Farm Smarter!by Rod Peters

109

For those whohave partaken ofvarious no-tillevents in recentyears, the name‘Doug Palen’ mayhave some familiarity. Outgoing, andan outspoken advocate for no-till,many of you may have already beenintroduced. Behind the smiling faceand joker personality, the keen mindof a businessman churns away.

Doug, the third of four siblings, andthe one showing the most interest infarming, committed himself to thatendeavor in 1993 when his fatherinvited him to manage the croppingside of the livestock/crop operationin the rolling hills near Glen Elder,

KS. Doug had earned a bachelor’s inagribusiness from Fort Hays StateUniversity, and worked for one sum-mer as a crop scout for Servi-Techin Nebraska, but this was a seriousassignment! By ’94, Doug hadassumed the full workload and allthe financial responsibility for thecropping enterprise of the farm—without much oversight by dad orother family members, it was ‘sinkor swim’ for young Doug.

While Doug’s professors at FHSUhad casually introduced him to theconcept of no-till, the summer spentscouting in Nebraska was a pivotalevent for Doug—he saw firsthandthat no-till was indeed possible. Thatexperience also opened his mind to

September 2003 • Volume 2 • Number 2

Contents

Farm Smarter..........................109

Wheat Establishment..............113

Crop Sequencing.....................114

Whirlwind Expo......................120

Law of Efficiency ....................122

a different level of management,and taught him that farming couldbe very profitable—it was just man-agement. When he was plungedinto operating the Palen farm, heimmediately recognized the possi-bility of applying no-till’s efficien-cies. In the beginning stages, whatintrigued Doug about no-till washow he could conserve theresources and his labor. Withouthired help or family members, get-ting everything done in a tillage sys-tem would have had Doug in apinch. So he decided to learn all hecould about no-till. Doug’s consider-ing such a major break from the tra-dition of doing tillage is not so sur-

FE

ATURE FAR M

ER

D

OU G PA L E N

Palen’s rig planting corn into two years’ worth of wheat stubble—boatloads of stubble, in fact.

Phot

o by

Dou

g Pa

len.

Editors:Bud DavisMatt Hagny Roger LongRod PetersRandy SchwartzKeith Thompson

E-mail: editor.leading.edge@notill.org

Subscriptions & Advertising:Phone: 888.330.5142$25 per year (U.S.) subscription rate

No-Till on the Plains Inc. publishesLeading Edge four times per year.

No-Till on the Plains Inc.P.O. Box 379Wamego, KS 66547-0379888.330.5142Website: www.notill.org© Copyright 2003 No-Till on the Plains Inc.All rights reserved.

Partial funding for this publication is providedfrom the USDA-EQIP. The United StatesDepartment of Agriculture prohibits discrimina-tion in all its programs and activities on the basisof race, color, national origin, gender, religion,age, disability, sexual orientation, and marital orfamilial status (not all prohibited bases apply toall programs). Persons with disabilities whorequire alternative means of communication ofprogram information (Braille, large print, audio-tape, etc.) should contact the USDA’s TARGETCenter at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). Tofile a complaint, write the USDA, Director ofCivil Rights, Room 3226W Whitten Building,14th and Independence Ave., SW, Washington,D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice orTDD). USDA is an equal opportunity providerand employer.

Additional funding provided by U.S. EPA § 319grant, through the Kansas Dept. of Health &Environment

Disclaimer: Mention of trade names does notimply endorsement or preference of any com-pany’s product by Leading Edge, and any omis-sion of trade names is unintentional.Recommendations are current at the time ofprinting. Farmer experiences may not work forall. Views expressed are not necessarily those ofthe Editors or Leading Edge.

——— V ———No-Till on the Plains Inc’s Mission: To assist agricultural producers inimplementing economically, agro-nomically, and environmentallysound crop production systems.Objective: To increase the adoptionof cropping systems that willenhance economic potential, soiland water quality, and quality of lifewhile reducing crop productionrisks.

Fully reconditioned every winter,Doug sees no compelling reason toupdate seeding equipment untilsomething truly superior comesalong.

Hired Efficiencies

His father soon retired from farmingafter Doug took over, and since thenDoug has almost doubled theacreage with half the horsepower. InJanuary of 2002, Doug hired on afull-time man, Kip Jeardoe, who hadpreviously worked part-time forDoug and now is an integral part ofthe operation. Having Kip aroundfrees Doug to focus more on man-agement—something that can easilyget neglected if a person gets toocaught up in day-to-day activities.

Doug spends as much time at thecomputer entering data and deter-mining break-evens as he does atthe steering wheel of a tractor.Conversing with Doug, you can tellhe does a lot of cost analysis for hisoperation. He promised himselfwhen he returned to the farm thathe would work “smarter” and notnecessarily harder to make a profit.Doug also relies on outside help andexpertise from a marketing advisor,an accountant, and an agronomist.He prefers to spend his time analyz-ing data and making decisions,rather than gathering information ordoing other tasks that would best beoutsourced or delegated. “Grandpaalways said, ‘Do what you can your-self, and to hell with the rest.’ ”—Doug thinks he meant outsourcing.

The Palen knack for finding theright business solution has had themon both sides of the custom harvest-ing fence. Doug grew up helping hisdad custom harvest every year “fromthe day school got out, until the daywe went back to school in the fall.”Doug has fond memories of thefamily cutting wheat from Texas toKansas, then going back to Texas formilo harvest. Interestingly, eventhough Doug knows well the ‘ins

110

prising once one comprehendsDoug’s penchant for adventure: “Ireturned to the farm with the desireto do things differently.” In ’93Doug tried his hand at no-till andbegan to see that themachinery used

for tillage was no longer needed. By’94 he was convinced that he hadneither the time nor any real reasonfor doing tillage. By ’95 he was100% no-till.

Palen’s 500 hp 1150 Versatile andanother 170 hp tractor were tradedfor a 200 hp 8400 Deere FWA trac-tor to better handle row crops, andthe 60-foot sweeps and various othertillage tools were sold. He pur-chased a used 12-row (30-inch) JD7200 planter and a 3-point sprayer,and hired his wheat seeding donefor a couple years until biting thebullet in ’96 and buying a pair of JD750 drills on a hydraulic hitch.Although he’s since added a largerpull-type sprayer, and another trac-tor & loader to help with alfalfa hay,the original 8400 tractor, 750 drills,and planter are still in service today.

When he returned to thefarm, Palen promised him-self that he would work“smarter” and not neces-sarily harder to make a

profit. A wise creed.

Second-year soys on Palen’s farm.

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.

When it comes to planning, Dougexpends considerable effort on hisrotations, trying to walk the thin linebetween using all his available mois-ture and yet storing enough for thenext crop. Doug’s cropping consistsof roughly 1/3 wheat, 1/3 corn ormilo, and 1/3 soybeans, plus 200acres of alfalfa as a cash crop.Where once he did ‘simple’ rota-tions, he has now moved forwardinto ‘stacking’ the crops, so that hisrotation commonly would look like:soybeans >>soybeans >>wheat>>wheat >>milo >>milo, then backto soybeans again. Palen once grewmany acres of sunflowers in themid-‘90s, but discontinued the prac-tice in favor of soybeans—his 8-yearaverage soybean yield seems quiteacceptable for an area that had vir-tually no soybeans at all 10 yearsago. Diversification is important, aswell as using crop insurance to man-age risk. Doug points out that we inthe U.S. have great opportunities tomanage risk with the boards oftrade, crop insurance, and financingpossibilities that some other coun-tries do not have.

The stacked rotations are workingquite well for Doug. While somebelieve that second-year no-tillwheat can’t be done, Doug has manyyears of experience that say other-wise. “Without exception, every yearI’ve had stacked wheat, it has beenmy highest yielding.” The key, heexplains, is a long break of summercrops ahead of the first wheat. Doughas experienced phenomenal yieldsfrom his stacked wheat. While not inthe least inclined to brag about such,Palen divulges that in ’03, forinstance, he had several fields ofsecond-year wheat making over 80bu/a (one quarter-section topped 90bu/a), and has the scale tickets toprove it. When asked about thoseresults, Doug attributes them to anexceptionally good growing season.Still, he obviously had the manage-ment in place to take advantage ofthose conditions.

and outs’ of combining, he has allhis crops custom harvested. Dougexplains that, as a young producerand a one-man operation in theearly years, it just didn’t make senseto buy all that equipment and stilllook for help to haul the grain. Evennow with the addition of a hiredman, Doug still doesn’t think he canjustify owning all that equipment,explaining that he simply couldn’t beas timely getting the harvest out as acustom crew.

Yet another shock is Palen’s unwill-ingness to buy lots of farmland, pre-ferring to grow by renting instead.“At these cropland prices, parkingdollars there won’t provide thereturns to which I’ve become accus-tomed.”

The Game of No-till

After a decade of experience withtrue no-till, Palen has a greaterappreciation for the differences ofthat system compared to tillagecropping. Some of the greatest chal-lenges have been to think and planbeyond the current crop—that is,developing the strategies and fore-sight needed to prevent problems,and taking advantage of the oppor-tunities that come along. Doug com-pared the amount of planning nec-essary for traditional tillage farmingto playing a game of checkers, whileno-till farming is more like playing acomplicated and well thought-outchess game.

Why doesn’t the first-year wheat pegthose yields? Palen replies that thestubble from the first wheat cropholds good moisture, whereas goingdirectly from soybeans to wheat is alittle more difficult (dry)—oftenyou’re harvesting soybeans inOctober and drilling wheat in thesame field only a few days later. As atransition from the soybeans towheat, Doug has for a couple yearstinkered with spring oats—althoughhe has considered taking them forhay or grazing, both years he endedup harvesting the oats for grain.Palen notes that the wheat goinginto oats or wheat stubble does costslightly more to put in comparedwith soybean stubble, since typicallya couple sprayings are needed tokeep the stubble clean. However, it’spart of a grand plan to accumulate areally heavy mat of residue from thedouble wheat, which will store mois-ture for his milo or corn in years tofollow. Since Palen’s farm is all dry-land, and often touch-and-go formoisture, the extra savings oftenpays good dividends.

Stacked no-till milo has an evenlonger history on Palen’s farm, and ittoo is working well. In contrast tothe wheat, often it’s the first-yearmilo that is the most expensive.Yields have been respectable on the2d-year milo, and the economicslook good. Stacked corn is also done,although Palen is emphasizing milomore than corn in recent years dueto continued drought and differ-ences in insurance levels. Stackedsoybeans were added 3 years ago,and seem to be holding up rather

111

Phot

o by

Dou

g Pa

len.

Soybean harvest ’02.

Drilling Palen’s 2002 soybeans into milostubble—again, a mountain of residue.

Phot

o by

Dou

g Pa

len.

well. The beans are drilled in 15-inch rows (one rank of openerslocked up)—to preserve the residueand reduce wear and tear on thedrill, versus drilling in 7.5-inch rows.

Palen is currently refining ways tomaximize the soil cover and yet havegood seedling establishment. In thebeginning years of no-till, Doug wasfearful of all the

stubble that was left on the field andhow to cope with it. Now he oftenmarvels at how quickly it disappears,and it has become a preciousresource for him to manage. Palenasserts that you just can’t beat a nicestubble for a seedbed, and for reap-ing the rewards of water infiltrationwith little or no soil loss. Given hisrespect for the stubble, it comes asno surprise that Doug recognizesthe importance of ultra low-distur-bance for seeding equipment.

Many of Doug’s seeding operationsinclude applying some fertilizer. Thewinter cereal grains (wheat & oats)get all their phosphorous (and a lit-tle nitrogen) at seeding with the

intent to top-dress the majority ofthe nitrogen as urea during thespring when the crop is starting togrow. The planter is equipped toapply fertilizer in two locations—apop-up in the seed furrow, andanother blend with a separateopener. Palen has in the past appliedall his N requirements for milo andcorn through the planter, but due tofertilizer pricing, these last few yearshe’s opted instead to surface broad-cast urea in late winter for his cornand milo plantings.

When asked if he has seen a yieldadvantage after no-tilling for tenyears, Palen’s answer is a modest“yes”—he attributes most of hisupward yield trends to stand estab-lishment and proper plant nutrition,and to lengthy rotations. He reportsthat changes in his soils have beenespecially notable on the poorer thinsoils—the tough clay used to beeither mucky wet or hard and dry,and it took several years for it tobegin healing from the abuse oftillage.

Without Limits

Doug’s personal motto is“Forever a student,” whichquickly becomes apparentin talking to this inquisitivepersonality. It’s furtherexemplified by the studytours that have taken Dougto rural China, Chile,Argentina, Australia, Brazil,and Paraguay. He zips around theU.S. plenty, too. And everywhere he

goes, Palen‘collects’friends likethe rest of usdo with trin-kets or coinsor stamps—heseems gen-uinely inter-ested in every-body, andthoroughly

enjoys playing host whenever acadre of friends drift throughKansas for a visit.

In light of having recently com-pleted a three-year stint as Presidentof No-Till on the Plains, Inc., whatadvice might Palen have for the pro-ducer who is starting out trying tounderstand the concepts of no-till?Doug responds by encouragingthose interested in no-till to networkwith other producers. “Farmers canreally learn from one another. Yourneighbor may even be your greatestresource, and not necessarily yourbiggest competitor.” Doug encour-ages all of us to draw on other peo-ple’s experiences and ideas to stretchour minds. He notes that we are aproduct of life experiences, andDoug does indeed try to gather per-spective from his wide range ofactive interests. From the tripsabroad, Doug has brought home amuch greater awareness of what’sreally possible to maximize efficien-cies. He has seen farmers in othercountries having similar resources

but doing so much more with them.In a nutshell, the trips abroad havetaught Doug that the bar can be seta lot higher than one thinks.

Never one to shy away from bigprojects, Doug is currently investi-gating some future endeavors thatcould bring more income to hisfarming operation. He contemplatessome opportunities for blending acattle-grazing enterprise into hiscropping operation. Also, he’s full-throttle into creating a process foridentity preservation of grains and

112

In his beginning years ofno-till, Palen was fearful ofall the stubble left on thefield. Now he often mar-vels at how quickly it dis-

appears, and it has becomea precious resource for him

to manage.

Soybeans going into corn stubble.

Phot

o by

Dou

g Pa

len.

Low disturbance is the mantra at Palen’s farm.

Phot

o by

Dou

g Pa

len.

for marketing unique products thattomorrow’s consumer may demand.Having seen firsthand the ficklenature of some of these marketingendeavors, Doug approaches themwith healthy skepticism, but alsowith a nagging suspicion of theirimportance.

For a young man of 32, Doug isalready a seasoned manager. For

whatever success he’s had so far,Doug gives a lot of credit to hisfather for giving Doug the opportu-nity and the freedom to make hisown business decisions. “Dadpushed hard in farming for 30 years.When he felt his excitementfor farming slipping, hedecided he would do well tomake way for someone else.He’s enjoyinganothercareer now,and I havemine . . . . It’ssort of likerunning arelay race—there aretimes whenthe mostimportantthing you cando is pass thebaton. Youdon’t have todo the whole

thing yourself. I hope I realize whenit is time for me to pass the baton,and have the discipline to do it.”With miles to go, Doug seems to befeeling the surge of a second wind.

113

When seeding wheat this fall (orspring), be sure to run an adequateamount of in-furrow ‘pop-up’ fertil-izer. If your drill isn’t equipped todo this, now is the time to get thatremedied. Wheat yields (and profit)depend on it.

Wheat is more responsive to phos-phorous than most other graincrops, and surface applications sim-ply aren’t acceptable for providing Pfor the upcoming wheat crop. Evenwith rather high soil test levels ofphos., a pop-up application willoften be of economic benefit.According to Ray Ward, up to 25

Are we ready to roll?

Phot

o by

Tim

Chr

istia

n.

Doug shrewdly manages his time to make sure his work doesn’t con-sume him. His calendar includes free time for pursuits such as ridingmountain bikes, here with his friend Keith Thompson. In whatever he’sdoing, Palen likes to push out to the boundaries: “Right up to theedge, with my toes hanging over.”

Phot

os b

y Ti

m G

ogol

ski,

Mat

t D

avis

.

lbs. per acre of N + K2O can safelybe included in-furrow on 7.5- or 10-inch rows of wheat. The amount ofN needed for fall tillering is depend-ent on plant densities.

Another important component ofwheat establishment is quality seed.Low vigor seed (often associatedwith low test weight, but not always)will not produce healthy strongseedlings. Weak seedlings don’t havetop yield potential, and are moreprone to other stresses such as win-ter injury, weed competition, water-logged soils, or other problems thatmay arise.

Phot

os b

y M

att

Hag

ny.

Springtime photo of winter wheat instacked soybean stubble, long-term no-till.A few rows on this drill weren’t puttingout any pop-up fertilizer, but otherwisewere functioning normally—do you thinkthey’ll ever catch up? Don’t think so.

Wheat Establishment:Profitable Details

*Editors: The following is from a paper to be publishedin a forthcoming American Society of Agronomy book,printed (and edited) here with permission of the author.

While the writing may have been intended for the sci-ence community, we include it here for the gems ofknowledge ready to be applied, and for properly survey-ing the literature for some of the very real consequencesof crop rotation. For research and experience in design-ing rotations for the U.S. Plains, check out the SpeakerNotes from the ’02 Winter Conference at www.notill.org,including more by Randy Anderson.

Further Note: With a few lapses, the term “sequence”typically refers to a particular crop as following a certainprevious crop in a field or plot, while “rotation” refers toa series of crop sequences that is commonly (sometimesrigidly) practiced or being studied, and includes theentire cycle of sequences. Obviously, in very short 2-yearrotations, the terms have the same meaning. “Rotation”also captures the concept of crop “interval”—the lengthof time that a particular crop is absent from a field orplot.

Crop yield can be affected by the sequence or arrange-ment of crops, a response termed the “rotation effect.”For example, rotating pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum)with cluster bean (guar) (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba)increased pearl millet grain yield two-fold compared to amonoculture of pearl millet in India.1 In Minnesota,rotating corn (Zea mays) with soybean improved yield ofboth crops at least 15% compared to a monoculture sys-tem of either crop.2 As tillage diminishes worldwide,crop sequencing will become more valuable as a man-agement strategy because the rotation effect is greater in

minimum-and no-tillsystems.3

The rotationeffect hasbeen attrib-uted to amultitude offactors, suchas changes insoil moisturelevels, nutri-ent cyclingand availabil-ity, soil struc-ture, soilmicrobialcommunity, and pest infestations.4 Understanding thecauses and trends of yield responses to crop sequenceswill help scientists and producers develop more advanta-geous rotations. Therefore, this article will examineinteractions among crops for impact on grain yield, withthe goal of recognizing principles that can guide manage-ment decisions for sequencing crops.

Broadleafs Favor Grass Crops

Broadleaf crops usually increase yield of following grasscrops, but identifying the specific cause of this yieldresponse has been difficult. For example, A.T. Wrightcompared three legume crops, field pea (Pisumsativum), lentil (Lens culinaris), and faba bean (Viciafaba) for impact on barley (Hordeum vulgare) yield in

114

Crop Sequence & IntervalWhat Causes the Yield Response?*by Randy Anderson

Randy Anderson is a USDA-ARS scientist at Brookings, SD,formerly at Akron, CO.S C I E N C E

Spring field peas can improve subsequentwheat yields, and may be an excellent additionto the rotation—especially now that they’re a“program” crop under the new U.S. Farm Bill.Scientists have not fully explained the yieldresponse to crop rotations, yet almost everystudy finds a yield response.

Phot

o by

Dw

ayne

Bec

k.

1 Praveen-Kumar, R.K. Aggarwal & J.F. Power, 1997, Cropping systems: effects on soil quality indicators and yield of pearl millet in an arid region, Am. J.Altern. Agric. 12: 178-184.

2 R.K. Crookston, J.E. Kurle, P.J. Copeland, J.H. Ford & W.E. Lueschen, 1991, Rotational cropping sequence affects yield of corn and soybean, Agron. J. 83:108-113. (Editors’ Note: Kent Crookston points out, “Remember we’re getting that yield increase after doing everything we can to overcome problems ofcontinuous corn. What if we didn’t use insecticides, fertilizer, and herbicides?” [from Larry Reichenberger, Magic of crop rotation is still a mystery, FarmJournal, mid-Jan. 1996.] See also the Morrow Plots at U. Illinois:Champaign-Urbana, where rotations have been compared for 125 years. Recent data showcontinuous corn to lag the rotated plots by ~ 50 bu/a when “recommended” rates of N-P-K and lime were used. The yield advantage to the rotated corn iseven greater in the subplots receiving no fertilizers or amendments.)

3 F.J. Pierce & C.W. Rice, 1988, Crop rotation and its impact on efficiency of water and nitrogen use, in Cropping Strategies for Efficient Use of Water andNitrogen, ed. W.L. Hargrove, American Society of Agronomy.

4 L.T. Kurtz, L.V. Boone, T.R. Peck & R.G. Hoeft, 1984, Crop rotations for efficient nitrogen use, in Nitrogen in Crop Production, ed. R.D. Hauck, AmericanSociety of Agronomy. R.L. Higgs, A.E. Peterson & W.H. Paulson, 1990, Crop rotations: sustainable and profitable, J. Soil & Water Conserv. 45: 68-70.

Saskatchewan, Canada.5 Barley responded equally tothose preceding crops, yielding 21% more than if barleywas the preceding crop. Searching for possible causes ofthe legume effect, Wright found that barley’s yieldresponse did not relate to differences in N cycling, soilmoisture, or disease; he suggested the yield responsecould only be explained by the complex interaction ofmultiple soil factors.

Other research, analyzing multiple years of data fromhundreds of producer fields in the traditionally continu-ous spring wheat region of Manitoba, found that wheatyields were significantly improved following broadleafcrops when compared to continuous wheat. Further,flax’s (Linum usitatissimum) effect on subsequent wheatyield was substantially greater than the effect of fieldpeas or canola (Brassica napus) as preceding crops.6 Theresearch also found that flax provided the most consis-tent wheat yield benefits. Flax is not a legume; thus, itsyield stimulus on wheat must be related to factors otherthan N fixation. The scientists working on this studyagreed with Wright—that multiple factors contribute tothe broadleaf effect on grass crops.

At a semiarid site in southern Spain, researchers exam-ined the impact of sunflower (Helianthus annuus), chick-pea (Cicer arietinum), and faba bean on winter wheatyield compared to continuous winter wheat. Wheatresponded the most to faba bean, with yield 46% greaterthan if wheat followed wheat (see graph).7 If sunflowerwas the preceding crop, yield increased 18%, whereaschickpea increased wheat yield 28%. Yield differences ofwheat planted after sunflower vs. faba bean probablyreflected differences in soil moisture available to the fol-lowing wheat crop, as this yield difference did not occurin growing seasons with above-normal precipitation.8

However, faba bean was always more favorable thanchickpea, regardless of growing conditions. Applying Nfertilizer did not eliminate the yield response of wheat tothese two species, nor were differences in pests or dis-eases observed. These data suggest other factors causedthe yield difference.

To better understand the broadleaf effect on wheat, it ishelpful to differentiate between “N benefit” supplied by

a legume and “non-N benefits,” such as disease suppres-sion, or the reduction of allelopathy associated with cer-tain crop residues. Researchers in Saskatchewan foundthat the N benefit from a legume varied among years.9

Other researchers had previously quantified the N andnon-N benefits of field pea on wheat yields at severalsites and found that the ratio of N to non-N benefits notonly varied among sites but also was affected by crop-ping historiesand growing sea-son conditions.10

Both researchteams suggesteddevising rota-tions thatinclude bothlegume and non-legumebroadleaf cropsto maximize therotation effecton the cereal(grass) crop.

The researchteam inMinnesota, evalu-ating soybean

115

Corn in broadleaf stubble is adesirable sequence in Canada, N.Dakota, or other parts of thenorthern Corn Belt where theshort growing season (lack ofheat) is more of a limiting factorfor corn than is soil moisture stor-age. In most of Kansas andOklahoma, the opposite is true—storing moisture and keeping thesoil cool by mid-season are over-riding concerns, so corn inbroadleaf stubble isn’t a goodidea. Here, corn in soybean stub-ble suffers through a Kansas sum-mer—it wasn’t even a hot sum-mer, by Kansas standards.Ph

oto

by M

att

Hag

ny.

W-W W-Sun W-CP W-FB W-F

Rotation

Gra

in Y

ield

(%

of

W-W

)

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

d

aab

c

Impact of broadleaf crops on yield of winterwheat, compared to continuous wheat (W= winter wheat; Sun = sunflower; CP =chickpea; FB = faba bean; and F = fallow).Data are averaged across 7 years; studyconducted at Cordoba, Spain. (Adaptedfrom Lopez-Bellido et al., 1996.)

5 A.T. Wright, 1990, Yield effect of pulses on subsequent cereal crops in the northern plains, Can. J. of Plant Sci. 70: 1023-1032.6 L. Bourgeois & M.H. Entz, 1996, Influence of previous crop type on yield of spring wheat: analysis of commercial field data, Can. J. of Plant Sci. 76: 457-459.7 L. Lopez-Bellido, M. Fuentes, J.E. Castillo, F.J. Lopez-Garrido & E.J. Fernando, 1996, Long-term tillage, crop rotation, and nitrogen fertilizer effects onwheat yield under rainfed Mediterranean conditions, Agron. J. 88: 783-791.

8 L. Lopez-Bellido, R.J. Lopez-Bellido, J.E. Castillo & F.J. Lopez-Bellido, 2000, Effects of tillage, crop rotation, and nitrogen fertilizer on wheat yield under rain-fed Mediterranean conditions, Agron. J. 92: 1054-1063.

9 H.J. Beckie & S.A. Brandt, 1997, Nitrogen contribution of field pea in annual cropping systems: 1. Nitrogen residual effect, Can. J. of Plant Sci. 77: 311-322.

10 F.C. Stevenson & C. van Kessel, 1996, The nitrogen and non-nitrogen rotation benefits of pea to succeeding crops, Can. J. of Plant Sci. 76: 735-745.(Editors: The study showed a 43% yield response of wheat after field pea vs. monoculture wheat—a response that falls roughly in the middle of the rangereported in other studies, and is often only partly mitigated by additional N fertilizer.)

impact on corn, suggested that the broadleaf effect oncorn was related to “corn being bad for corn” rather thana beneficial effect of soybean.11 Further research by thisteam supported this hypothesis, as the broadleaf effecton corn did not differ among alfalfa (Medicago sativa),soybean, or sunflower.12 They theorized that autotoxinsfrom decomposing roots of the previous corn cropreduced yield in continuous corn.13 (Editors: Alterna-tively, undetected diseases or harmful insects could becausing the yield reductions in the continuous corn, withall three of the broadleaf crops in that study reducingthose pest levels equally, and otherwise being agronomi-cally superior to continuous corn in that climate.)

Even though broadleaf crops are usually favorable forgrass crops, in some situations they can be detrimental tofollowing crops. For example, on the semiarid plains atAkron, CO, sunflower was found to decrease yield ofwinter wheat.14 Comparing two rotations, wheat >>sun-flower >>summerfallow, with wheat >>corn >>fallow,wheat yielded 32% less with sunflower in the rotation.Yield loss was partially attributed to less soil water atplanting time of the winter wheat. The authors specu-lated that sunflower stalks were less effective than cornstalks for capturing snow, thus reducing recharge of thesoil profile during fallow. (Editors: Infiltration & evapo-ration differences between sunflower and corn stubblelikely account for more than snowcatch; indeed, the sci-entists conducting the study did observe more waterponding and soil crusting in the sunflower rotation ver-sus the corn rotation.)

In the study at Akron, in a wheat >>sunflower >>sum-merfallow rotation, sunflower reduced winter wheatyield 36% when compared with a benchmark rotation; incontrast, wheat yield was reduced only 8% with a wheat>>corn >>sunflower >>fallow rotation. Furthermore, adisturbing trend occurred with the wheat >>sunflower>>fallow rotation—wheat yield decreased over time,declining from 81% in 1994 to 48% in 1999 (see graphs),whereas wheat yield in wheat >>corn >>sunflower>>fallow remained above 90% in 5 years out of 6. Wheatyields in 1995 and 1998 with wheat >>corn >>sunflower>>fallow reflect precipitation extremes: above normal in1995 and below normal in 1998. However, yield in wheat>>sunflower >>fallow declined 7% per year (r2 = 0.86)regardless of precipitation. The explanation for this trend

has not been determined, but lengthening the rotationby adding corn ameliorated sunflower’s negative impacton wheat yield. (Editors: Again, probably a moisture-storage effect.)

Effects on Broadleaf Crops

Most of theresearch exploringrotation effects hasfocused onimproving yield ofgrass crops, suchas corn or wheat.However, the rota-tion effect alsooccurs whengrasses precedebroadleaf crops. In one study, soybean yield wasincreased 17% if rotated with corn, compared to contin-uous soybean.15 The researchers were unable to identifythe cause of this yield response. A study in Saskatchewanfound that flax yielded more when grown after wheatcompared to after canola, another oilseed crop.16 Flax’syield response to wheat stubble was attributed toreduced diseases as compared to canola stubble.

Similar Crops, Fewer Benefits

Rotating within a crop type, such as between flax andcanola or between wheat and barley, is not as favorableas between crop types. The difficulty with sequencingbroadleaf crops together is that plant diseases usuallyproliferate. Karen Bailey, with Agri-Food Canada atSaskatoon,17 cautions producers from growing broadleafcrops—especially oilseeds—too frequently because ofdisease problems. Furthermore, oilseed and legumecrops can serve as common host plants for pathogensthat infest both crops, such as Sclerotinia. If such plantpathogens are present, broadleaf crop frequency mayhave to be reduced to avoid extensive disease infestation.She suggests mixing a diversity of grass crops withoilseed and legume crops in long-term rotations.

Alternating grass species usually does not impact yield asmuch as rotating broadleaf crops with grasses. For exam-ple, a rotation study in Turkey showed that winter wheat

116

Comparing sorghum andcorn as preceding crops forcorn, yield was reduced 20

to 25% if sorghum wasthe preceding crop. Yield

loss was attributed toallelopathy.

11 Crookston et al., 1991.12 P.M. Porter, R.K. Crookston, J.H. Ford, D.R. Huggins & W.E. Lueschen, 1997a, Interrupting yield depression in monoculture corn: comparative effectivenessof grasses and dicots, Agron. J. 89: 247-250.

13 S.E. Nickel, R.K. Crookston & M.P. Russelle, 1995, Root growth and distribution are affected by corn-soybean cropping sequence, Agron. J. 87: 895-902.14 R.L. Anderson, R.A. Bowman, D.C. Nielsen, M.F. Vigil, R.M. Aiken & J.G. Benjamin, 1999, Alternative crop rotations for the central Great Plains, J. Prod.Agric. 12: 95-99.

15 Crookston et al., 1991.16 Beckie & Brandt, 1997.17 K.L. Bailey, 1996, Diseases under conservation tillage systems. Can. J. of Plant Sci. 76: 635-639.

yield did not differ between a wheat >>barley rotationand continuous wheat.18 In contrast, rotating wheat withsafflower (Carthamus tinctorius) increased wheat yield32%. Soil water and N levels at wheat planting were sim-ilar in both rotations, suggesting that other factorsimproved wheat growth after safflower.

Certain grass sequences can be detrimental to yield. Inthe Great Plains region of the United States, planting

winter wheat intosorghum residuereduced grainyield 15 to 30%,compared towheat plantedinto pearl milletstubble orfallow.19 Yieldloss was attrib-uted to allelo-pathic com-pounds releasedby decomposingsorghum residue.Sorghum alsowas detrimentalto corn in Ghana(on the westcoast of Africa).20

Comparingsorghum andcorn as preced-ing crops forcorn, yield wasreduced 20 to25% if sorghumwas the preced-ing crop. Yieldloss was attrib-uted to allelopa-thy and N immo-bilization bysorghum residue.

However, other grass crop sequences can increase cropyield. A long-term rotation study at Akron, CO demon-strated that growing corn in place of proso millet in arotation improved winter wheat efficiency in convertingwater into grain.21 In a wheat >>corn >>fallow rotation,wheat produced 3010 kg/ha with 250 mm of water use;in contrast, wheat in a wheat >>proso >>fal-low rotation produced only 2060kg/ha with thesame water use.With corn insteadof proso in therotation, wheatproduced 46%more grain withthe same water use.

The rotation effect appears to be a universal phenome-non, and can be beneficial with appropriate cropsequencing. A guiding principle in designing rotations isto diversify crops as much as possible, especially usingboth grass and broadleaf crops. However, it is difficult toextrapolate across all crop combinations, soil types, andenvironments. For example, soybean’s effect on corn wasmore pronounced in low-yielding environments,22 con-trasting with cool-season grass crop (wheat, barley, etc.)response to broadleaf crops, which was more pro-nounced in high-yielding environments.23 These con-trasts suggest that the complexity of crop/soil/environ-ment interactions may lead to anomalies among cropcombinations.

Length of Rotation Important

Crop yield is affected by how frequently the crop isgrown. This concept, known as the “crop interval,” issimply the number of years since the crop was lastgrown. Longer intervals favor the natural decline ofpathogen populations in the soil.24 The optimum intervalvaries among crops and climatic conditions. Corn’s opti-mum interval was 2 years in Wisconsin, 3 years inMinnesota, and 4 years in Nebraska,25 whereas soybean’shighest yield occurred with a crop interval of either 2 or

117

Longer intervals favor thenatural decline of

pathogen populations inthe soil.

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Wh

eat

Yie

ld (

%)

a) W-S-F100

80

60

40

20

0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Wh

eat

Yie

ld (

%)

b) W-C-S-F120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Impact of sunflower on winter wheat grainyield in two rotations at Akron, Colorado:a) wheat >>sunflower >>fallow (W-S-F);and b) wheat >>corn >>sunflower >>fal-low (W-C-S-F). Wheat yields in these rota-tions were compared to wheat yields in abenchmark rotation of wheat >>corn>>proso millet >>fallow. (Adapted fromAnderson et al., 1999.)

18 N. Durutan, K. Meyveci, M. Karaca, M. Avci & H. Eyuboglu, 1988, Annual cropping in dryland areas of Turkey, in Proceedings: Challenges in DrylandAgriculture Conference (Bushland TX, 15-19 August 1988), ed. P. W. Unger et al., Texas Agric. Exp. Stn.

19 C.M. Roth, J.P. Shroyer & G.M. Paulsen, 2000, Allelopathy of sorghum on wheat under several tillage systems, Agron. J. 92: 855-860.20 G. Schmidt & E. Frey, 1988, Crop rotation effects in northern Ghana, in Proceedings: Challenges in Dryland Agriculture Conference (Bushland TX, 15-19August 1988), ed. P.W. Unger et al., Texas Agric. Exp. Stn.

21 Anderson et al., 1999.22 P.M. Porter, J.G. Lauer, W.E. Lueschen, J.H. Ford, T.R. Hoverstad, E.S. Oplinger & R.K. Crookston, 1997b, Environment affects the corn and soybean rota-tion effect, Agron. J. 89: 441-448.

23 Bourgeois & Entz, 1996. Lopez-Bellido et al., 1996.24 R.J. Cook & R.J. Veseth, 1991, Wheat Health Management, American Phytopathological Society Press.25 M.G. Lund, P.R. Carter & E.S. Oplinger, 1993, Tillage and crop rotation affect corn, soybean, and winter wheat yields, J. Prod. Agric. 6: 207-213. Porter etal., 1997a. T.A. Peterson & G.E. Varvel, 1989, Crop yield as affected by rotation and nitrogen rate, Agron. J. 81: 735-738.

3 years.26 Winter wheat yielded the most in the PacificNorthwest when grown once every 3 years.27 (Editors:Often the stated “optimum” or highest-yielding intervalis simply the longest interval included in that particularstudy; i.e., longer intervals may provide some additionalyield enhancement, but those very long intervals werenot studied.)

In a study at Akron, CO comprised of four crops, sun-flower was the most responsive to crop interval, yieldingthe most if grown once every 4 years (see graph).28

When grown more frequently, soil-borne diseases suchas phoma (Phoma macdonaldii Boerma)severely reduced sunflower yield.Grass crops wereless affected bycrop interval;yields of corn andwinter wheat werereduced whengrown every 2years compared toa 4-year interval,but proso milletwas not signifi-cantly affected bycrop interval. These data affirm Bailey’s concern aboutplant diseases proliferating if broadleaf crops such assunflower are grown too frequently.

Crop growth canbe furtherimproved byarranging differ-ent crops in aseries of four.Researchers eval-uating rotationlength in a rain-fed region ofsouthwesternFrance, foundthat a four-croprotation wasmore productivecompared torotations withfewer crops.29 Instudies at Akron,weed manage-ment wasimproved by acycle of fourcrops with twowinter-annualcrops followed bytwo summer-annual crops; thisdesign favoredthe naturaldecline of weed seeds in the soil, thus reducing weeddensities in future crops.30 Research in Canada foundthat N fixation by lentils increased in rotations with fourdifferent crops compared to rotations of fewer differentcrops.31

These studies suggest that designing rotations tolengthen intervals can enhance the sequencing effect.Longer rotations may accrue additional yield improve-ments through multi-year benefits. Wright found thatthe broadleaf effect on cereal grains persisted for twocereal crops.32 Thus, crop rotations could be devisedwhere positive interactions occur among several crops ina series.

118

2-Year 3-Year 4-Year

Sunflower Corn Wheat Proso Millet

Crop Interval

Yie

ld P

ote

nti

al (

%)

100

80

60

40

20

0

Yield potential is improved by longer rota-tions, as shown in this research conductedat Akron, Colorado. Data were derivedfrom sequences for Sunflower: S-M(proso), W-S-F (fallow), W-C-S-F; for Corn:M-C, W-C-F, W-C-M-F; for Proso Millet:W-M, W-M-F, W-C-M-F; for WinterWheat: W-F, W-C-F, and W-C-M-F. Theexact sequences used will affect the out-come somewhat, as moisture recharge,allelopathy, and pest potentiality arealtered. (From Anderson et al., 1999.)Many other benefits go along with longerrotations.

26 B.G. Meese, P.R. Carter, E.S. Oplinger & J.W. Pendleton, 1991, Corn/soybean rotation effect as influenced by tillage, nitrogen, and hybrid/cultivar, J. Prod.Agric. 4: 74-81. Porter et al., 1997b.

27 Cook & Veseth, 1991.28 Anderson et al., 1999.29 P. Debaeke & A. Hilaire, 1997, Production of rainfed and irrigated crops under different crop rotations and input levels in southwestern France, Can. J. ofPlant Sci. 77: 539-548.

30 R.L. Anderson, 1998, Designing rotations for a semiarid region, in Proceedings: 10th Annual Meeting, Colorado Conservation Tillage Association (SterlingCO, 4-5 February 1998), Colo. Conserv. Tillage Assoc. (Editors: See also Leading Edge, Dec. 2001, for a discussion of long-interval ‘stacked’ rotations andtheir role in reducing pest populations.)

31 A. Matus, D.A. Derksen, F.L. Walley, H.A. Loeppky & C. van Kessel, 1997, The influence of tillage and crop rotation on nitrogen fixation in lentil and pea,Can. J. of Plant Sci. 77: 197-200.

32 Wright, 1990. (Editors: Other studies also indicate positive rotational effects persisting beyond a single year.)

Long intervals, good sequences—the art of crop rotation. Kansasproducer Doug Palen’s second-year (‘stacked’) soybeans. Lookingclosely, one can see the upright stubble from the first-year soy, aswell as plentiful corn stalks left from the two years of corn thatpreceded the two soybeans. After this soybean crop comes off,the field will go to wheat for two years.

Phot

o by

Bria

n Li

ndle

y.

Weed management wasimproved by a cycle of

four crops with two win-ter-annual crops followed

by two summer-annualcrops; this design favored

the natural decline ofweed seeds in the soil.

Managing Yield Variability

In rainfed agriculture, especially in semiarid regions, acontinuing problem for producers is erratic precipitationand subsequent yield variability. Diversifying crops inrotations can moderate the effect of drought on cropyield by improving water-use efficiency. For example,one study has monitored corn yields over 35 years asaffected by crop rotation. Compared to continuous corn,not only was grain yield increased, but yield variabilityof corn was reduced two-fold in diverse rotations.33 In

evaluating thestudy, theresearchersattributed thisresponse toimproved rootgrowth of corn.Otherresearchershave alsoreported thatdiverse rota-tions improved

water-use efficiency of corn in dry years.34 Similarly, therotational studies from India found that during dry years,pearl millet was more productive when grown in adiverse rotation because the crop used the limited watersupply more efficiently.35

Crop diversity can stabilize yields from stresses beyonddry weather. One study has found that year-to-year vari-ability in production of all crops was lowest in rotationswith the most diversity.36 At Akron, in a traditional win-ter wheat >>summerfallow region, yield variability wasreduced 15% with diverse rotations compared to wheat>>fallow.37 Producers in a winter cereal production areaof Australia found that adding broadleaf crops to theirrotations not only improved farm productivity and prof-its, but also increased management flexibility and incomestability because of diversified income sources.38 Diversecrop rotations can aid producers in minimizing the‘boom or bust’ cycles that are common in drier climates.

—————

Editors, Again: The message that shines through the fogof data: Long intervals are very good for improving yieldand reducing pests. When combined with economic reali-ties such as the need for low overhead and reduced risk,the diverse rotations necessary for long intervals look allthe better. Choosing and arranging the crops in waysthat enhance each other will be somewhat dependent ondetails of climate, soil ecology, farming practices, andcrop genetics, although certain sequencing effects will beuniversal.

119

Phot

o by

Bria

n Li

ndle

y.

Doug Palen’s first-year milo following two years of high-yieldingwheat. The heavy thatch of wheat stubble stores considerablemoisture, which the milo is good at converting into grain.

33 C.F. Drury & C.S. Tan, 1995, Long-term (35 years) effects of fertilization,rotation, and weather on corn yields, Can. J. of Plant Sci. 75: 355-362.

34 W.W. Sahs & G. Lesoing, 1985, Crop rotations and manure versus agri-cultural chemicals in dryland grain production, J. Soil & Water Conserv.40: 511-516.

35 Praveen-Kumar et al., 1997.36 J.D. Smolik, T.L. Dobbs & D.H. Rickerl, 1995, The relative sustainability ofalternative, conventional, and reduced-till farming systems, Am. J. Altern.Agric. 10: 25-35.

37 Anderson et al., 1999.38 S. Lockie, A. Mead, F. Vancaly & B. Butler, 1995, Factors encouragingadoption of more sustainable crop rotations in south-east Australia: profit,sustainability, risk and stability. J. Sustain. Agric. 6: 61-79.

Palen’s wheat.

Phot

o by

Dou

g Pa

len.

Kauffman Seeds Seed and service that makes a world of difference

Wheat:

AgriPro Jagalene Jagger AgriPro Cutter 2137 AgriPro Coronado 2174 AgriPro Longhorn

Bulk or bagged wheat, truckload, and volume discounts

Soybeans:

¶ Group III and Group IV Roundup Ready-STS ¶ Group III and Group IV Conventionals Grain Sorghum:

Midland M4665, M4595, M4758Y, M4774

Forages: Super-Sioux, R&S Kritter Kandy, TopNotch Corn:

110-117 RM Bt, RR/Bt and Conventional

Alfalfa: Kanza, Buffalo, VNS, Cimarron 3i, Affinity

Cover Crops: Sun Hemp, Cowpeas, Mungbeans, Lentils, Alfalfa, Clovers, Rye, and Sudan

Haven, KS Phone (800) 634-2836

(620) 465-2245 Fax (620) 465-3565 Email: kaufseed@ourtownusa.net

This crisp new event from No-Till on the Plains was asmashing success right out of the box, however youmeasured it. From the enduring energy of the crowds tothe sharp exchange of ideas, the show was a class act.

Day One was at the Doug Palen farm, south of GlenElder, KS, with Day Two hosted at Ron Jacques’ south ofHutchinson, KS, and Day Three in northern Oklahomaat DavidYoung’s, TomCannon’s, andTony Kodesh’s,with otherstops mixed in.Attendancewas strong,with 70 to 110at each site.The formatincluded bothfocused presen-tations and in-the-field dis-cussions. Incase youmissed out, afew of thehighlights:

Bud Davis, aNRCS agrono-mist, used therainfall simula-tor to visually (shockingly)demonstrate the value ofresidue for water infiltratingthe soil. “A raindrop strikes thesoil with enormous energy—basically like a bomb goingoff—which breaks loose the soilparticles and clogs the macro-pores. Stubble disperses theforce from that impact and pro-tects the soil.”

Ray Ward, soil scientist andfounder of Ward Laboratories,explained the natural formationof soil structure (occurring in theabsence of tillage) as primarilybeing biological in origin—polysac-

charides, or long chains of sugars, bind the miniscule soilparticles together into crumbs or ‘aggregates.’ Good soilstructure has benefits beyond improving plant rooting,explained Ward: “The nitrogen ion is held inside the soilaggregate, where it is less prone to water leaching itaway. This is good news, not only for the farmer, but alsofor people concerned about groundwater.”

Ward further explained the chemicalprocesses involved with soil tillage: “Whenyou light a fire, what happens? The windcomes up, because the fire is drawing oxygen.The same thing happens when you till thesoil—you introduce oxygen, which themicroorganisms use to decompose organicmatter. You’re rapidly ‘burning’ off the soil’sorganic matter . . . . Leaving the soil undis-turbed is the slowest burn. So if you wantmore organic matter in your soils, don’t dotillage.” After examining the root developmentin pits dug in Palen’s, Jacques’, and Kodesh’sfields, neither Ward nor Paul Jasa (equipmentresearcher at U.Neb.-Lincoln) could find anyroot-restricting layers that would benefit fromripping.

Greg Scott, a NRCS soil scientist in Okla-homa, explained that the exchange of airthrough the soil must be continuous—thesupply of oxygen feeding the roots andmicroorganisms can be depleted very quickly.Scott noted that the structure occurring inuntilled soils, such as pastures or long-termno-till cropland, allows this continuous airexchange from deep within the soil.

Matt Hagny, an agronomic consultant, pre-sented ideas for improving crop rotations:“You do the preventive maintenance on your

machinery, why not onyour rotations? Don’twait until you have amajor problem beforetaking action.” He laterelaborated, “Can youmake a two-crop rota-tion like wheat >>wheat>>milo >>milo work?—Yes, but would it bebetter with more crops?—Yes; the two-crop

’03 Whirlwind Expo in Review

120

Phot

o by

Bria

n Li

ndle

y.

Phot

o by

Bria

n Li

ndle

y.

Phot

o by

Tom

Will

.

(Top) Bob Wolf, KSU sprayer specialist, demonstrates nozzles and pressure variation.

(Right) Ray Ward examines structure in Palen’s loess soil.

(Bottom) Bud Davis describes the destructive forcesunleashed by raindrop impact on bare soil.

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.

Phot

o by

Bria

n Li

ndle

y.

(Top) Doug Palen & Matt Hagny talk agronomy in Palen’s field.

(Bottom) Paul Jasa explains planter attachments at Jacques’ farm.

rotation needs more inputs to keep it going, andnever really has the outstanding yields like thelonger, more diverse rotations.”

This sampling of quotes hardly conveys the magni-tude of information andideas exchanged duringthe 3 days—“whirlwind”is indeed a fittingdescriptor for this blur ofactivity. See you in ’04.

Covered up

121

In eastern Kansas and Oklahoma, on fields going to cottonor soybeans next year, winter oats offers great potential toimprove stand establishment and suppress weeds. Cottonseedlings especially can benefit from the shelter of uprightresidues keeping the wind off, as well as from the improvedseedbed (well-drained) in which to establish roots. Oatstends not to carry diseases com-monly found in wheat, and is there-fore a better rotational break thancover crops such as rye or triticale.

Winter oats should be plantedimmediately after winter wheatseeding is finished. ‘Dallas’ isreportedly the most winter hardyvariety currently available,although ‘Walken’ is not farbehind. Neither is as winterhardy as ‘Jagger’ winter wheat,although the winter oats seems tobe surviving reasonably well inno-till conditions in the south-central part of Kansas.

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.

TILLAGE & FERTILIZER APPLICATION TOOLS • GRAIN & LIVESTOCK HANDLING EQUIPMENT ACRA-PLANT PRECISION PLANTING EQUIPMENT

Soil preparation and residue managementattachments

No-Till & Min-TillPlanting & Drilling

No-till rowcleaners

No-till nowwith our Acra

Drill UnitRetrofityour

planteropeners

Our full line of Acra-Plant Precision Planting/Seeding Solutionsreflects the current awareness and emphasis on No-Tillage and

Minimum-Tillage agricultural practices.

Chrome Carbide V-Slice Inserts

improve seed-to-soil contact

PO Box 687 • Hutchinson, KS 67504-0687(620) 662-7482 Fax

(800) 798-1968www.shieldag.com

Cotton in cover-crop winteroats. The oats certainlykeeps the weeds and ero-sion to a minimum, butguessing the right termina-tion timing is a year-to-yearchallenge.

(Top) David Young discusses production of corn, which hasmade a strong showing in his area during the past decade.Young has been 100% no-till for 5 years, and the success isapparent.

(Bottom) Day Three of the Expo, the crowd listening intentlyto Paul Jasa on no-till seeding methods. David Young’s airdrill in the background.

(Top Right) Greg Scott describes natural soil aeration in continuousno-till; seedling double-crop milo visible.

(Left & Bottom Right) Ray Ward & Greg Scott discuss soil proper-ties in Kodesh’s long-term no-till; the field was ‘03 wheat, har-vested with a stripper head, now with Group 5 double-crop soy-beans growing.

Phot

os b

y M

att

Hag

ny.

Phot

o by

Bria

n Li

ndle

y.

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.Ph

oto

by M

att

Hag

ny.

122

Every successfulno-tiller hasfound a manage-ment scheme thatfits their own setof environmentalfactors, profitgoals, personal preferences, andideals. From these variables, an infi-nite number of philosophies arise,with each manager developing aunique underlying theme that per-vades their management decisions.For Robert Miller of Wellington,KS, one could say his theme is“Lean efficiency.” You would haveto travel far and wide to find a pro-ducer managing as many acres andgrowing five different crops with aslittle machinery and labor as whatRobert uses. He values his currentmachinery inventory at just under$100,000, and has only himself asthe labor force for approximately3,000 acres of cropland.

Miller retired from the KansasHouse of Representatives in 1996and was farming about the sameacreage as currently, but with twoJohn Deere four-wheel-drive trac-tors, a couple 30-foot hoe drills, sev-eral field cultivators, discs, chiselsand various otherpieces of tillageequipment typicalof that style of crop-ping. He alsoemployed three tofive full-time per-sonnel to run allthat equipment andget everything donein the narrow timewindow of a 100%continuous wheatoperation.Remember, Miller

farms about 30 miles south ofWichita in Sumner County, theheart of wheat country. So, all thatequipment . . . and labor . . . togrow . . . wheat!

That was then. The adoption of no-till has produced a cascade of fruit-ful developments at the Miller farm.It all began when he started plant-ing more summer crops as well asdouble-cropping them into wheatstubble. With the break from mono-culture, “It just didn’t make anysense to till.” Both the time andmoisture loss that came with tillageahead of planting were unnecessarycosts. Miller soon expanded thatattitude towards all of hisplanting opera-

tions. He began attending no-tillmeetings, taking in the No-Till Onthe Plains conferences, and seekingout other successful no-tillers in hisarea—he credits a progressivegroup of no-tillers in westernCowley County as being his helpful

mentors. Miller still farms roughlythe same number of acres as he didwith tillage, but now with greaterintensity and economic return.

Rewriting Rotations

As is the case with all successful no-till systems, a diverse crop rotationhas been instituted. When asked forhis typical crop rotation, Robertchuckles and pauses, “You mean,‘What do I try to do?’—I shoot for acotton >>wheat /[double-crop] milo>>milo rotation. But that doesn’talways happen.” Weather, soil mois-ture, landlords, weed pressures,changing economics, and a healthydose of ingenuity keep tearing andgrinding away at the plan.

Miller takes pride in all that hedoes, but a noticeable passionexudes when he talks about his cot-ton programs. And why not? “Withthe summers we’ve had the past twoyears, the milo and soybeans havebeen looking pretty tough by[August], but the cotton has donewell. For profitability, . . . year-inand year-out . . . cotton has donebetter than wheat, or even hun-dred-bushel milo for that matter.”Those remarks are very understand-able considering his best yield to-date came last year when he grew980 lbs/a of dryland cotton. Whilenot in his “planned” rotation, Miller

The Law of Efficiencyby Roger Long

Once Miller escaped frommonoculture, “It just didn’t

make any sense to till.”

Miller planting cotton. Low overhead, good organization, andmaximum efficiency are the rules for Miller’s farm. If only thegovernment ran this well . . . .

Phot

o by

Rob

ert

Mill

er.

Miller’s milo, notably lacking in Johnsongrass.

Phot

o by

Rog

er L

ong.

FE

ATURE FAR M

ER

RO

B E R T M I L L ER

123

has had several fields each year inRoundup Ready soybeans. “I prima-rily used them to clean up weedproblems, but now that I’m learningmore about how to manage weeds incotton, I’ll be replacing the beanswith cotton in those instances.”

Miller has also been looking at dou-ble-cropping cotton after wheat har-vest, and then following the double-crop cotton with another cottoncrop before rotating to milo. Thecurrent unknown that could causehim to rethink this increased fre-quency of cotton in the rotation:how long the wheat stubble will lastin the growing cotton. “If my wheatresidue breaks down too fast, I’llhave to back off the

cotton a little bit.” Spoken like atrue no-tiller. (Editors’ Note: Otherno-till producers in the region cau-tion against leaving cotton or otherbroadleaf stubble over the winterwithout a wheat crop or cover cropestablished in it, due to the erosionpotential. Also, milo would do betterin conditions with more abundantstubble than what cotton provides.)

Strategic Alliances

For cotton scouting and productionadvice, Miller utilizes Rex Friesen,an entomologist working formerly in

the Texas extension service and nowas a consultant employed by theSouthern Kansas Cotton Growers’Co-op (for which Miller serves as aboard member). Miller notes thattimeliness in catchingproblems as theydevelop (especiallyinsects like fleahop-pers, thrips, and boll-worms) is one ofFriesen’s best attrib-utes, but he bringsother expertise to thetable as well. AtFriesen’s urging, lastyear Miller hadFarmers’ Co-op Grainof Wellington apply aspray solution containing 20 poundsof actual N in the form of “feedgrade” urea (feed grade tends not to‘burn’ leaves like a fertilizer grade ofurea)1 during the boll developmentstage (early Sept.). Miller saw a sig-nificant increase in lint quality fromthat foliar N application comparedto his adjacent fields without thetreatment—good for a return oninvestment of 2 1/2 to 1.

Miller’s diverse rotation no longernecessitates being on every acre atthe same time, resulting in consider-able efficiency gains, although hestill finds reason to rely on outsideresources for some field operations.As he eased out of tillage, Robertslowly sold off the four-wheel-drivetractors and his tillage implements.He even downsized his grain drills.“I was really nervous about gettingrid of my big drills, but I’ve foundthat I really don’t miss them.” Withfar less dependence on wheat, he’shad plenty of time to get thosewheat acres planted in a timely man-ner with smaller equipment. Hisoperation is now comprised of a JD4630, a JD 4440, a 12-row Case-IH955 planter, and a 25-foot Crust-buster 4000 double-disc drill—andRobert. Noticeably absent is lots of

expensive horsepower, tillage iron,and hired labor. You would also behard-pressed to find spraying equip-ment. Miller does admit he willprobably be buying a hooded

sprayer next year for his cotton, anda spray setup on his ATV is cur-rently employed to polish up fieldedges. Robert’s reliance upon cus-tom applicators sets him apart frommost no-tillers—the relationshipskills developed in Topeka undoubt-edly serve him well as he workswith the local co-operative to get hisspraying done. “I’m fortunate that Ihave an excellent Co-op to workwith. They can get things done verytimely.”

All of his harvesting is hired done aswell, which Miller sees as a hugelabor savings, not to mention capi-tal. “Since I’m my only labor, cus-tom harvesters work out great. Forinstance, this summer while theywere cutting my wheat, I was ableto be planting cotton and milo.”The timeliness of planting literallyminutes after harvest is paying nice

“If you like to spend timeon a tractor seat, you

don’t want to use no-till.”

“If I was doing the har-vesting myself, I would

have needed four or fiveextra people to get the

same thing accomplished.”

1 ‘Feed grade’ has lower levels of biuret, a molecular variation in which the two ingredients of urea joined up slightly differently. Biuret is more toxic to theleaf tissue of most crops as compared to the common urea molecule.

Miller’s cotton into milo stalks. Blooms are showing out thetop of the canopy.

Phot

o by

Rog

er L

ong.

Close-up of a cotton bloom (white flower)and green boll.

Phot

o by

Rog

er L

ong.

P.O. Box 379Wamego, KS 66547-0379

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit No. 69

Salina, KS

returns. The fall of ’02 saw Millerstrip a field of 900-pound-per-acrecotton and immediately plant wheat.He then harvested 58 bu/a of wheatthis past July and right away double-cropped cotton in that same field.He now has a great-looking cottoncrop for this coming fall. “If I wasdoing the harvesting myself, I wouldhave had to have four or five extrapeople to get the same thing accom-plished.” He uses traveling crews forhis wheat and then has neighbors domost of his fall harvesting.

Progress on Many Fronts

As with all good system changes,benefits are more than one-dimen-sional. Miller’s soils are more pro-ductive now, for various reasons. Soilorganic matter is up, and soil struc-ture has also improved. When Millerbegan no-tilling with his currentplanter and drill, he added frameweight to get the down-forceneeded to go into his clay loam soils.After four to eight years of continu-ous no-till, Robert has noticed thathis soils are more mellow now andso he plans to start removing someof that added weight.

Other differences are noticeableeven from the infamous “50 mphdrive-by.” As you drive around in theWellington area, Johnsongrass andbindweed are prevalent in manyfields. But looking at Miller’s fields,

you discover a notable lack of thetroublesome weeds found in neigh-boring tilled fields. Where did theJohnsongrass go? “After about fouryears of no-till you really see a bigdecline in the amount of Johnson-grass in a field. Just not draggingthose roots around all the time withtillage equipment is what I thinkmakes a huge difference.”

A final observation: tilled fields inthe area can’t hide their bindweedpatches—all residue is plowed underand you see one smooth plane thathighlights each and every weed.Miller not only leaves the residue forverticaldimension,but has acrop grow-ing (andfairly greenfor adrought) onnearly100% of hisacres (dou-ble-crop-ping afterwheat isstandardpractice for him). Thus, a ‘get-out-and-look’ approach is needed forbindweed scouting. Then, when youdo get out and browse around,Miller’s fields are conspicuouslyabsent of bindweed. He has replacedweeds with a harvestable crop.

Miller’s propensity towards politicsand public service didn’t end whenhe left the House of Representa-tives. He now serves as a delegate tothe National Cotton Council, thefirst and only producer from Kansasto serve (the National CottonCouncil lobbies the U.S. Congressregarding policies affecting the cot-ton industry). If that wasn’t enough,he plans to travel to Mozambiquethis fall to help farmers in the regionafter civil war decimated their socialand political structure. Miller couldserve up a resume listing his otherboard seats and numerous activi-ties—if he had the inclination or

time to write one. No, you won’tfind many wasted motions if you fol-low Robert around for very long. Infact, between farming, being anactive philanthropist, and still takingtime for family, he’s a little hard tofollow at all!

The custom crew for stripping Miller’s cotton.

Phot

o by

Rob

ert

Mill

er.