrient losses, and thus tend to diminish with increases in nutrient use efficiency. But sometimes, choices of source, timing and placement can have larger direct impacts on these end points than on nutrient use efficiency alone. A good example is placing phosphorus (P) in the soil within conservation tillage systems: it reduces loss of dissolved P by a lot more than its impact on crop nutrient uptake.
Going yet further, impacts extend to food and nutrition security, biodiversity, and economic value. Crop nutrition can be managed for positive social benefits in these three areas. Producing more food, and more nutritious food, contributes toward ensuring all are properly nourished. Producing higher yields enables society to spare land for nature. Producing with better practices and with better documentation enhances economic value, providing employment and economic benefit well beyond the farm gate. These extended benefits depend on many more management factors beyond the 4Rs, but the 4Rs make a real and essential contribution.
Crop producers, crop advisers, and agricultural input retailers already engage in adaptive management. We all play a role in communicating to society the broad and far-reaching benefits of continuouslyseeking the right source, rate, time and place of nutrient application. By better documenting the decision cycle, our current and past practices, and their relation to impacts, the industry has the opportunity to build public trust.
Potassium (K) in agriculture is often loosely referred to as potash. The term potash comes from an early production technique where K was leached from wood ashes and concentrated by evaporating the leachate in large iron pots, according to Mike Stewart, Director, International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) North American Program. This method depended on tree roots to mine K from soils, which was then recovered after wood was harvested and burned. The K collected was in the form of potassium carbonate, which was used as fertilizer and in the manufacture of various products including glass and soap. Interestingly, the first patent granted in the USA (1790) was for potash production. Potash collection in this era was usually a secondary endeavor, with land clearing for farming being the primary goal of tree removal. Needless to say, this means of potash production was not sustainable.
Today, K is produced in many parts of the world, with underground salt deposits — mostly a combination of K and sodium (Na) chloride — being the main source. These deposits were formed as ancient oceans evaporated, leaving behind concentrated salt layers that were subsequently buried by sediment. Many countries contain such deposits, with the largest being in western Canada. Extraction of K salts from these deposits is mostly accomplished by conventional shaft mining techniques; however, solution mining may be used in circumstances where shaft mining is prohibitive. Also, some naturally occurring surface-water brines (e.g., Great Salt Lake in Utah, Dead Sea bordering Jordan and Israel) contain sufficient K salts to make extraction feasible. With these surface brines solar evaporation is used to concentrate the salts before harvesting. All total, over 90% of modern global potash production goes into the manufacture of fertilizer.
Although there are many K fertilizer sources available, by far the most common is muriate of potash or potassium chloride (MOP; KCl). Other sources of K include potassium sulfate or sulfate of potash (SOP; K2SO4), potassium magnesium sulfate (K2SO4 · 2MgSO4), potassium nitrate (KNO3), potassium thiosulfate (KTS; K2S2O3), and less common sources such as potassium phosphate (KH2PO4), potassium carbonate (K2CO3), and potassium hydroxide (KOH). With the exception of the last two, all of these K sources contain other mineral nutrients essential for plant growth [chloride (Cl-), sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P)].
Once the need for K fertilizer has been established, price and availability are usually the factors governing which source is the most desirable. Since KCl is the most abundant, it is almost always the most accessible and cheapest per unit of K. There are however circumstances where simple price and availability are overridden by other concerns. These circumstances may include:
• Crop sensitivity to Cl- – Some crops are less tolerant of Cl- than others. Examples of sensitive crops are avocado, lettuce, peach, and tobacco. With the exception of certain soybean varieties, Cl- sensitivity among common row crops and small grains is usually not an issue.
• Salt index – The salt index of a fertilizer is simply a measure of salt injury potential, and is mainly a concern when fertilizer is applied to sensitive and/or high value crops. It may also be a concern in saline soils or where saline irrigation water is used. More detail on salt index is available in most basic agronomy texts.
• The need for other nutrients – For example, if the need for Mg has been established then potassium magnesium sulfate may be the best choice.
Potash production has come a long way… from wood ash leaching during the early days, to modern larges-cale mining operations that extract naturally occurring K bearing minerals. Potassium fertilizer is more than ever critical to the production of sufficient and high quality crops to accommodate an expanding global population.
For more information on specific fertilizer materials see IPNI’s Nutrient Source Specifics series at www.ipni.net/specifics-en.
The flow of nutrients through a farm includes inputs from the atmosphere, internal turnover, and outputs in the form of crop removals and losses with soil erosion, in drainage water, and back to the atmosphere. The 4Rs directly address an important part of that cycle: the application of nutrients to the soil. Agricultural service providers have a large but not total influence on producer decisions regarding the right source, right rate, right time and right place for nutrient application. The 4R concept addresses everything included in those decisions, and its implementation requires stewardship of all important controls of nutrient flows into, within, and from the farm.
It’s no surprise that the 4R concept has been widely embraced by agricultural service providers. It is the most appropriate place to start in any effort to reduce nutrient loss. While managing source, rate, time and place may not be enough, why put effort into controlling and trapping excess nutrients coming off the edge of the field, before doing what can be done to avoid loss at the point of application? From a grower’s perspective, it’s the most profitable way to reduce nutrient loss.
The 4Rs address the full decision cycle for choices of source, rate, time and place. Any technology relating these choices to the full farm nutrient cycle can be considered part of 4R Nutrient Stewardship. Enhanced efficiency fertilizers, soil testing, and variable rate application can’t be considered technologies separate from the 4Rs. They are included, along with a list of traditional practices like plant analysis and scouting for symptoms, and precision tools like GPS, GIS, yield monitors, sensors, and weather-based computer models.
Nevertheless, the agricultural service provider’s role in the stewardship of nutrient cycling need not be limited to nutrient applications. Crop, soil and pest management practices interact strongly with source, rate, time and place choices. Key performance indicators of nutrient stewardship — crop productivity, soil health, and nutrient use efficiency — can be influenced strongly by choices of crop genetics, pest control, and conservation tillage. Tillage and drainage systems also influence the amounts and forms of nutrients lost. Most service providers already provide service relating to these choices.
In many cases, reducing nutrient losses to societally acceptable levels will require going beyond agronomic practices. ‘Control and trap’ practices beyond the edge of field may be necessary because, face it, to attain the productivity levels demanded for today and tomorrow, crops need nourishment beyond natural levels. Agricultural service providers are considering how to provide services addressed at nutrient losses beyond the edge of the field. It is challenging, but efforts are being made. Possibilities for making it profitable include environmental credit trading, food industry supply chain sustainability initiatives, and other collaborative actions.
Society increasingly expects agriculture and agri-business to improve its stewardship of the nutrient cycle. Agricultural service providers applying 4R Nutrient Stewardship embrace every opportunity to engage this challenge.
Tennessee is the latest state to issue restrictions on dicamba, following snowballing complaints about the herbicide drifting onto neighboring farms not using the Monsanto Xtend cropping system for soybeans or cotton.
The Tennessee Department of Agriculture said it is taking measures to mitigate the risk of drift of herbicides containing dicamba, and issued the following statement on Wed., July 12:
In accordance with new rules filed with the Secretary of State:
Anyone applying dicamba products must be certified as a private applicator or licensed as a pest control operator in the category of Agricultural Pest Control (AGE), and is required to keep records for such applications.
The use of older formulations of dicamba products for the remainder of this agricultural growing season is prohibited.
To minimize the potential for off-target movement of the product due to temperature inversion, dicamba may only be applied from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in the respective time zone for the location of application.
Applying dicamba over the top of cotton after first bloom is prohibited.
This action is in response to primarily farmer to farmer complaints currently under investigation by TDA of suspected dicamba related damage on cropland. These measures are based on the recommendations of UT Extension and only apply to dicamba products purchased and used for agricultural purposes. A list of dicamba products approved in Tennessee for sale or use under new rules established July 12, 2017 are available here.
State and federal laws mandate applicators strictly follow label directions and consider the weather and potential for temperature inversions when applying any herbicide. Any suspected misapplication should be reported immediately to TDA at 800-628-2631 or 615-837-5148. The department will take appropriate enforcement action for any misapplication, including but not limited to suspension or revocation of a certificate and state penalties up to $1,500 per violation, in addition to federal penalties and possible criminal prosecution.
Emergency Rules filed by TDA and effective July 11, 2017 through October 1, 2017 are available here. A finalized version will be posted by the Tennessee Secretary of State’s Office within three to four days of filing at http://tnsos.org/rules/EmergencyRules.php.
BRANDT, a leading agriculture retailer and manufacturer of agricultural specialty products, will join Young’s Motorsports with Australian sprint car driver, Max Johnston, for the NASCAR Camping World Truck Series race at Eldora Speedway. Johnston will pilot the 02 BRANDT Professional Agriculture Chevy Silverado for the July 19 prime time event.
Joining BRANDT on the truck will be Australian distribution partners BARMAC, a division of Amgrow Australia Pty Ltd, and GLOBE Growing Solutions.
“We are excited to put Max behind the wheel for his NASCAR Truck Series debut as a representative of BRANDT both here and in Australia,” said Rick Brandt, President & CEO of BRANDT. “The Eldora Speedway race is one of a kind and we look forward to seeing Max’s skills on the dirt track.”
“I’m humbled at the opportunity to race in one of NASCAR’s top tier series with BRANDT Professional Agriculture and Young’s Motorsports. Hard work and never giving up is something I live by and I want to apply that as I make my NASCAR debut,” said Max Johnston.
The NASCAR Camping World Truck Series race at Eldora Speedway will air Wednesday night, July 19, on FOX Business channel.
Advanced Biological Marketing (ABM) has been awarded a National Science Foundation (NSF) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant to conduct research and development work aimed at developing formulations of a new class of biorational chemicals that are based on chemical communicants from plant symbiotic fungi. These new products are expected to provide season-long improvements in plant productivity, including greater crop yields, enhanced root growth, and resistance to a variety of stresses including drought. The products induce plants to use sunlight more efficiently and thereby provide greater plant biomass. This project builds on the discovery that selected biorational fungal metabolites increase plant productivity and stress resistance even when applied at very low concentrations and provide season-long effects on plants long after the application. The new products will augment ABM’s products based on advanced microbial agents that colonize plant roots. They will permit new applications and add versatility to the product line.
“The National Science Foundation supports small businesses with the most innovative, cutting-edge ideas that have the potential to become great commercial successes and make huge societal impacts,” said Barry Johnson, Director of the NSF’s Division of Industrial Innovation and Partnerships. “We hope that this seed funding will spark solutions to some of the most important challenges of our time across all areas of science and technology.”
“The biorational and microbial products sold and being developed by ABM provide unique opportunities to improve plant performance,” said Gary Harman, the grant’s Principal Investigator. “The enhanced plants produced by these products function in many respects like totally new varieties even though they contain the same genetics as plants without the treatments. However, they can be deployed now and without the time lag and expense required for development of genetically altered plants. There is a strong likelihood that combining advanced plant genetics with ABM’s biological and biorational products will provide even more improvements.”
Once a small business is awarded a Phase I SBIR/STTR grant it becomes eligible to apply for a Phase II grant. Small businesses with Phase II grants are eligible to receive up to $500,000 in additional matching funds with qualifying third-party investment or sales.
NSF accepts Phase I proposals from small businesses twice annually in June and December. Small businesses with innovative science and technology solutions, and commercial potential are encouraged to apply.All proposals submitted to the NSF SBIR/STTR program undergo a rigorous merit-based review process.
To learn more about the NSF SBIR/STTR program, visit: www.nsf.gov/SBIR.
Explosive. That’s one way to describe the speed at which mite infestations in crops can develop under the right conditions. Those conditions are hot, dry weather — a common occurrence on the High Plains. A spider mite female, for example, can produce 300 offspring during her 30-day lifetime, enabling a mite population to grow from a few individuals to millions rapidly.
The two primary mite pests in the High Plains are the Banks grass mite and the two-spotted spider mite. Heavy infestation in beans can cause leaf loss and even the death of the plant, while mites can cause lighter test weights in corn.
Penn State University Extension entomologists note that most mite populations first develop on grasses and other plants found along the margins of fields. The preproductive female mites then use a silken thread as a kite to migrate into the field1.
Because mite populations can build so quickly, regular scouting of field borders when conditions favor mite development is the best way to catch outbreaks before mites can move further into the field.
Dealing with Mites
When you find mites at high levels, what are your control options? A preventive insecticide treatment may be warranted under certain conditions. Colorado State University Extension entomologists recommend asking these questions before applying a preventive treatment.
Is the crop near tasseling?
Are a majority of the plants infested with at least small colonies of mites?
Are the daily high temperatures expected to be above 95 degrees?
Is part of the field suffering from drought stress?
Are predator populations (such as predator mites, minute pirate bugs and Stethorus) low?
Does the field have a history of mite problems? Are two-spotted mites expected to be an issue in the field?
If at least three of these questions receive a “yes” answer, it is likely that one of these treatments will provide an economic benefit.
Even if you can answer yes to three questions, one of the drawbacks to taking a traditional preventive approach is the cost of treating an entire field without the certainty of knowing whether a full-blown outbreak will occur. Those producers with a center-pivot irrigation system, however, have an alternative.
As the Penn State extension experts note, because mites migrate into a field from field boundaries, protecting field margins can be an option. “In large fields, when damage is seen only along the field margins, a spray directed to the injured area and into the field about 100 feet farther may contain the problem.2”
“We have a chemical injection unit, the Boundary Rider, designed specifically to control migrating insects,” says Erik Tribelhorn, CEO of Agri-Inject. “Because mites migrate into a field from the field boundaries, this unit can create a zone of protection.”
According to Tribelhorn, the Boundary Rider mounts on the base beam of a pivot tower — typically the second to the last — and is powered by the tower box. It then injects insecticide up into the pivot, providing a band of insecticide the width of two pivot sections around the edge of the field — the distance that a drifting mite can travel before it must land in the corn.
“When the appropriate miticide is used, you not only eliminate mites in that boundary area, but you create a residual effect that lasts further into the season,” Tribelhorn explains. “The economics are also much more favorable.”
Assuming an effective miticide, with some residual action, costs roughly $30/acre, Tribelhorn calculates that treating 30 boundary acres would cost $900—less than $8/acre to protect the whole field. Treating the entire 125-acre field, on the other hand, would cost $3,750.
“Everyone wants to protect their crops as economically as possible,” Tribelhorn concludes. “If mites are a concern, the Boundary Rider provides a way to accomplish that goal.”
Chris Chinn, Director of Missouri Department of Agriculture
The Missouri Department of Agriculture has lifted its barely week-old ban on new dicamba technologies, which have been at the center of controversy as complaints about drift snowball in select Southern states, and replaced it with a set of tightened application restrictions.
The department issued the following statement on Thurs., July 13:
“From the moment the stop sale and use order went into effect, we’ve been working to get these weed control products back into the hands of our farmers,” said Director of Agriculture Chris Chinn. “BASF, Monsanto and DuPont came to the table and agreed to additional safeguards for product use in response to issues we’ve faced this growing season.”
In an effort to reduce off-target crop injury, the Department has approved a Special Local Need label for each herbicide which includes special provisions and safeguards for the use of this technology in Missouri.
According to the Special Local Need labels, to apply the herbicideto dicamba-tolerant soybeans and dicamba-tolerant cotton in Missouri, the following restrictions must be followed:
Wind Speed – DO NOT apply at wind speeds greater than 10 mph. Applicators must measure and record wind speed and wind direction for each field prior to application.
Application Timing – DO NOT apply before 9:00 a.m. and DO NOT apply after 3:00 p.m.
Certified Applicator – All applications of ENGENIA, XTENDIMAX and FEXAPAN must be made by a properly licensed Missouri certified private applicator or certified commercial applicator, certified noncommercial applicator or certified public operator.
Dicamba Notice of Application Form – Certified applicators must complete an online web-based form “Dicamba Notice of Application” prior to the actual application. The Dicamba Notice of Application Form is posted on the Missouri Department of Agriculture’s website at: www.Agriculture.Mo.Gov/dicamba/notice/.
Recordkeeping Requirements – Certified private applicators, certified noncommercial applicators and certified public operators must keep and maintain a record of use for each application of ENGENIA, XTENDIMAX or FEXAPAN herbicide.
Illegal use of older, generic dicamba formulations “could approach 25% of applications.” — Robb Fraley, Monsanto Chief Technology Officer
Monsanto isn’t backing down from the position that its tool — the Roundup Ready Xtend dicamba-tolerant system for soybeans and cotton — isn’t inherently flawed.
Robb Fraley, Monsanto Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, told media on a conference call on Thurs., July 13, that on the vast majority of farms he has visited over the past three weeks where drift has been a problem, it was likely due to “not having adequate buffer separation differences, and spraying in wind conditions.”
Fraley pointed out several instances in Arkansas and Missouri where he saw cupping that could not have been from drift because of the pattern of impact.
“Most agronomists will tell you that uniform, corner-to-corner leaf cupping across an entire field is not consistent with drift; it’s symptomatic of another problem. Are those uniform problems with cupping because of a problem with a contaminated sprayer unit? Are they due to improper spraying of older dicamba formulations that have a propensity to vaporize?”
He saw some LibertyLink soybean fields treated with various glufosinate herbicides that also displayed uniform symptoms. Based on spray boom patterns and aerial photographs, growers and consultants determined cupping resulted from some form of sprayer contamination, he said. Of 10 samples the company had collected so far, four were detected to contain low levels of dicamba.
Not only is user error assumed to be at the root of snowballing drift cases this season, Fraley also speculated that illegal use of older, generic dicamba formulations “could approach 25% of applications.”
“Many (farmers and consultants) noted that sales of these products spiked this year, despite the fact that corn and wheat acres were down,” Fraley said, which is significant, as older formulations of dicamba are primarily used on corn and wheat at this time of year. “The extent of off-label product use was surprising to me and very troubling, and it’s also illegal.”
Evidence that off-label formulations were commonly used, however, was not offered on the call.
He recognized that the vast majority of growers are “doing the right thing, but it’s clear that a few bad actors can make the situation worse for everyone.” Fraley, along with Lisa Safarian, Vice President of Monsanto North America, praised the Departments of Agriculture in Missouri and Tennessee for banning the use of older dicamba formulations and increasing the fines for off-label use.
“My experience is that in that first year for almost every technology, there are kinks that you need to work out. As we look at experiences we’ve gained this year on 25 million acres that the technology has been planted on, I think there are things we will be able to look at and continue to make suggestions and change recommendations as we go in to prepare for the 2018 planting season,” Fraley added.
Weed Scientists Sound a Different Note
Many weed scientists are sounding a different note on the situation from that of Monsanto and BASF, maker of the Engenia dicamba herbicide that has been the target of more than 600 drift complaints in Arkansas — more than all of the other states combined. The state banned the sale and use of the herbicide for at least 120 days as of July 11.
“The simple fact of the matter is if you have dicamba, it’s not a question of if you’re going to have drift, it’s what’s going to be the magnitude. It’s the exact same thing we’ve seen the last 50 years,” Aaron Hager, Extension Specialist, Weed Science/IPM with the University of Illinois Extension, said in an interview.
In Hager’s home state of Illinois, he has seen more issues with drift than in the last 20 years combined, despite the fact that the state’s Department of Agriculture has registered just 31 drift complaints thus far, and said this week there are no plans to ban the herbicide. “The problem with going off official complaints is it doesn’t always estimate reality,” Hager told CropLife.
“To say we have less a problem (than other states) is not an accurate statement … These (new) formulations are volatile. I defy anyone to contest that,” he said, adding that cupping on soybeans can be caused by as little as 1/20,000 of the standard dicamba use rate per acre.
Hager also disagreed that predictions about yield impact on soybean fields showing symptoms could be determined with any accuracy.
Andrew Thostenson, Pesticide Program Specialist with the North Dakota State University Extension Service, said that as a pesticide educator, it is tough for him to see the issues growers are having in the Southern states.
“When you see those number of complaints down there, something is not working. It just gives me a lot of pause,” he said.
“We’ve got to be able to put products out amongst others without hurting (non-Xtend crops). I’m a big believer that a guy should be able to grow whatever he wants on his land, and he shouldn’t have to plant any one company’s type of bean just in self defense to prevent injury,” Bob Scott, Professor and Weed Scientist at the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, said.
On the call, Fraley brought up the launch of Roundup Ready in 1996, when there were “mixed views by some weed scientists on the adoption of Roundup Ready technology itself.” He added: “The enemy here isn’t new technology; the enemy here is challenging weeds – pigweed and waterhemp that are very difficult for farmers to control, and I think everyone realizes that we need new tools to address these problems.”
Sometimes it seems as if the ag world is changing so fast that we can barely keep up with it all. I just finished reading an article that opined on how the Monsanto-Bayer merger would lead to the end of western civilization as we know it. Given my strong contrarian streak, I view this merger as an example less of strength than of impending weakness. The world is changing dramatically as technology evolves and agriculture is simply changing along with it. Monsanto’s incredible run in the past 30 years is largely attributable to their near single-handed ability to reduce complexity in row crop agriculture. But complexity is striking back, and neither Monsanto nor the industry will ever be the same again.
I’ve always believed the adage that companies are never as brilliant as believed at their apex, nor as stupid as billed at their nadir. Sometimes they are simply in the right place at the right time (i.e., lucky), and a very few actually shape the times in which they live. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, Monsanto is one of those companies.
I started with Monsanto as a freshly minted PhD in 1982, and spent an amazing dozen years there back in the days when they were a chemical, not a seed (or precision ag) company. To me the story of Monsanto is the story of complexity in agriculture, and a new (very disruptive) chapter is only now being written.
Modern History of Complexity in U.S. Agriculture
Complexity in agriculture steadily marched higher after the introduction of hybrid corn in the 1940s and the chemical pesticide industry growth starting in the 1950s (see Table 1). The seed corn market was highly fragmented and companies competed based on superior agronomic (yield) performance. Most herbicides were selective to certain weeds, and there were several timings of application based on tillage practices and crop tolerance in the days before no-till. This complexity required significant expertise from trusted advisors, so input suppliers, ag retailers, and crop consultants played a critical role in agronomic program design. U.S. row crop agriculture reached its peak of complexity in the mid-1980s (at least to that point).
By the early 1990s, two major developments dramatically reduced complexity in row crop agriculture. First, Roundup’s steady growth had resulted in both agronomic (lower rates) and economic (lower prices) progress in morphing to an annual weed control product, in contrast to the high-priced perennial weed control product was it when launched (I sprayed a lot of field bindweed and Johnsongrass in those early years).
Secondly, this occurred at the same time that GMO traits, particularly corn rootworm (Bt) and Roundup tolerant corn varieties were introduced. This also coincided with the huge ethanol boom (bubble) that raised corn prices dramatically. Huge consolidation occurred in the seed, chemical, and ag retail sectors, and growers simply bought into a simple platform program of seed and chemicals.
There was a lot more talk about precision ag than meaningful action, so this period, peaking in perhaps 2005, resulted in the withering away of a great deal of the agronomic expertise in the industry. You didn’t need to be a rocket scientist to simply plant RR corn and apply 24 oz. of Roundup. Clean fields. High yields. Done. Easy peasy.
In the last 10 years, three primary changes began to cause complexity to rise again. First, Mother Nature resists a monoculture, and by 2010 resistance to the first-generation GMO crops (weeds and bugs) began to dent the ‘clean fields” image and we had to start looking around for some old agronomists who knew how to do tank mixes.
Secondly, consumers (particularly millennials) began to embrace a natural/organic/non-GMO mindset and demand significant volumes of crops grown within this paradigm.
Third, precision agriculture slowly began to move from a dream to a set of real tools (although we still have a LONG way to go). When combined, these three factors likely will result in a dramatically more complex system by 2025.
Monsanto and the Decline in Complexity
In 1982, Monsanto was just another company trying to sell chemicals in the depths of the farm economy depression (Figure 1). By 1987 or so, production complexity peaked and Monsanto’s position was not significantly stronger than 8-10 other chemical companies, although Roundup was clearly a star product. By 2003, complexity had dropped dramatically and Monsanto had become the dominant player in this new paradigm. The company nearly single-handedly created this decline in the complexity of row crop agriculture. Although Monsanto has plenty of detractors, this accomplishment was amazing and will always be remembered as legendary in the development of the ag industry.
Rising Complexity and Mediation Mechanisms
As complexity continues to rise, the way in which we deal with it is evolving. In 1987, we mediated production complexity through HI (Human Intelligence). Smart seedsmen, agronomists, and crop consultants would think through all the options and advise farmers on the best way to proceed.
If I look out 20 years, it’s possible that AI (Artificial Intelligence) will play the primary role in mediating ag complexity. But the likely fatal conceit of many precision ag startups today is that we have reached that point today, and if they are great at programming an algorithm (“I got a guy”) we are home free. A far more likely scenario is that the next 20 years will require an ongoing combination of HI and AI if we are going to deal with all the complexity and come up with sustainable, practical, precision ag solutions.
Although Monsanto’s purchase of Climate Corporation clearly shows their desire to lead in this next phase of the industry, the slow economic development of the precision ag sector and the need for this close HI/AI integration certainly raises the question of whether Monsanto will maintain their “king of the hill” position in this next phase. In my view, the proposed Bayer merger is a recognition that Monsanto management may wonder the same thing. Either way, the Monsanto/Roundup/GMO dominance of the industry is slowly fading, and it seems likely that a new name and organization will emerge to fight for eminence in this exciting next phase of the industry.
Potassium deficiency symptoms in corn showing necrosis along the leaf margin.
Some crops exhibit characteristic deficiency symptoms when adequate amounts of K are not available for growth and development, according to University of Minnesota Extension soil scientists. Potassium is mobile in plants and will move from lower to upper leaves. For corn, the margins of the lower leaves turn brown. This development of dead tissue is accompanied by a striped appearance in the remainder of the leaf. The entire leaf has a very distinct light green appearance when viewed from a distance. The striping associated with K deficiency in corn can be easily confused with deficiency symptoms for sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg), and zinc (Zn).
The margins of the leaflets turn light green to yellow when K is deficient for soybean production. As with corn, these deficiency symptoms first appear on the lower leaves. With maturity, the deficiency symptoms expand to leaves closer to the top of the canopy. It is not uncommon to find K deficiency symptoms near the top of the plant in isolated field areas with intense soybean aphid pressure. In this case the deficiency is not necessarily related to a deficiency of K in the soil.
Potassium deficiency in alfalfa is characterized by yellow or white spots on the margins of the leaflets, with symptoms first appearing on the older plant tissue. Potassium deficiency in alfalfa can be easily confused with damage caused by the potato leafhopper.
Potassium deficiency in potato occurs as scorching of the leaflet margins on the older leaves first. Symptoms are usually first noticeable during tuber bulking (mid-July) as the tuber is a strong sink for potassium. Potato vines deficient in potassium will dieback prematurely, which can often be confused with diseases causing vine death.
First, there are very few studies that directly compare a fall to a spring application. In fact, only two were found. In both cases, broadcast applications were used.
The first study was conducted in Iowa during 2005 to 2007 and examined P at 20 sites under no-till. Although an application of P did increase soybean yield at seven locations, application timing did not make a difference. So even when soil test P levels were low, soybeans were not sensitive to when the P was applied.
The second study was conducted at two locations in Arkansas from 2009 to 2010 and examined both P and K. Whether K was applied in the fall or spring did not affect soybean yield. At one site in one year, there was an interaction between the rate of P applied and the time of application. The spring application performed better at the higher P rate while the fall application improved yield more at the lower rate. Overall effects were 4 to 5 bu/A. In the other cases, P application time did not affect soybean yield.
With so few data, we don’t have much to go on. With the evidence before us, it looks like soybean may not be sensitive to fall versus spring application times; however, many more studies are needed before we have any certainty.
So what could influence soybean response to P and K application timing? There are lots of things that are site-specific: soil texture, soil moisture, rainfall distribution and intensity, fertilizer placement, fertilizer source, fertilizer rate, and soybean variety to name a few. None of these factors, except fertilizer rate, appears to have been researched in the context of P and K application timing.
So which is better for soybeans? Sparse evidence indicates fall or spring applications produce essentially equivalent results; however, there is a lot of room for discovering what works best under local conditions. Testing this effect for yourself will likely be the most expedient way to find an answer.
Preserving water quality while feeding another 2 billion people by 2050 is the challenge facing North America’s farmers and its agricultural supply chain. The annual 4R Summit, sponsored by The Fertilizer Institute, was held in Minneapolis June 12 and 13 to share effective nutrient stewardship tenets and practices. Farmers, scientists, manufacturers, field agronomists, state and federal government specialists, food companies, and non-profit organizations were among the 238 attendees at the third annual 4R summit, according to NutrientStewardship.com. Also present were conservation organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy, the Conservation Technology Information Center, and the National Association of Conservation Districts, collaborating to make farming more efficient, sustainable and profitable.
This multi-stakeholder effort champions stewardship and sustainability using “4R” best management practices: applying the right fertilizer source at the right rate at the right time and in the right place. These science-based practices deploy the right types of fertilizers more efficiently, at precisely the most effective rate, time, and place. With more than 40 speakers during the two-day event, a lot was said on the 4Rs. Here are our top 10 themes from the 4R Summit:
1. COLLABORATION IS KEY. No company or organization can solve nutrient management challenges alone. It will require the effort of farmers working with retailers and crop advisors, universities, nutrient suppliers, equipment manufacturers, technology providers, water quality experts and environmental organizations.
2. ONE SIZE DOESN’T FIT ALL. Federal or state nutrient management policy not initiated with good science and stakeholder input is not a successful way to reduce nutrient losses. Bringing farmers into the process early increases the probability of hitting nutrient management goals and making sustainable gains.
3. ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY. Nutrient management must be not only environmentally sustainable, but also economically sustainable for farmers. Farmers are huge generators of economic activity across much of rural America, and it benefits us all to keep them healthy financially.
4. BUSINESSES ON BOARD. The food supply chain is working together to drive sustainable farming practice adoption. Walmart, General Mills, Coca Cola, Wrangler Jeans and Unilever are just a few brands procuring sustainably produced inputs. They unite the supply chain with sustainable farming practices to provide consumers more information. Farmers can benefit by better understanding how management choices affect overall sustainability and operational efficiency.
5. YOU CAN’T MANAGE WHAT YOU DON’T MEASURE. Data is needed to effectively correlate practices, products and results. Nutrient source, enhanced efficiency product selection, soil tests, yield monitors, tissue and stalk samples, electrical conductivity probes, soil penetrometer readings, and tile-line monitors are just a few tools available to tailor 4R practices with individual soil and crop environments. Organized research, on-farm data and intentional analysis are vital for farmers to see what works on their farms.
6. GROWERS’ APPLICATION IS IMPROVING. A majority of corn farmers surveyed say they are aware of 4R principles, and many follow state nutrient guidelines. As more data on the impacts of the 4Rs becomes available, farmers can achieve continuous improvement, further reducing nutrient loss and improving their bottom line.
7. LONGER TERM RESEARCH NEEDED. Two- or three-year research studies are not enough. There are simply too many variables from year to year to draw accurate conclusions and nutrient recommendations based on short-term studies. When funding nutrient research, we should be thinking in terms of 5-, 10- and 15-year studies.
8. DON’T FORGET MICRONUTRIENTS. Some micronutrients help corn and soybean plants use macro nutrients more efficiently, this means optimizing applications of N, P and K.
9. ALL HANDS ON DECK. Spending authorizations in the Farm Bill, which could be used for additional nutrient management research, don’t turn into appropriations without input from constituents and industry. This is a high-touch process that requires constant hand-holding to make sure authorized funds end up where they are needed most.
10. CLEANER WATER IS POSSIBLE. From giant Chesapeake Bay to small watersheds in Illinois and Iowa, there is definitive evidence that stemming nutrient runoff is advancing clean water. Technology to measure nutrient application, uptake and loss has improved immensely over the past 10 years, and will improve even more over the next 10 years. By measuring inputs against outputs, collecting data and sharing information, the industry is well on its way to establishing best practices for nutrient management on every farm in North America.
Using the 4R nutrient stewardship approach of selecting the right source at the right rate at the right time and in the right place is just as important when dealing with a nutrient supply challenges as it is for reducing risk of nutrient loss, according to an article on NutrientStewardship.com. Potassium (K) behavior in the soil is different from nitrogen (N) or phosphorus (P). While some of the same factors influence your 4R decisions, right source, right rate, right time, and right place; the variability of the soil’s ability to supply and store K is quite dynamic. Availability of K in the soil is dependent on the percent and type of clay present, cation exchange capacity (CEC, meq/100 g), organic matter (OM) content, soil moisture level, and soil temperature.
Plants require K in similar quantities to N. In the plant, K activates enzymes, is involved in protein synthesis, photosynthesis, water regulation, stomatal movement, and phloem transport. Potassium nutrition levels are related to dehydration and wilting responses as well as response to disease and pest pressure. In general, when crops are grown in soils with insufficient K they produce less than optimum yields, and they do not use water or N efficiently (Mikkelsen and Roberts, 2017).
In N and P management, beyond production, we are more often than not talking about concerns with cropping system loss to water and air. With K, the focus is on supply and availability. In 2015, the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) summarized soil test results from private and public soil testing laboratories in the U.S. and Canada to provide an indicator resource on the nutrient supplying capacity or fertility of soils in North America (IPNI, 2015).
In June the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) released the Certified Crop Advisor (CCA) 4R Nutrient Management Specialist (4R NMS) Study Guide. Its content supports the current performance objectives. The guide is available for purchase on the IPNI website ($25).
The CCA 4R NMS Specialty Area is an additional specialty certification that builds upon the nutrient, soil, and water components of the International CCA Certification, to demonstrate the Crop Adviser’s proficiency in working with the 4R concept and building it into nutrient management planning. The 4R NMS is available in Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Ontario, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. You must already have a CCA certification within these states to be eligible to take the 4R NMS exam. The next U.S. based exam is February 2, 2018.
There are plans to expand to more states in the near future. If you would like to see this specialty be available in your state/province, please contact your CCA representative.
This year the Southern Extension and Research Activity (SERA) – 17; will be meeting in Oregon, OH, from August 14-17. This is an Information Exchange Group (IEG) administered through the Southern Region Land Grant Universities, and is composed of research scientists, policy makers, extension personnel, and educators. Their mission is to develop and promote innovative solutions to minimize phosphorus losses from agriculture by supporting: information exchange between research, extension, and regulatory communities, recommendations for phosphorus management and research, and initiatives that address phosphorus loss in agriculture.
The focus of the meeting is how P is behaving in the landscape. Speakers will be covering how 4R practices can mitigate water quality problems, monitoring edge of field water quality during 4R practice implementation, soil health management, and how water moves in tile drained systems. Voluntary approaches like 4R Certification in Ohio, will be discussed from the perspective of how the program is run and why a retailer participates. The meeting also includes discussions of how harmful algal blooms (HAB) impact Lake Erie and all of the users and a boat tour of Lake Erie to see the current status of water quality.
After covering the ag retail market for 17 years, I think one of the most impressive character traits I’ve seen at most outlets is an unwavering positive spirit. More impressively, this has seemed to be the case when things were at their darkest.
Take the case of one MFA outlet I was visiting this past May as part of the Environmental Respect Awards competition. The Manager, Jim Gesling, was extremely happy that I was there to see the location in Centralia, MO. “Thank you so much for being here, and for recognizing the hard work of all our employees when it comes to environmentally stewardship,” said Gesling as he toured me around the facility. The entire time during my visit, this man was nothing but all smiles, beaming about the specialness of the outlet.
You would never have known that less than 72 hours earlier, Gesling had been dealing with a terrible loss. On the Monday of the week of my visit, MFA’s sister facility in nearby Clark had experienced a fire. Started by a faulty air compressor in the maintenance shop, the resulting fire virtually destroyed the entire Clark complex. Luckily, since the fire took place after work hours, no one was hurt.
Despite this extraordinary event, Gesling made no effort to have me postpone my visit to Centralia. In fact, the day before my trip, Gesling and members of his team had been at the Clark facility overseeing the clean-up effort, which was more than 80% complete three days later. Still, when I was on-site taking pictures and getting the facility’s background story for my article, everyone was in an extremely positive mood.
Now I’ve seen this kind of resilience in the past as well. I remember one of my first ag retail outlet visits in the early 2000s, when I visited a Morral Companies facility in Morral, OH. A few months before this trip, this particular outlet had experienced a devastating liquid fertilizer storage tank failure. The resulting spill had caused millions of dollars of damage to the facility itself, not to mention several rail cars that had been on-site when the disaster took place.
I had contacted Morral Companies about a visit to prepare a “how-to handle an emergency situation” article to share with our magazine’s readers. Then Vice President/COO John Boyd never flinched at the chance to tell this rather painful story, despite the fact that it had taken place only a few months beforehand, and the company was still actively performing the clean-up process during my trip.
I know plenty of people that do business with the ag retail marketplace often ask me if I think the frequent recent downturns in agriculture have blunted the enthusiasm of the folks that work in this industry. I always reply the same: “Not in the least.”
It’s because of the individuals such as those I’ve mentioned here — plus dozens of others I’ve met along the way over the past two decades — that I firmly believe this to be the case.
In the world of Big IRON, GPS auto steer has closely mirrored the evolutionary path of consumer GPS Navigation systems in the automotive industry, making the jump from premium aftermarket add-on product to a solution that is mostly OEM standard equipment.
“Auto steer is no longer thought of as an option,” says Harlan Little, Product Manager, Topcon Positioning Systems. “Growers and, to an increasing degree, custom applicators expect it to be included as a standard feature.”
Little adds that increasingly more and more folks are bypassing standard GPS correction signals for the ability to drill down machine paths to the sub-inch accurate level, which gives greater repeatability for such tasks as side-dressing and UAN knifing, where repeatability is key. “RTK usage from planting to harvest allows both the grower and custom operators to all gain the efficiency and ease of use that automatic steering offers,” he says.
Therefore, just as ag service providers added Garmin or other consumer-focused GPS units to their truck fleets in the early 2000s so salespeople could get to their sales calls more efficiently, dealers have adopted GPS and the growing RTK-based auto steer products at greater rates than perhaps any other technology segment. Our latest 2017 CropLife®/Purdue precision dealer services survey shows ag retailer adoption of GPS auto steer technologies currently hovering around the 78% mark (among 209 respondents), which Purdue’s Bruce Erickson says points to the overall guidance product segment achieving “mature market” status.
What exactly does that mean? According to the trusty Internet, a market is considered “mature” when it reaches a state of equilibrium. And a market is considered to be in a state of equilibrium when there is an absence of significant growth, or a lack of innovation.
TMX 2050 In-Cab Display Launch Run Screen.
Hmmmm … that sounds kind of bad, doesn’t it?
Still, even as the GPS auto steer segment nears its inevitable equilibrium (one could argue tablets and smartphones have long ago reached that phase of product evolution), there are some interesting new, as well as some slightly new aftermarket solutions still out there for someone looking to add guided steering to a machine. Perhaps it’s a machine that was built prior to the ISOBUS standard or maybe it’s an old tractor with steering technology that is so old and outdated that the only option that makes sense is one of those aftermarket, stand-alone snap-on auto steer systems?
Speaking of which, last year we discovered Case IH’s ElectriSteer assisted steering product at the 2016 Commodity Classic. ElectriSteer is a backwards-compatible (will work with past models of Case equipment) electric drive motor that snaps onto any Case IH (or John Deere and New Holland) steering wheel and connects through the AFS Pro 700 display to deliver sub-foot accurate guidance lines. For me, it’s not the technology behind ElectriSteer that makes it sexy – much of that technology has existed for years. It’s the flexibility and simplicity, and open compatibility, that makes something like ElectriSteer so intriguing.
Following right on the heels of ElectriSteer was Topcon’s own high-torque electric steering system, the AES-35, which the company launched at the end of the 2016 growing season. Topcon says AES-35 is designed to offer hydraulic performance with electric convenience, to produce accurate electric steering for a wide range of vehicles.
Topcon GPS factory.
“Designed for non-steer-ready and other specialty vehicles, the AES-35 is a ruggedized, weatherproof system capable of installation on in-cab and, more importantly, open-platform or non-cab environments,” said Nicola Finardi, Topcon Agriculture Lead for Innovation and Product Development. “And the AES-35’s high-torque electric motor can operate in both forward and reverse to produce auto steering at all levels of accuracy when used with the Topcon AGI-4 GNSS receiver/steering controller.”
AES-35 can also pull in RTK networks for corrections, giving users auto steer capabilities down to sub-2 centimeter accuracy.
Other New-ish Options
Back in May, Tersus GNSS, a new Chinese guidance solution manufacturing company, announced the launch of its farm-focused auto steer system, AG960.
The full system being comprised of a GNSS antenna, vehicle display panel, high-precision positioning receiver, hydraulic valve that attaches to the steering wheel, and steering sensor, the system claims RTK accuracy down to two centimeters.
Henry Peng, Application Consultant within Tersus’ Precision Agriculture Division, said: “Taking one step beyond centimeter-level operation accuracy, the Tersus AG960 applies advanced RTK positioning in the autopilot controller, and we believe the solution will bring about a paradigm shift in the way that farming vehicles work, and will improve their operational quality and productivity.”
If you hadn’t heard of Tersus before reading this article, you’re probably not alone. The company had only ever distributed product in mainland China before announcing plans for an ambitious worldwide roll out in 2017.
“We plan to launch a series of solutions that meet the varied requirements of different farming machines,” said Xiaohua Wen, Founder and CEO of Tersus. “The AG960 has first been commercially deployed in China, and will be further rolled out in other regions around the world, where it will help modern farmers go hassle-free in their daily work and produce more with less.”
Meanwhile, Case IH turned a lot of heads in 2016 when it debuted its autonomous tractor on the summer show circuit. But in the way of guidance solutions, the Wisconsin-based equipment giant also introduced AccuTurn automated headland-turning technology this winter for the 2017 growing season.
Leo Bose, who was practically attached at the hip to the automated tractor display all summer, took some time off from talking about robot tractors to shed some light on AccuTurn’s capabilities.
“Whether navigating expansive open spaces or smaller, irregular fields, AccuTurn automatically controls the entire headland-turning process with industry-leading path-planning logic,” said Leo Bose, Case IH AFS marketing manager, in a press release from Case-IH. “AccuTurn will give operators positive results throughout the crop production cycle,” Bose said. “This is especially true as planting or seeding operations set the field up for agronomically correct layouts that can be precisely followed by side dressing, spraying, and harvesting for improved efficiencies and higher yield potential.”
Bose added that, not merely just for corn and soybean operations, small-grain operations also can benefit from the automated-turning technology. This includes pulling multiple implements, such as tow-behind air carts and seeders, for planting wheat, barley, or sorghum.
“It all comes back to reduced operator strain, especially when pulling increasingly larger and longer implements,” he added. “Without the need to manually steer a tractor and potentially multiple implements, operators will be more alert to perform other end-of-row functions.”
Case IH also launched a new GPS receiver back in February at the National Farm Machinery Show in Louisville, KY. The new AccuStar receiver pairs with the aforementioned ElectriSteer while also being available to third-party displays and applications, according to the company, and it can also be deployed in stand-alone GPS applications.
“Together, AccuStar and ElectriSteer provide a quick, easy, and affordable system that allows producers to realize the benefits of autoguidance on all their equipment. This allows for integration into their existing equipment without autoguidance capabilities,” Bose said. “Equipped with a GPS-based auto-steer system, operators can take advantage of RTK corrections for applications that require the highest levels of precision, such as strip-till or bedding.”
Agriculture is a market awash in highs, lows, and everything in between. This is certainly true in the world of crop protection manufacturing.
When I started covering this market in the late 1990s, I was in charge of a big, multi-client print project covering the then-shiny-new Food Quality Protection Act. Sponsors, mostly research-based “basic” manufacturers, numbered in the double digits. Within a decade, the ranks would shrink to a scant six big basics, as biotechnology turned the world upside-down for manufacturers and the distribution channel.
Along with a spate of consolidation in the retail/distribution ranks here in the U.S., businesses made a lot of adjusting. Profit margins on herbicides plummeted, and crop protection overall as a percentage of profit dropped precipitously. This began our long and often frustrating drive to build seed businesses, and to charge for agronomic services. Both continue to be elusive for many retail operations.
To me, this year marks another watershed moment in the crop protection market. Not quite the “perfect storm” that hit us a couple of decades ago, but notable nonetheless.
The most obvious is the impending consolidation of six basic manufacturers down to just four. With the increasing cost of new product development and the challenge of servicing an increasingly complex and diverse global market, the movement of manufacturers to get larger and more diversified was only a matter of time.
In response, we’re seeing a significant increase in the strength of what I would call the upper- and middle-tier post patent crop protection manufacturers who see opportunities to expand and grow business with all of you. Mergers force product spin-offs, and companies are stepping up to acquire and keep them on the market.
These spin-offs are occurring as we move through a three-to five-year period where a number of heavyweight crop protection products will be coming off patent, and become available for manufacturer.
We’re also noting that a number of post-patent companies that had been content to stand in the shadows and take a more “guerrilla” approach to marketing and relationships are looking to build more formal relationships and step up their brand visibility and total market engagement at industry conferences and events.
Of course, standing in the middle of the maelstrom are dealers and distributors, who rely on iron-clad product performance, and rock-solid relationships with manufacturing partners to ensure customers are served and satisfied.
This kind of upheaval is really a key time for you to manage and monitor your manufacturer relationships, engage the manufacturers you consider your “partners,” and potentially look beyond the familiar. Your business has to be continually earned — increasing competition and expanding options for products provides you with the opportunity to re-evaluate and re-engineer your approach to crop protection.
ERA delegates take a photo with the Blue Rocks mascot.
Following months of planning and scheduling, the 2017 Environmental Respect Awards (ERA) celebration kicked off in fine fashion as more than 50 attendees from across North America and around the world gathered in Wilmington, DE – home to program sponsor DuPont Crop Protection – to celebrate being named regional winners. During the week-long event, ag retailers from 11 countries will learn more about American agriculture, visit historic cities such as Philadelphia, PA, and ultimately find out which ag retailers have been named Ambassador winners – the highest honor given to Environmental Respect participants each year.
This year’s program started with Environmental Respect Award attendees going to an all-American venue to start celebrating – a baseball game between the Wilmington’s Blue Rocks and the Potomac Nationals. Despite enduring a two-hour rain delay, the game eventually got underway and all the participants seemed to enjoy the night’s activities.
