Canola Fertility

[bgmb]

Klause's idea fits inline with the Haney soil test. Our soils are much more capable of feeding the crop N then the conventional soil testing is suggesting. A friend in North Dakota has been benchmarking fields with the Haney test for 4 years now and is seeing impressive results... so far. This is worth following or trying until proven wrong on your soils.

Sure, Thing is if the seed from your 45 bu canola crop removed 90lb of nitrogen you will need to add that back at some point we have 7% organic matter on some fields. which is nice and i dont want to mine that down by cutting n rates.

[Sodbuster]

I'm failing to understand the purpose of this trial. Now you are over applying 3 of the 4 nutrients to grow canola, 50 lbs of N is the limiting factor of your yield potential and you've managed to spend a extra $35 in the process.
120-40-20-30 = $89.26
50-100-100-50 =$125.83

[Klause]

N isn't a mineral. You can't deplete N.


N also comes from sources other than just fertiliser and organic matter being converted to N.

Other places in the world take this into account while Canada does not for the most part.


We have used way less N for a few years and our soil tests through Western ag labs rarely ever showed the need for more than 75 lbs of N to grow a 48 bushel canola crop.

Residual N P K levels in our soils have been steadily going up.


As far as the proven fact that canola uses 2 lbs of N...


It's interesting because in Europe, S.A. and even some US studies show 1.3 lbs per bu per acre.


Response curves for P and K go up steadily while for Neven out and then drop off. High N has also shown a drop in oil Content in some cases, higher disease incedence, and smaller seed.


100 lbs of each P and K is extreme. But we will soil test the same spots again this fall as we did in spring. See how much is left...


One thing I will note this canola stayed green longer didn't have as much visible drought stress, grew quite a bit shorter and yielded close to double the area average.

I'm not going to say yield publicly or some shithead will end up reporting it as average



Why do we spend so much time trying to reduce reliance on fertilizer N? Well for one thing the coming carbon tax and associated increases in freight and production costs will close to double the price of N.


Remember commercial sources of N are all made through the Haber-Bosch process and thus a huge creator of co2 and consumer of Nat gas or coal (China)...


Is like to get ahead of the curve and not be stuck paying $800 a tonne for urea again.

[Klause]

Sure, Thing is if the seed from your 45 bu canola crop removed 90lb of nitrogen you will need to add that back at some point we have 7% organic matter on some fields. which is nice and i dont want to mine that down by cutting n rates.

Well what about the N the soil converts itself? Again you're basing your entire premise on all N having to be derived from commercial fertilizer or conversion of organic matter.

OM is always being converted to N. The key is to keep it in a balance adding back straw as you mineralize it to N...

Also in a proper rotation including pulses you are injecting a bunch of nitrogen from the air via rhizobia... So you're adding some artificial N and more OM there.

Plus the 90lbs pulled off by a 45 bpa crop isn't accurate... Again consider the source and whose funding the source.

[Klause]

There may appear to be anonymity upfront there is some contacts made behind the scenes.

I respect Klaus's efforts and like his posts, but some questions need to be asked for clarification purposes.

Case in point.... how can the crop use 100 lbs of each phos and potassium? What's uptake and removal of a decent crop? I can see someone "banking" phos if you own your land....

Explain the lie about potassium levels on soil tests....unavailable to the plant. I often thought the response to potash fertilizer can come from a low soil test level of the micro-nutrient Chloride.

This isn't confrontational debating, its a discussion.

Seems like I am repeating some of the above post was saying but I was busy typing mine out before I had a chance to read bgmb's.

Sorry. Have a read here as to what I meant by potassium and it's unavailability


[URL="http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/nutrient-management/potassium/potassium-for-crop-production/"]http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/nutrient-management/potassium/potassium-for-crop-production/[/URL]

[farmaholic]

Thanks

[bgmb]

Klause, I would post pics of 60 + last 2 years on 120-45-10-15 but **** it everyone knows big N rates don't help canola yields. NH3 too for decades.

[Klause]

And how much of that N is being lost? U of S did research and found the N efficiency rate for high N protocols is about 55%.



Also... Manitoba soils generally need higher rates of fertilizer... Rec's for oats are generally 100lbs/ac in Mb and 55-65 in SK/AB.

[bgmb]

Next to none would be lost all spring applied at seeding 2-2.5 inches deep sideband with shank not mrb disc. Yeah I agree all soild are different. And I would not expect all areas will be able to grow 60 canola. I will say we hit 50 in the early 2000s with canolas that by the numbers had 30% lower yield potential than current varieties and we were using roughly 2/3 the fert we are now.

[Klause]

Next to none would be lost all spring applied at seeding 2-2.5 inches deep sideband with shank not mrb disc. Yeah I agree all soild are different. And I would not expect all areas will be able to grow 60 canola. I will say we hit 50 in the early 2000s with canolas that by the numbers had 30% lower yield potential than current varieties and we were using roughly 2/3 the fert we are now.

I'll only say on the first part of your post... You need to understand the N cycle a lot more.

Have a read.

[bgmb]

Klause I understand the nitrogen cycle. I dont consider applied nitrogen fertilizer that enters the nitrogen cycle "lost"

[bgmb]

Fyi Klause we have gone from 5 ish organic matter to 7% ish organic matter over the last 20 years. Min/zero till, lots of nitrogen fert, a good rotation contributed to that increase.

[Klause]

Klause I understand the nitrogen cycle. I dont consider applied nitrogen fertilizer that enters the nitrogen cycle "lost"

No one said it's a waste. I'm also not advocating the end of using nitrogen. I'm saying become more efficient with it. You're putting on about 140 lbs the plant will use about 48% of that. The rest is lost to denitrification, volatization, chealation, etc.

[bgmb]

No one said it's a waste. I'm also not advocating the end of using nitrogen. I'm saying become more efficient with it. You're putting on about 140 lbs the plant will use about 48% of that. The rest is lost to denitrification, volatization, chealation, etc.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one Klause. 60bu *2lb/bu =120 lb maybe I am a little light on the p and k overall goal on our farm is to fertilize for a 50 bu crop removal. Maybe will up them on some fields next year and see if that works along with normal n rates.

[seabass]

Depends on mother nature. Best laid out plans can be blown to hell when she shows up.