John Breker

Soil Nitrogen Trends – Fall 2023: Some Up, Some Down

in , , , , /by

The 2023 drought was an all-too-soon reminder of the widespread 2021 drought. It covered much of the upper Midwest, Great Plains, and Canadian Prairies. From previous experience with droughts, we expected that residual soil nitrate-N following crops would be higher than normal, caused by the drought and reduced crop yields. The first wheat fields that were soil tested in August and September confirmed our expectation that residual soil nitrate-N was already trending higher than normal. Yet, some regions were spared the drought and received above-average rainfall, and achieved record-setting crop yields. For these regions, the amount of residual soil nitrate-N after high-yielding crops was near or below average. 

The 2023 AGVISE soil test summary data highlights the great variability following the drought. The median amount of soil nitrate-nitrogen across the region was higher than the long-term average following wheat. Over 28% of wheat fields had more than 60 lb/acre nitrate-N (0-24 inch) remaining. Yet, another 17% of wheat fields had less than 20 lb/acre nitrate-N remaining, suggesting either lost crop yield or protein due to insufficient nitrogen nutrition. For any given farm, the great variability in residual soil nitrate-N across all acres makes choosing one single nitrogen fertilizer rate impossible for next year, and soil testing is the only way to decide that right rate for each field.

Through zone soil sampling, we are also able to identify that residual soil nitrate-nitrogen can vary considerably within the same field. This makes sense because we know that some areas of the field produced a fair or good yield, leaving behind less soil nitrate, while other areas produced very poorly and left behind much more soil nitrate. These differences across the landscape are driven by soil texture, soil organic matter, and stored soil water as well as specific problems like soil salinity or low soil pH (aluminum toxicity). Although the regional residual soil nitrate-nitrogen trends were higher overall, it is truly through zone soil sampling that we can begin to make sense of the field variability that drives crop productivity and determine the right fertilizer rate for next year.

For fields that have not been soil tested yet, there is still time to collect soil samples in winter. Nobody wants to experience another drought, but this kind of weather reminds us how important soil nitrate testing is every year for producers in the Great Plains and Canadian Prairies. Each year, AGVISE summarizes soil test data for soil nutrients and properties in our major trade regions of the United States and Canada. For more soil test summary data and other crops, please view our soil test summaries online: https://www.agvise.com/resources/soil-test-summaries/

Cindy Evenson

Choosing the Right Phosphorus Method

in , /by

This article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Spring 2023 Newsletter under President’s Corner

The phosphorus soil test debate never ends. Should I use the Olsen test, or maybe Bray-1 would be better? What about the Mehlich-3 method, and should that extract be analyzed on an ICP or with a colorimetric method? Perhaps, Bray-2 or the Haney extractable P is something to consider? This whole phosphorus test dilemma can be quite confusing; however, the answer is quite simple. Use the soil phosphorus test that is calibrated for your region!

In the upper Midwest, the Olsen test is the most reliable method to determine phosphorus availability and has the most correlation and calibration data with field trials. Many hours have been spent by university researchers putting out field trials to determine phosphorus fertilizer rates for various crops. The researchers have evaluated various phosphorus methods, and the two most common methods are the Bray-1 and Olsen extractants. The Bray-1 method is the older method, developed in Illinois. It works well on soils with pH below 7.3. Once the soil pH is above 7.3, the extractant may fail. If the test fails, it will produce a result near zero.

The Olsen method is required on calcareous soils (pH > 7.3), but it also works well on acidic soils. There is a common misconception that the Olsen method is only suitable on calcareous soils. In fact, the Olsen method is widely used across the world because of its versatility on acidic and calcareous soils. It is a perfect fit for our region because it works so well across a wide soil pH range and on diverse soil types. In the AGVISE Newsletter Spring 2017 issue, retired AGVISE President Robert Deutsch compiled soil test data for the Bray-1 and Olsen methods with over 25,000 soil samples. The graphs highlight how robust the Olsen phosphorus method is, working on acidic and calcareous soils alike.

The Mehlich-3 method has gained popularity in the southeast United States and the central Midwest. In these regions, the soils are more weathered and often do not have problems with high calcium carbonate content. At the University of Minnesota, Dr. Dan Kaiser has worked on Mehlich-3 method correlation on Minnesota soils for quite a few years. For some soils, the Mehlich-3 method performed as expected, while some others had Mehlich-3 results 8 to 10 times higher than expected. For these reasons, the Mehlich-3 method has not been approved for use in the upper Midwest or northern Great Plains.

As of this time the only phosphorus soil tests recommended for soils in the upper Midwest are the Olsen and Bray-1 extracts. If someone mentions using any other phosphorus soil test, it has not been tested or correlated to the soils in this region.

John Breker

Are Soybean Iron Deficiency Chlorosis (IDC) Ratings Getting Worse?

in , /by

This article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Spring 2023 Newsletter

For the past three years, we have seen severe and widespread soybean iron deficiency chlorosis (IDC) symptoms across the region. In fact, some seasoned agronomists have commented that 2022 was the worst soybean IDC year that they had experienced in decades. Soybean IDC is a serious risk on soils with high calcium carbonate or salinity, which interfere with iron uptake and utilization in soybean. With all that we have learned about soybean IDC risk and management over the past 30 years, we have to ask, “What is going on? Why is soybean IDC continuing to get worse?”

The NDSU soybean IDC trial data suggests it might be the soybean varieties. Each year, seed companies submit soybean varieties to NDSU for independent evaluation of soybean IDC ratings (https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/varietytrials/). The NDSU trial sites impose high soybean IDC risk, where the best and worst soybean varieties are thoroughly tested alike for soybean IDC tolerance. In recent years, the problem is that the year-after-year average soybean IDC rating continues to get worse (see figure). In 2022, the average soybean variety scored 3.5 on the NDSU scale (1-good, 5-bad). Adverse soil and weather conditions may explain part of the worsening problem in the NDSU trials, but it is apparent that few soybean varieties can handle severe soybean IDC on their own. In defense of soybean breeders, there are a lot of different breeding objectives on their plates right now, including herbicide tolerance packages, disease and insect pests, and seed yield, of course!

This means we need to revisit and use all of our options in the soybean IDC toolbox. We have known about these effective management tools for over 20 years, and we are going to need to use all of them until soybean variety IDC tolerance can get to where we need it.

Steps to better soybean IDC management

  • Soil test each field, zone, or grid for carbonate and salinity to evaluate soybean IDC risk potential.
  • Plant soybean in fields with low soybean IDC risk. Choose a tolerant soybean variety, if you can. Some high IDC-risk fields may not be suitable for soybean.
  • Use a chelated iron fertilizer (high-quality EDDHA or HBED chelate) with seed at planting. Liquid and dry products are now available.
  • Plant soybean in wider rows. Soybean IDC tends to be less severe in wider rows.
Jodi Boe

Two Graphics You Should Know Before the 2023 Growing Season

in , , /by

This article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Spring 2023 Newsletter

The goal of AGVISE Newsletters is to inform you and your customers of important soil fertility information relevant to our area. Often, visuals or graphs are much more powerful at communicating a message than words. With that in mind, I want to share two figures I think you should know about going into the 2023 growing season with a short synopsis and where you can find more information on the topic.

Adapted from the “Biostimulants” episode of the University of Minnesota Extension Nutrient Management Podcast https://nutrientmanagement.transistor.fm/episodes/biostimulants-52305fc9-6c01-4907-8507-2bcf4c708a08

Right now, there are many biological products and fertilizer additives on the market. In particular, asymbiotic nitrogen-fixing products have gained a lot of attention, but many have little or no university research evaluating them. Any grower wanting to try new products should test them on a small acreage first, before adopting them across the whole farm. To the left is a diagram of how such an on-farm trial would look. The key factors of a meaningful on-farm trial include a control treatment (the standard practice), the standard practice plus the product, and randomized replication (at least three replicates, randomized so that one treatment is not always on the east or west side of the trial area).

If the standard nitrogen rate will be reduced when the product is used, a treatment should also be included that compares the same reduced nitrogen rate without the product (this three-treatment setup is what is pictured). If the standard nitrogen rate is higher than the crop N requirement, maybe if you do not have a current soil nitrate-N test or just general overapplication, a reduced nitrogen rate plus the product that produces the same crop yield as the standard practice does not mean that the product is producing additional nitrogen for the crop; it may just mean that the grower can cut back their standard nitrogen rate.

Slide from Dr. John Jones’ 2023 AGVISE Seminar presentation, Phosphorus and Potassium: A Fresh Look with Fresh Data https://www.agvise.com/resources/seminars-and-events/

With fertilizer prices remaining high, it is tempting to cut back phosphorus and potassium inputs to save money. As tempting as this is, do not cut back farther than the fertilizer rates needed to meet the critical soil test level, as optimum soil-test P and K levels are required to achieve the highest response from nitrogen fertilizer. While working to update the Wisconsin phosphorus and potassium fertilizer guidelines, Dr. John Jones at the University of Wisconsin has put together some excellent data illustrating the reality of Liebig’s Law of the Minimum: when P and K fertility needs are unmet, the return from nitrogen fertilizer investment will be reduced compared to when P and K are at optimum levels. This means pouring on more nitrogen will not increase crop yield unless you are doing a good job of managing P and K too. Although not shown here, Dr. Jones also has data showing that corn and soybean yield response to P is reduced when K fertility needs are unmet.

John Breker

High Fertilizer Prices? Using Crop Removal P & K Rates is an Expensive Choice

in , , /by

This article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Spring 2023 Newsletter

If you thought high fertilizer prices would resolve after one or two years, it is looking like those prices are becoming the new norm. At such prices, every fertilizer dollar you spend must be spent to guarantee the best bang for each buck. This means soil testing makes more dollars and sense than ever.

Phosphorus and potassium are best managed with current soil test information to maximize crop yield potential and profitability. Yet, some people continue to apply phosphorus and potassium at crop removal (CR) rates as a way to maintain the soil fertility status quo. This is a major oversight because CR-based rates maintain soil fertility in a way that overapplies fertilizer to parts of the field with high soil test P or K that do not need more fertilizer, yet underapplies fertilizer to parts with low soil test P or K and ultimately sacrifices crop yield. This is particularly troublesome if the factor that limited crop yield was one of those nutrients! As a result, the reduced crop yield leads to a lower CR-based fertilizer rate that fails to fix the soil fertility issue, and you stay in a low soil fertility rut. For example, if soil test P is very low and limits crop yield, a crop removal-based P rate will undershoot the actual crop P requirement, resulting in reduced crop yield and continued nutrient mining year after year. A soil test-based P rate will show you exactly where more fertilizer is required to maximize crop yield and where you can reduce fertilizer rates to maximize profitability.

Another serious reason to avoid CR-based rates is the risk of off-site nutrient losses, especially phosphorus. When CR-based rates are applied on soils with high or very high soil test P, this increases the risk for environmental P loss to waterways that can degrade water quality and result in regulatory oversight. Precision soil sampling (grid or zone) and soil test-based fertilizer rates is the best way to maximize crop yield, profitability, and protect the environment.

John Breker

Early Soil Nitrate Trends after Wheat in 2022

in , , /by

Small grain harvest is well underway across the region, and soil testing is progressing quickly. Crop yields have varied from below average to exceeding expectations across the region and often in the same area. Planting date, summer temperatures, and rainfall (too little or too much) were major factors this year.

The major factors influencing the amount of residual soil nitrate-N after crops are:

1.     Nitrogen fertilizer rate: too high or too low
2.     Crop yield achieved: much lower or higher than expected
3.     Nitrogen losses: denitrification and leaching after too much rainfall
4.     Nitrogen mineralization from organic matter: cool or warm growing season

Seasonal weather is a large driving factor in the amount of nitrate-N in the soil profile. This changes from field to field and year to year. Early spring weather conditions were very wet across much of the region. In June and July, some areas continued to receive adequate to excess rainfall. Meanwhile, other areas received very little rain in the late growing season.

AGVISE has tested over 10,000 soil samples from wheat fields across the region. The table below indicates the percentage of soil samples in each soil nitrate-nitrogen category in several areas of Manitoba, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The data should give you a general idea of how variable residual soil nitrate is from field to field in each region. With such variable crop yields, there is quite a bit of variability in residual nitrate following wheat in the region. In drought-affected areas of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, over 10 to 20% of soil samples have more than 60 lb/acre nitrate-N (0-24 inch soil profile) remaining after wheat.

What about Prevented Planting or unseeded acres?

For Prevented Planting or unseeded acres, the factors above plus some additional factors will affect the amount of residual nitrate-nitrogen:

1.     How long was water standing on the field?
2.     Was weed growth controlled, early or late?
3.     Was tillage used? How many times? How deep?
4.     Was a cover crop planted? What amount of growth was achieved?

When submitting soil samples from fields that were not planted, please choose “Fallow” or “Cover Crop” as the previous crop. This will allow us to send additional information on soil nitrate trends for unseeded and cover crop fields once we get enough data.

As the fall soil testing season continues, we will keep you updated. If you have any questions, please call our experienced agronomic staff. We hope you have a safe harvest and soil testing season.

 

John Breker

Prevented Planting Acres? What to do for 2023

in , /by

This article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Fall 2022 Newsletter

Good crop prices encouraged late planting beyond crop insurance deadlines, but additional June rainfall kept some producers from planting all their acres, leaving some unplanted fields or unplanted parts of fields. There are many questions about soil testing on these unplanted fields: When should you start soil sampling? What kind of residual soil nitrate-nitrogen amounts can you expect? The extremely wet soil conditions may have caused considerable soil nitrogen losses to leaching or denitrification. Through summer, warmer and drier weather added nitrogen through mineralization of soil organic matter. In addition, cover crops and any weedy growth will acquire nitrogen from soil. The amount of soil nitrate-nitrogen remaining for next year will depend on soil type, environment, and management factors, which vary from field to field and zone to zone.

Management Factors
• What was the crop grown in the previous year?
• What was the nitrogen fertilizer rate and application timing? Was it applied last fall?
• Did you do any summer tillage? More tillage promotes nitrogen mineralization.
• How was your weed control? Did the weeds get large and acquire substantial nitrogen?
• Did you plant a cover crop? Did the cover crop get incorporated later?

Environmental Factors
• Did excessive rainfall cause nitrate leaching on well-drained soils?
• Did excessive rainfall cause denitrification on poorly drained soils?
• Were summer temperatures warm? Warm temperatures promote N mineralization.

Soil testing on these unplanted fields can begin as soon as good quality soil samples can be collected after mid-August. There is no reliable way to guess how much residual soil nitrate may be present in these unplanted fields or unplanted parts of fields. Soil testing is the only accurate way to learn how much residual soil nitrate remains in the soil profile. To obtain the best information for nitrogen management, we recommend splitting fields into management zones for soil testing. The unplanted field areas can vary considerably from the rest of the field, which will skew the field-average soil test result and resulting nitrogen fertilizer rate.

John Breker

Soil Sampling for Nitrogen in a Delayed Spring

in , , /by

Spring planting is clipping along in some parts of the region, while other parts are still waiting to hit the field, as excessive rainfall and cold temperatures have delayed spring field work and planting. Who would have thought last fall that this is what spring 2022 would look like, after the worst region-wide drought in 30 years? Mother Nature always reminds us to stay prepared for anything.

A delayed spring start means that every day in the field is important. AGVISE delivers next-day turnaround on processing soil samples. The soil samples are analyzed and reported the next business day after arrival at the laboratory. Soil test results are posted to our online AGVISOR portal for quick and easy access. If you need any soil sampling supplies for spring, please let us know and we will send them to you right away.

So, what is the best strategy for spring soil testing and assessing soil nitrogen losses after the rain? The compressed fertilizer and planting window might not leave enough time to adjust preplant fertilizer rates, especially if the field is just barely dry enough to plant. If soil nitrogen losses have occurred following spring rains, a spring soil test collected now will be helpful to create a split-applied nitrogen plan or to direct a supplemental nitrogen application later. In the AGVISE Spring 2022 Newsletter, we answered some questions on split-applied nitrogen application strategies, so please take a look at those options for applying nitrogen during the growing season.

Short-season crops develop quickly, so additional nitrogen should be applied in the upcoming weeks. A soil sample collected before or shortly after planting will provide the best assessment of preplant soil nitrogen supply and losses. Do not wait too long to collect the soil sample because, as we move into June, plant nitrogen uptake and nitrogen mineralization from soil organic matter will make the soil nitrogen result more difficult to decipher. To maximize yield in small grains, apply all topdress nitrogen before jointing (5-leaf stage). Any nitrogen applied after jointing will mostly go to grain protein. In canola, apply nitrogen during the rosette stage, before the 6-leaf stage.

Long-season crops like corn offer more flexibility and time for in-season soil sampling and nitrogen application. Rapid nitrogen uptake in corn does not begin until after the V6 growth stage. The Pre-sidedress Soil Nitrate Test (PSNT) can help you decide the appropriate sidedress nitrogen rate. For more details, take a look at the PSNT article link for instructions on collecting and submitting PSNT soil samples. The PSNT requires a 0-12 inch depth soil sample taken when corn plants are 6 to 12 inches tall (at the whorl), usually in late May or early June. Late-planted corn may not reach that height before mid-June, but PSNT soil samples should still be collected during the first two weeks of June. If spring rainfall was above normal, Iowa State University guidelines provide additional PSNT interpretation criteria for excessive rainfall, manured soils, and corn after alfalfa.

If you have any questions on the best strategies for spring soil sampling and in-season nitrogen application options, please call our technical support team and we will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Jodi Boe

Zone Soil Sampling and Variable Rate Fertilization: Optimizing profits

in , , /by

This article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Winter 2022 Newsletter

Farmers, like all business owners, are profit maximizers: things are good when revenue exceeds cost. Things are even better when the difference between revenue and costs is substantial. The math behind increasing profit is simple: reduce costs, increase revenue. But, the difficult part is finding and implementing strategies on the farm to do this. Why not start with fertilizer, which is typically the largest annual input cost on the farm?

Your fields are variable. You know the hilltops have lower crop yields than the mid-slopes, and you know exactly how far the saline spots creep into the more productive part of the field. So why use the same rate of fertilizer in the unproductive areas as you would in the productive areas? Optimize your fertilizer inputs by reducing rates in low-yielding areas and reallocate those fertilizer dollars to the productive ground.

The North Field Zone Map

Figure 1. North Field zone map, created using ADMS from GK Technology.

How does one actually do this? Creating zone maps for your fields, soil sampling and testing based on productivity zones, and variable rate (VRT) fertilizer application is the place to start. Applying VRT fertilizer allows you to apply fertilizer where it is needed and not waste fertilizer dollars where it is not. Let me show you an example from my family’s farm in western North Dakota.

I farm with my dad and brother in southwest North Dakota. This past fall, I created zone maps for each of our fields, with help from GK Technology and their ADMS program. The final maps are based on historical satellite imagery. I will show you one of our fields, the North Field, and take a deep dive on nitrogen fertilizer optimization using zone soil sampling and VRT fertilization in the dryland “out west” country.

The North Field (Figure 1) is variable. That is expected on a 120-acre field with many hills and ravines (Table 1). For discussion, we will use residual soil nitrate-nitrogen results and make a nitrogen fertilizer plan using urea for hard red spring wheat (HRSW) in 2022. You can see the soil nitrogen data, crop yield goals, and final nitrogen rates in Table 2.

 

The first place to optimize fertilizer inputs is setting realistic crop yield goals for each zone. Spring wheat yield goals range from 65 bushel/ acre in the best zone (zone 1) to 30 bushel/acre on the hilltops (zone 5). Adjusting the nitrogen rate for the proper crop yield goal ensures that the high-producing zones are not limited by lack of nitrogen (increased fertilizer cost, increased revenue) and the low-producing zones are not overfertilized (decreased fertilizer cost, same revenue). With a responsible crop yield goal on the low-producing zones, the crop still receives the amount of nitrogen it requires, and excess nitrogen is not lost to nitrate leaching (wasted input cost). As a result, the excess nitrogen fertilizer is reallocated to high-producing zones, resulting in more crop yield with the same total fertilizer budget, and increased revenue.

The nitrogen fertilizer scenarios in Tables 3 and 4 break down the projected revenues and expenses, demonstrating the benefits of zone soil sampling and VRT fertilization. For the North Field on my farm, the projected profit increase was $3,725 for the field or $31.05 per acre. It is tough to argue with a dollar amount like that! Prices will vary, of course, for fertilizer and precision ag services in your geography. Do the math for yourself and see how zone soil sampling and VRT fertilization can maximize profits for you.

John Lee

2021 Drought: High residual soil nitrate-nitrogen across the region

in , , , , /by

This article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Winter 2022 Newsletter

The 2021 drought rivals the 1988 drought, and it covered much of the northern Great Plains and Canadian Prairies. From previous experience with droughts, we expected that residual soil nitrate-N following crops would be higher than normal, caused by the drought and reduced crop yields. The first wheat fields that were soil tested in August and September confirmed our expectation that residual soil nitrate-N was already trending much higher than normal.

The 2021 AGVISE soil test summary data highlights how exceptional the 2021 drought was. The median amount of soil nitrate-N across the region was markedly higher following wheat and corn. Over 20% of wheat fields had more than 100 lb/acre nitrate-N (0-24 inch) remaining, and another 40% of wheat fields had a sizable 40 to 80 lb/acre nitrate-N (0-24 inch) left over. For any given farm, the great variability in residual soil nitrate-N makes choosing one single nitrogen fertilizer rates impossible, and soil testing is the only way to decide that right rate for each field.

Through zone soil sampling, we were also able to identify that residual soil nitrate-N varied considerably within a field. This makes sense because we know that some areas of the field produced a fair yield, leaving behind less soil nitrate, while other areas produced very poorly and left behind much more soil nitrate. These differences across the landscape are driven by soil texture, soil organic matter, and stored soil water as well as specific problems like soil salinity or low soil pH (aluminum toxicity). Although the regional residual soil nitrate-N trends were higher overall, it is truly through zone soil sampling that we can begin to make sense of the field variability that drives crop productivity and the right fertilizer rate for next year.

For fields that have not been soil tested yet, there is still time to collect soil samples in winter (see winter soil sampling article). Nobody wants to experience another drought, but this kind of weather reminds us how important soil nitrate testing is every year for producers in the Great Plains. Each year, AGVISE summarizes soil test data for soil nutrients and properties in our major trade region of the United States and Canada. For more soil test summary data and other crops, please take a look at our soil test summaries online.