Title: 1994 pacific northwest on-farm test results
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00082751/00001
 Material Information
Title: 1994 pacific northwest on-farm test results from the Idaho, Oregon and Washington STEEP II on-farm testing projects
Series Title: Technical report, Washington State University Department of Crop and Soil Sciences ; 95-1
Physical Description: 65 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Wuest, Stewart
University of Idaho -- Cooperative Extension Service
Washington State University -- Cooperative Extension
Oregon State University -- Extension Service
Publisher: Cooperative Extension of the University of Idaho, Washington State University, and Oregon State University
Place of Publication: Pullman, WA
Publication Date: 1995
Copyright Date: 1995
 Subjects
Subject: Agriculture -- Soil science   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Crop improvement   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Stewart Wuest ... et al..
General Note: Title from cover.
General Note: "Technical Report 95-1."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00082751
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 42449396

Full Text






1994

Pacific Northwest

On-Farm Test

Results
From the
Idaho, Oregon and Washington
STEEP II On-Farm Testing Projects


#,1 5


~~ '-~lr*
r ~ ~"
-~ j~
'dl.


~ ;'Z g;1[3~


q-J


I. $

4t


COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
Washington State University


Department of Crop and Soil Sciences
Technical Report 95-1






































Citation: S.B. Wuest, B.C. Miller, R.J. Veseth, S.O. Guy, D.J. Wysocki and R.S. Karow. 1994. 1994 Pacific
Northwest On-Farm Test Results. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences Technical Report 95-1, Washington State
University, Pullman WA.









Cover: Harvest at Kevin Scholz and Roger Veseth's on-farm test demonstrated a substantial increase in yield when
less intensive, residue conserving tillage was used on the well drained portions of the field.





Acknowledgement: The patience and expertise of Marguerite Winterowd in typing this bulletin is greatly appreciated.







Table of Contents

Tillage
Fall Harrowing of Spring Barley Stubble Before Summer Fallow ................... .. . . 1
Bob Wigen

Fall Plow vs Disk-Ripper after Winter Wheat for Spring Barley ............................ 2
Kevin Scholz

Burn/Minimum Till for Continuous Winter Wheat Production ............................. 4
Mark Lambert

Burn/Minimum Till for Continuous Winter Wheat Production ............................. 5
Jay Lyman

Stubble Management for Spring Barley in a Low Rainfall Zone ............................ 6
Skip Mead

Methods for Red Clover Incorporation ............................................. 7
Richard Grant

No-till Seeding Applications on Various Residue Conditions .............................. 8
John Howell

Dammer Diker Versus Chisel for Fall Tillage ......................................... 10
Ben Alexander

Modified Subsoiler Versus Uphill Moldboard Plow ..................................... 11
David Ostheller

Tillage for Wheat/Fallow

Returning CRP Land to Spring W heat ............................................. 12
George Young

Use of Notched Packer on Deep Furrow Drills ........................................ 13
Dwaine Klein and Stewart Wuest

Comparison of Chisel and Moldboard Plowing in a Wheat-Fallow Rotation .................... 14
Charles Hemphill

Subsoiling for Increased Water Storage for Summer Fallow on Sodic Soils in Asotin County ........ 15
Doug McMillan

Subsoiling for Increased Water Storage for Summer Fallow System ......................... 16
Mark Appleford

Comparing Fall Tillage Options for Improving Moisture Infiltration ......................... 17
Lynn Ausman

Packing Summer Fallow Before Seeding Wheat: Agronomic Benefits and Environmental Concerns ... 18
Bill Schillinger and Harry Schafer







Weeds and Disease

Kodiak Seed-Treatment for Lentil ................................................ 21
Kenneth and David Wilken

Seed Treatment Comparison on Colter Barley ........................................ 22
Davern Riggers, Carrey Newman, Bill Flory

Regular Versus Reduced Herbicide Rates for Spring Barley ............................. 23
Eugene Butler

Reduced Herbicide Rate on Winter Wheat ........................................... 24
Cecil Martin

Night Tillage for W eed Control .................................................. 25
Davern Riggers

Fertility

Nitrogen Rates for Winter Wheat Grown in Different Rotations in Western Oregon .............. 26
Ron Lewis, Tim VanLeeuwen, Lincoln Volker

Nitrogen Rates for M mustard ..................................................... 28
Stephen Guy, Roy Patten, Robert Gareau, John Johan

Broadcast Versus With-Seed Fertilizer for Spring Barley ................................. 29
Dave Olson

Comparison of Broadcast, With-Seed, and Split Fertilizer Applications for Winter Wheat .......... 30
Dave Olson

Zinc for W inter W heat ........................................................ 31
Glenn Leitz

Innoculation of Lentils .................................... .................... 32
David Ostheller

Spring Injection of Nitrogen and Sulfur on Winter Wheat ................. .............. 33
Jack Osterlund

Fall vs Spring Nitrogen Fertilizer for Direct-Seeded Spring Barley .......................... 34
Bob Wigen

Foliar Fertilizer for Bluegrass ................................................... 35
David Ostheller

Foliar Fertilizer for Winter Wheat ............................... ................. 36
David Ostheller

Foliar Alaska Fish Fertilizer for Winter Wheat ....................................... 37
David Ostheller








Foliar Micronutrients for W inter Wheat ............................................ 38
Bob Konen

Rotation Crops and Varieties


Effect of Mustard, Pea and Lentil on Residue and Following Winter Wheat Yields ....
Stephen Guy, Roy Patten, Robert Gareau, John Johan

Canola Versus Lentil in Rotation with Winter Wheat Yield ....................
Ray Olson

Spring Crop Choice (Canola, Lentil and Barley) Influence on Winter Wheat Yield ....
Ray Olson

Spring Crop Choice (Wheat and Oat) Influence on Winter Wheat Yield ...........
Ray Olson

On-farm Winter Wheat Variety Trials In Oregon ...........................

Seeding Rates for Winter Rapeseed ...................................
Stephen Guy, University of Idaho; Roy Patten, John Johan

Winter Wheat Trials in North-Central Idaho ..............................
Bill Flory, Bob Konen, Bruce Yenni, Bob Bumgarner


. .. .... .. 39


. 46

... 48


1994 Winter Wheat Yields from On-Farm Tests in Adams County ................... ....... 50
Jerry Knodel, Tim Smith, Curtis Hennings, Steve Taylor, Grant Miller, and Bill Schillinger

Amendments

Polymers for Erosion Control in Furrow Irrigation ..................................... 51
Ray Wardenaar


Gypsum to Improve Soil Condition and Crop YieldPotential for Asotin County . .
Gaylord Appleford

Gypsum Additive to Improve Soil Condition, Moisture Infiltration, and Crop Yields
for Asotin County Sodic Soils ................................
Doug McMillan

Gypsum as a Soil Amendment to Improve Soil Conditions, Moisture Infiltration,
and Crop Yields for Asotin County Sodic Soils ....................
Steve Vickery

Recropping Spring Barley after Biosolids Fertilization ....................
Gary Wegner

Biosolids Fertilization in Low Precipitation Dryland Cropping Systems Summary .
Dan Sullivan and Jim Kropf


. .... .... . 52


. .. . . . . 54


. . . . . . . 5 5


. . . . . . . 56


Biosolids Effects on Grain Yield and Quality ......................................... 58
Ron Jirava







Effect of Biosolids Application on Soil Quality ........................................ 59
Ron Jirava

Biosolids as a Fertilizer for W inter W heat ........................................... 60
Gary Poole

Effect of Biosolids Application on Soil Quality ........................................ 62
Gary Poole

Biosolids Nitrogen Availability During Summer Fallow .................................. 63
Grant Miller



Designing an On-farm Test ..................................................... 64

Guide to Resources ........................................................... 65







Fall Harrowing of Spring Barley Stubble Before Summer Fallow
Bob Wigen
with Roger Veseth, Stewart Wuest, and John Burns, WSU Coop. Ext.;
and Dennis Roe, USDA-NRCS

Objective
Compare the effects of fall harrowing versus not harrowing spring barley stubble on population of
weeds and volunteer barley in the spring and surface residue cover after seeding winter wheat at the
end of the summer fallow season.

Location: Colfax, WA
Annual precipitation: 17 inches
Soil: Athena silt loam
Previous crop: Spring barley planted under minimum tillage
Rotation: Winter wheat, spring barley, fallow

Treatments
Tine harrowing of standing spring barley stubble before fall rains in early October 1993
Undisturbed standing barley stubble over winter

Comments
Each treatment was replicated 4 times. Plot width was 28 feet. Plot lengths were 1000 feet for two
replication and 800 feet for two replications. Population counts of weeds and volunteer barley were made
with 9 ft square hoops on March 28, 1994, just before the initial summer fallow tillage operation. Four
measurements were taken per plot.

All plots were disked with the rest of the field on April 11, and then managed as minimum tillage summer
fallow using a field cultivator/harrow, shank-fertilizer application and rodweeder. Because of limited seed
zone soil water after the dry, hot summer, winter wheat was seeded shallow in dry soil in late October with
a double disk drill. Percent surface residue measurements were made with the line transect method at six
locations per plot on November 22, 1994.

Data
Populations (plants/sq yd) of weeds and Percent surface residue on 22 Nov 94 after
volunteer barley on 28 March 94 winter wheat seeding on fallow


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Fall harrow 183 397 430 332 335a
No harrow 142 119 320 135 179a
LSD(5%) 164
CV 28%


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Fall harrow 23 28 23 27 25.3a
No harrow 29 26 27 31 28.3a
LSD(5%) 5.5
CV 9.2%


Conclusion
Although there was a trend towards higher spring populations of weeds and volunteer and lower surface
residue levels with fall harrowing, the differences were not statistically significant. The dry conditions
during the fall and winter minimized weed and volunteer germination and establishment. Dry overwinter
conditions also probably reduced rates of decomposition of the barley residue, again limiting potential
differences between the treatments.






Fall Plow vs Disk-Ripper after Winter Wheat for Spring Barley
Kevin Scholz
with Roger Veseth, Baird Miller, Stewart Wuest, and John Burs, WSU Coop. Ext.
Lavaine Logan, St. John Hardware, Fairfield; and Dennis Roe, USDA-NRCS, Colfax

Objective
Test the concept that reducing tillage intensity on more erodible, water-short portions of field
landscapes could improve soil erosion protection, precipitation storage efficiency and crop yield
potential.

Location: Colfax, WA Landscape position: 25-30% slope with SSE exposure
Annual precipitation: 17 inches Previous crop: 85 bu/A winter wheat
Soil: Palouse silt loam Rotation: Winter wheat, spring barley, fallow

Treatments (in undisturbed winter wheat stubble)
1. Moldboard plow without trashboards to a depth of 7 inches and furrow turned uphill on October
10, 1993
2. Disk-subsoil with a Sunflower disk-ripper with 20-inch front tandem disk at 3-inch depth and 7-
shank straight-point rippers on 2-ft spacings at 12-inch depth on October 22, 1993

Comments
Plots were arranged end-to-end along the contour in the top 80 feet of a divided-slope field division. Plot
lengths ranged from 300 to 450 feet. Plow treatments were established first, with the plow being pulled out
to cross disk-ripper plots. The disk-ripper plots were established later with a zigzag pattern, turning on the
adjourning plowed plot. These turning margins were excluded from data collection.

The disk-ripper resulted in similar tillage impacts on residue and roughness as with disking after harvest and
late-fall chiseling, a common sequence of operations in this production region. However, residue
occasionally bunched up on the ripper shanks and caused some plugging problems and subsequently reduced
stand establishment in those areas. Chisel shank plugging usually does not occur with the separate disk and
chisel operations because the fall chiseling is delayed until after rains and a harrowing operation to help pack
the residue and soil. With this combined disk-ripper operation, the residue was "fluffy" and dry, causing
more plugging problems. Areas with equipment plugging problems were avoided in the stand counts and
residue measurements.

Spring pre-tillage residue samples were taken on March 4 with 9.6 square ft. cable hoops. Two subsamples
were taken in each plot. Six-foot deep soil samples were taken at foot increments on March 9, 1994. Three
subsamples were taken per plot. The 6-foot samples were analyzed for nitrate nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen
in the top three feet, plant-available soil water, and other standard nutrient/soil property tests.

Spring field operations on all plots included: harrowing, field cultivation, shank fertilizer application (65 lb
N/A on 12-inch spacing), rod weeding, and seeding to Steptoe spring barley on March 15 with a
conventional International double-disk drill with 7-inch row spacings. Starter fertilizer of 16-20-0-0 was
applied at a rate of 50 lb/A. Both the field cultivator and fertilizer injector pulled some buried residue back
to the surface (observational, not measured). The surface residue was dry and brittle at seeding time,
allowing the disks to cut through the residue with little straw tucking in the seed furrow. A 0.3-inch rain
fell shortly after seeding. Stand counts were taken on May 3.

Preharvest samples of two rows one meter long were clipped near ground level one week before harvest.
Measurements included number of heads, total biomass weight, grain weight, and 1000 kernel weight.









Yield, lb/A, harvested 8 Aug 94.

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Plow 2090 2609 (2603) 2448 2437.5a
Disk-ripper 2565 2887 (1902) 2820 2757.3b
LSD(5%) 245
CV 2.7%

Spring pre-tillage surface residue level
(lb/A)

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Plow 1015 998 1487 1247 1186.8a
Disk-ripper 3278 4182 2706 3138 3326.0b
LSD(5%) 1304
CV 26%


Plant-available soil water (inches) in the top
3 feet, March 9, 1994.

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Plow 5.13 5.58 5.21 5.51 5.36a
Disk-ripper 6.30 6.16 5.73 5.94 6.03b
LSD(5%) 0.53
CV 4.2%

Percent surface residue after seeding, (four
50-ft line-point transects per plot on April 19

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Plow 35 46 50 46 44.3a
Disk-ripper 59 76 67 67 67.3b
LSD(5%) 8.71
CV 7.0%


Conclusion
The spring surface residue level in the disk-ripper plots was 2.8 times that following plowing (3326 vs 1187
lb/A). Percent surface residue after seeding spring barley was also significantly higher (67 vs 44%). It
should be noted that the level of surface residue following the uphill plowing is substantially higher than is
typically present after plowing if the plow furrow is turned down slope. The higher level of surface residue
under the disk-ripper significantly increased overwinter soil water storage (.64 inches) in the top 3 feet of
soil. There was no evidence of water loss from surface runoff overwinter or during barley establishment, so
the difference in soil water availability overwinter is due largely to evaporation. There were no significant
differences in nitrate nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, or total-plant-available soil water in the 6-foot profile.
The increased overwinter soil water storage, plus the possibility of continued lower soil water evaporation
(not measured) prior to barley canopy cover, probably allowed the significant yield increase (320 lb/A) with
the disk-ripper.

Data from the small pre-harvest samples indicated a higher trend in yield, residue production, and number of
kernels per head with the disk-ripper compared to the plow, although differences were not statistically
significant due to high variability between replications.

Surface residue levels will be determined on each plot through the 1995 winter wheat planting on summer
fallow to evaluate the effect of these 1993 primary tillage operations on subsequent water erosion potential.


Data







Burn/Minimum Till for Continuous Winter Wheat Production
Mark Lambert
with Roland Schirman, Columbia Co. Extension


Objective
To compare burn/minimum till versus standard fall tillage for continuous winter wheat production.

Location: Dayton, WA
Annual precipitation: 26 inches
Soil: Palouse silt loam
Rotation: Winter wheat

Treatments
Conventional tillage vs burn/minimum till

Comments
Tillage plots were reestablished over the 1993-94 tillage plot sites prior to September field bur. Fertilizer
was applied cross-slope at 90 lb/A with a heavy duty applicator. Madsen winter wheat was seeded using
conventional double disk drills. Lateness of fall rain delayed emergence beyond normal date for this
location. Heavy rain (nearly 2 inches) on frozen soil occurred December 31-January 1. Drought conditions
prevailed during the growing season.

Data


Wheat yield, bu/A

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Bur 58.8 37.5 57.8 51.4a
Till 53.0 39.6 50.5 47.7a
LSD(5%) 12.6
CV 7.2%


Soil Analysis, 24 Aug 94
Organic Matter Available Water Available Nitrogen
% inches Iblac
Rep Rep2 Rep3 Rep Rep2 Rep3 Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3

Bur 2.97 2.63 2.63 1.22 1.00 1.23 117 141 50
Till 2.37 2.23 2.68 1.60 .49 1.21 64 60 58


Conclusion
Although not statistically significant, a trend toward higher yield was observed in the burn/minimum till
treatment. No differences in soil organic matter levels could be measured. Residual nitrogen differences
cannot be explained.







Burn/Minimum Till for Continuous Winter Wheat Production
Jay Lyman
with Roland Schirman, Columbia Co. Extension

To compare burn/minimum till versus standard fall tillage for continuous winter wheat production.

Location: Dayton, WA
Annual precipitation: 22 inches
Soil: Athena silt loam
Rotation: Winter wheat


Treatments


Comments


Conventional tillage
Burn/minimum till


Tillage plots were reestablished over 1993-94 plots prior to September field burn. Fertilizer was
applied cross-slope at 80 lb/A with a heavy duty applicator. Madsen winter wheat was seeded
using conventional double disk drills. Lateness of fall rain delayed emergence beyond normal date
for this location. Heavy rain on frozen soil occurred December 31-January 1. Drought conditions
prevailed during the growing season.


Data


Wheat yield, bu/ac


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Average

Burn 26.3 23.1 24.7a
Till 20.0 19.3 19.7a
LSD(5%) 15.9
CV 5.6%

Soil Analysis, 24 Aug 94
Organic Matter Avail. Water Avail. Nitrogen
% inches Ib/ac
Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 1 Rep 2

Burn 2.11 2.18 1.28 2.03 63 86
Till 2.07 2.31 2.12 3.19 57 77


Conclusion
Although not statistically significant, a trend toward higher yield was observed in the burn/minimum till
treatment. Seed production of downy brome was much greater in the tillage plots. No differences in soil
organic matter levels could be measured. A trend toward better moisture extraction and nitrogen utilization
was also seen.


Objective







Stubble Management for Spring Barley in a Low Rainfall Zone
Skip Mead
with Roland Schirman, Columbia Co. Extension


Objective
Compare fall plow tillage versus spring burn for spring barley seedbed preparation

Location: Dayton, WA
Annual precipitation: 14 inches
Soil: Walla Walla silt loam
Previous crop: Winter wheat

Treatments
Fall plow
Spring bur

Comments
Plots 30 x 600 ft were established in October to compare fall plowed to spring burn-minimum till for recrop
spring barley production in a historically wheat/fallow rainfall zone. Heavy wheat residue was present
following an above average (70 bu) 1993 crop. A uniform rate of 40 lb N was applied to the site. Steptoe
barley was seeded March 4, 1994. Drought conditions occurred following seeding with only 7.8 inches
precipitation for the total growing season.

Data
Barley yield, lb/A

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Plow 343 427 403 407 395a
Bur 676 671 669 695 678b
LSD(5%) 60
CV 5%


Soil Analysis
Nitrate, lb/ac Available water Available water
March 1 March 1 May 13
Depth. ft. Plow Burn Plow Burn Plow Burn
1 16 20 1.80 1.74 0.37 0.26
2 12 17 1.31 1.33 0.30 0.35
3 10 10 0.52 0.69 0.27 0.37
4 7 8 0.27 0.33 0.23 0.24
Total 45 55 3.90 4.09 1.17 1.22


Conclusion
Because of drought, no strong conclusions can be made. The burn-min till did have better yield but is not
explained by improved overwinter moisture storage efficiency. Sampling times did not allow measurement of
moisture loss from spring tillage operations. This was not the year to recrop in this rainfall zone.







Methods for Red Clover Incorporation
Richard Grant
with Larry Smith, Nez Perce Co. Extension

Objective
To evaluate two different methods of killing and incorporating a red clover green manure crop.

Location: Culdesac, Idaho
Annual precipitation: 20 inches
Soil: Silt loam
Rotation: 5 year: summerfallow, wheat, pea, red clover, wheat

Treatments
Plow-kill incorporation
Spray-kill incorporation

Comments
The plots were 36 by 300 ft. Infiltration data for this test were reported in the 1993 Pacific Northwest On-
Farm Test Results. Only the yield data and a summary of the soil test data will be presented here. For a
more complete summary, contact the Nez Perce County, Idaho Extension Office.

Data
Grain yield, bu/ac

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Plow 103 83 83 90a
Spray 58 75 61 65a
LSD(5%) 46
CV 17%

Conclusion
There was a large amount of variation in the yield data, producing a high CV. The 25 bu/ac yield difference
is not statistically significant unless the probability of a wrong conclusion is raised to 15% (LSD(15%) instead
of LSD(5 %)). The yield difference is consistently in favor of the plow treatment, and this hints that the plow-
kill treatment might be proven to produce greater yields if this test had more replications or if the test were
repeated.

Soil test evaluations for the two red clover kill and incorporation methods indicate that macronutrients,
micronutrients, organic matter and percent moisture content were higher in the plow-kill-incorporation
method when compared to the herbicide-kill and incorporate method. It is likely that the higher nitrogen level
at planting and throughout the growing season, coupled with higher water infiltration rate, moisture
percentage, and nutrient levels accounts for the 25 bu/ac higher wheat yield and the 1.0 lb/bu test weight
advantage for the plow killed incorporation method. This trial was an effective investigation of red clover
plowdown management using on-farm test methods.








No-till Seeding Applications on Various Residue Conditions
John W. Burns, Whitman Co. Extension; Bruce Davis, Palouse Conservation District
with John Howell, Stewart Wuest, and Don McCool
Objective
To evaluate annual no-till seeding applications on various residue conditions over a six year
cropping system.

Location: Pullman, WA Annual precipitation: 20+ inches
Rotation: historical- Winter wheat/spring barley/spring wheat or dry peas
desired- Spring wheat/winterwheat/spring wheat

Treatments
1B Burn Stubble and No-till Seed
2B Disc Stubble, Burn and No-till Seed
3B Burn Stubble, No-till Seed and Deep Chisel
4S No-till Seed into standing Stubble
5S Disc Stubble and No-till Seed
6S No-till Seed in Standing Stubble and Chisel

Comments
Winter Wheat was no-till seeded into spring wheat stubble in October 1994. The spring wheat
had been severely damaged by Hessian fly during the 1993 growing season. Late burn treatments made
in October 1993 resulted in residue levels which averaged 17% compared to an average of 46.6% for
non-burned treatments.
Total precipitation for the 1994 growing season (September 1993-August 1994) was
approximately 50% below the 30 year average (11 inches compared to 21 inches). The below normal
precipitation coupled with Hessian fly infestations in the 1994 winter wheat crop reduced yields by over
50% for all treatments. The yield range from 14.4 to 34.8 bushels per acre should be compared to an
expected proven yield of over 60 bushels per acre for this farm. A field evaluation made on May 13,
1994 showed that the winter wheat crop was almost entirely decimated. Significant rainfall the week
following salvaged the crop allowing late developing tillers to mature.
The Chisel Treatment (included in 3B & 6S) was designed to chisel on a 12 foot spacing on the
contour of slopes to provide a "channel" for surface water to be trapped upon run-off. This treatment
was not applied during 1993 -1994 crop year due to equipment non-availability. Values for all
treatments which were designed for the post seed chisel treatment are averaged with either burn & seed
(1B) or no-till & seed (4S) in the 1994 yield results.

Residue cover, %. Treatment labels marked with Yield of winter wheat, bu/ac. Treatment labels
the same numeral are treatments which were marked with the same numeral are treatments
identical, because the chiseling was not which were identical, because the chiseling was
performed. not performed.


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average


1B' 20 8.2 15 14.4
3B' 8.8 10.2 8.6 9.2
2B 11.4 41.8 29.0 27.4
5S 38.2 47.8 21.4 35.8
452 59.4 46.6 62.6 56.2
6S2 43.6 47.6 52.2 47.8


1B' 30.3 31.1 22.7 28.0
3B' 31.8 14.4 34.8 27.0
2B 20.5 18.9 29.0 22.8
5S 20.5 30.3 34.0 28.3
4S2 26.5 31.1 31.1 29.6
6S2 28.0 27.3 27.7







Conclusion

1. Residue influences. Residue cover had no influence on winter wheat yields. Residue levels
from the Hessian fly infested 1993 spring wheat crop were reduced to an average of 11.8%
where stubble was burned. Even at this level, the limited precipitation during the crop year did
not result in any soil erosion. (Chart 1)

2. Yield reductions related to additive effect of tillage and burning. The only noticeable
possible trend in yield reduction occurred when a discing operation was combined with burning
prior to seeding. All yield differences are nonsignificant. During a moisture deficit crop year,
the practices (disc and bur) are speculated to have enhanced moisture loss from the seed zone
prior to planting and left minimal cover to prevent moisture loss during the spring. The
additive effect of these operations was more severe than either of the treatments alone. (Chart
2)

3. Research trial continuation. This trial will continue for an additional five years. The 1995
crop is scheduled to be seeded to spring wheat.

CHART 1: Residue Cover Had Little Influence
on 1994 Winter Wheat Yields

Percent Residue Cover Bushels per Acre
60% 30
se S t- -- .. . _-. Wheat Y3ild
50% .- ... ---- -. '. 25
40% - - ........ . .. . .. .... ........ 20
30% ....... ..... ......... .... 27,4% ..... ..... .... 15
: Percent residue Cover -
20% 10
1 0 % ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .

0%-0









CHART 2: Winter Wheat Yields Dropped Off Substantially In A Dry Year
When Tillage Was Combined With Burning

Bushels per Acre
28.8 28.2 27.5

25
20
15
10

0 t
SOF







Dammer Diker Versus Chisel for Fall Tillage
Ben Alexander
with Lawrence Brown, WSU

Objective
Compare reservoir tillage versus chisel for fall stubble treatment before summerfallow.

Location: Reardan, WA
Annual precipitation: 15 inches
Rotation: Oats

Treatments
Chisel 9 inches deep on 16 inch centers
Dammer Diker 13 inches deep on 36 inch centers

Comments
The Dammer Diker is a subsoiler followed by a paddle wheel which creates pits that could potentially
increase water infiltration. The plots were 60 by 602 ft. The Diker and chisel treatments were applied to oat
stubble the fall before summer fallow. Rely club wheat was planted the fall following summer fallow, and 24
ft strips were harvested from the center of each plot for yield.

Data
Yield, bu/ac

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Chisel 17.1 16.3 15.1 17.0 16.4a
Diker 15.3 15.5 15.6 13.9 15.la
LSD(5%) 2.4
CV 6.9%


Conclusion
There was very little potential for runoff during the winter before fallow, so we would not expect the fall
tillage to have much effect. Yield, protein and test weight did not differ between treatments. Average protein
was 11.3%, and average test weight was 57.9 lb/bu.







Modified Subsoiler Versus Uphill Moldboard Plow
David Ostheller
with Stewart Wuest

Objective
Compare aggressive subsoiling with rough uphill plowing of wheat stubble for soil and water
conservation.

Location: Fairfield, WA
Annual precipitation: 21 inches
Rotation: Wheat/lentil

Treatments
Plow 8 inch deep uphill plowing leaving some of straw on surface
Subsoil Modified R&R subsoiler, 18 inches deep leaving most of straw on surface

Comments
The treatments were performed in the fall on 80 bushel wheat stubble. This is the first year of a multiple
year test, and the first data is the lentil yield. Plots are 100 ft wide and extend 400 ft up and over a small
ridge. The tillage was performed on the contour (across the plots). A 17.5 ft swath was cut and
weighed using portable truck scales at harvest.

Data
Lentil yields, lb/ac

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Plow 1901 1353 368 1339 1240a
Subsoil 1705 736 1227 979 1162a
LSD(5%) 1032
CV 38.2%


Conclusion
There was a lot of variability in the lentil stand. Next season the field will be planted to wheat and
erosion and residue differences over winter will be observed and measured.







Returning CRP Land to Spring Wheat
George Young
with Timothy Walters, Baird Miller and Roger Veseth

Objective
Develop BMP's for optimizing tillage methods and returning CRP land back to a
rotation of spring wheat summer fallow winter wheat.

Location: Starbuck, WA Annual precipitation: 14 inches
Soil series: Walla Walla silt loam Field history: Crested Wheatgrass for 8 years
Treatments
1. Plow disc fertilize skewtread plant
2. Burn sweep fertilize skewtread plant
3. Sweep disc fertilize skewtread plant
4. Disc disc fertilize skewtread plant

Comments
In the spring 1994, a large-scale CRP take-out study was established near Starbuck, WA in a CRP field
that has been in crested wheatgrass for 8 years, on a Walla Walla silt loam soil with an average rainfall of
14 inches. The treatments included: 1) Plow disc fertilize skewtread plant; 2) Burn sweep -
fertilize skewtread plant; 3) Sweep disc fertilize skewtread plant; and 4) Disc disc fertilize -
skewtread plant. Plot size was 32' X 850' with 4 reps. Initial residues taken on 12 March 94 and
levels averaged 6556 lbs/acre with a range of 2227 and 10,202 lbs/acre. Roundup was sprayed on all
plots on 12 March 94 at 16 oz/acre prior to any tillage. Soil samples taken on 15 March 94 to 4' showed
total N to be 97 Ibs/acre, P at 18 ppm, K at 515 ppm and S to 3' at 7 ppm. The plot was fertilized on 16
March 94 with 70-15-0-15 and planted with Penawawa spring wheat at a rate of 80 lbs/acre on 20 Mar
94. MCPA was sprayed on 4 May 94 at a rate of 0.75 lbs/acre. Line point residues readings were taken
on 19 Apr 94. Dryland foot rot readings were taken on 23 June 94, and the plots were harvested on 14
July 94.

Table 1. Results from spring CRP take-out study at Starbuck, WA, 1994.
Treatments Residue Plant Stand Tillers Infected with Yield Test Weight
Cover (%) (plants/ftz) Dryland Footrot (%) (bu/ac) (lbs/bu)

1. plow-disc 15.2b 7.4b 16. b 18.14b 54.1b

2. bur-sweep 10.2a 7.7b 15.5b 17.89b 52.8a

3. sweep-disc 54.7c 5.5a 2.9a 14.53a 53.5ab

4. disc-disc 57.9c 5.5a 3.la 14.37a 53.2a

LSD(10%) 3.3 0.7 4.1 2.04 0.72

CV 20% 16% 118% 9.7% 1.0%

Conclusion
The low initial soil water content in the upper 4' foot profile (on average 5.5 inches) and less than 3" of
rainfall during the growing season resulted in yields much lower than our yield goals of 35 bu/ac. The
plow-disc and burn-sweep treatments had the lowest final residue cover and highest plant stand. These
treatments appeared to use the moisture more rapidly, increasing the incidence of dryland footrot. The
low residue plow-disc and burn-sweep treatments had significantly higher grain yields.








Use of Notched Packer on Deep Furrow Drills
Dwaine Klein and Stewart Wuest
with Don McCool

Objective
Compare standard HZ deep-furrow seeding versus seeding with notched packers for erosion control.

Location: Edwall, WA
Soil: Bagdad silt loam
Rotation: Standard summer fallow in 1993

Treatments
Standard HZ drill
Notched packer HZ drill

Comments
This test compared a standard HZ deep-furrow drill to the same drill with modified pack wheels. The
modification is a notch in each packer which forms a dam in the bottom of the furrows and has the potential
to reduce runoff. The treatments were put in using the Klein's planter with notched packers and another drill
of the same model without modified packers. Since the standard drill was not equipped to place fertilizer
with the seed, he did not apply starter fertilizer to the notched-packer plots as is his normal practice. The
plots were laid out as side-by-side passes of the 34 ft drills, running down a 6 to 11 % slope. The Alutin
method was used to measure rill erosion on 29 Mar 94. Measurements in notched packer plots were taken
between dams. Measurements were taken 150 ft and 300 ft from the top of the ridge. The transect was 12.5
ft, which covered 11 furrows at an angle matching the ridge. (One square inch of rill cross section equals
one ton/ac soil loss.

Data

Rill erosion, tons/a, measured 150 ft from Rill erosion, tons/a, measured 300 ft from
top of slope top of slope


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Average

Notched 5.60 4.60 3.80 4.00 3.30 4.26a
Standard 4.60 1.90 4.50 4.50 3.10 3.72a
LSD(5%) 1.71a
CV 24.45%


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Average

Notched 6.20 6.90 4.90 5.90 7.50 6.28a
Standard 3.70 8.60 5.70 7.90 9.80 7.14a
LSD(5%) 2.43
CV 20.66%


Conclusion
The average soil loss at 150 ft below the ridge was 4.1 tons/ac (range 1.9-5.6). At 300 ft, loss averaged 7.2
tons/ac (range 3.7-11.5). Statistically and practically there was no significant difference between notched
packer and standard packer in terms of soil erosion. Coefficient of variation was reasonable for this type of
measurement. This test demonstrates that notched packer is not a surefire cure for erosion or runoff, but the
dams have been observed to perform well at other times. The soil conditions in this study may have been
poorer than normal. The notched packer should be tested further.







Comparison of Chisel and Moldboard Plowing in a Wheat-Fallow Rotation
Charles Hemphill
with Mike Stoltz, Don Wysocki, and Dan Ball, OSU Extension

Objective
Compare crop performance and yield of two different tillage systems

Location: Pilot Rock, Umatilla County, Oregon
Annual Precipitation: 12 inches
Elevation: 1500 feet
Soil: Pilot Rock silt loam, 1 to 7% slope, soil depth is about 30 inches
Rotation: Winter wheat-fallow

Treatments
Plow Moldboard plow, field cultivate, rodweed 3X, HZ deep furrow seed
Chisel Chisel plow straight points, field cultivate, rodweed 3X, cheat stop inversion, HZ
deep furrow seed.

Comments
This is the second crop season for this on-farm trial; it was started in 1991-1992 crop season. Plots
were summer fallow in 1993. Madsen winter wheat was sown on 28 September 93 at 70 lb/ac and
harvested on 26 July 1994. Downy brome pressure in all plots was moderate, cheat stop had
limited control in chisel treatment. Stand establishment was good. Crop was drought-stressed in
May and June. Plow treatment received 1.5 pt bronate/ac on March 29 for broadleaf weed control.
Chisel treatment received only cheat stop in the fall. Plots were 40 by 400 ft. Data from both
years of the trial are presented.

Data
1992 Yield (bu/ac) from 20 by 400 ft strips 1994 Yield (bu/ac) from 20 by 400 ft strips


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average


Plow 34.1 36.2 32.2 42.8 36.3a
Chisel 32.9 38.2 40.8 42.0 38.5a
LSD(5%) 7.2
CV 8.6%


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average


Plow 44.9 46.8 49.9 54.4 48.9b
Chisel 43.4 43.1 41.4 46.2 43.5a
LSD(5%) 5.3
CV 5.1%


Conclusion
The crop suffered drought stress during late spring and summer. The soil is shallow and rainfall
was below normal. Timely rains helped raise yields to near average. The plow treatment had
higher yields in 1994 because of deeper soil in this area of the field.







Subsoiling for Increased Water Storage for Summer Fallow
on Sodic Soils in Asotin County
Doug McMillan
with WA Conservation Commission, Brian Sangster, Gary Delaney,
Baird Miller, Jim Schroeder

Objective
To test the effectiveness and timing of subsoiling to improve moisture infiltration and water
conservation on sodic soils. The test will compare subsoiling in the fall prior to summer fallow
versus subsoiling in the fall prior to seeding winter wheat.

Location: Asotin County, WA Cloverland
Average annual precipitation: 13 inches
Soil: Weissenfels-Nims silt loam 3-8%
Rotation: Winter wheat-fallow

Treatments
Subsoil in fall before summer fallow
Subsoil in fall after summer fallow and before seeding
Check

Comments
All plots were chiseled following harvest for Russian thistle control in 1993. The first subsoiling
treatment in the fall before summer fallow was performed on September 15, 1993 at a depth of 20" on 2'
centers. The entire field was chiseled in the spring to a depth of 10". The field was cultiweeded 3 times
during the summer fallow period of 1994. The field was fertilized with 65 lbs N and 10 lbs S per acre.
The second treatment, subsoiling in the fall after summer fallow and before seeding, will be performed in
the fall of 1994 when adequate soil moisture is present. Then the field will be seeded to winter wheat in
the fall if adequate moisture is present or in the spring wheat if fall moisture is not adequate to establish a
winter wheat crop.

Data
Total available soil moisture to a depth of 2' on March 19,
1994, inches

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Subsoil before
summerfallow 3.0 2.9 3.3 3.3 3.la
Subsoil before
seeding 3.1 3.3 2.9 3.6 3.2a
Check 3.4 3.4 4.0 3.7 3.6a
LSD(5%) 0.4
CV 7.5%


Conclusion
Extremely drought conditions through last winter and the summer fallow year showed no advantage to
subsoiling these soil types.







Subsoiling for Increased Water Storage for Summer Fallow System
Mark Appleford
with Jim Schroeder, Brian Sangster, Gary Delaney, Baird Miller,
Lewiston Diesel and Machine

Objective
To test the effectiveness of the M&W Earthmaster subsoiler in improving soil moisture conditions
and winter wheat crop in higher rainfall area of Asotin County.

Location: Anatone, WA Montgomery Ridge
Average annual precipitation: 19 inches
Soil: Geoconda-Powwahkee Complex 3-6% slopes
Rotation: Winter wheat/summer fallow

Treatments
Fall chisel
Fall subsoil

Comments
Subsoiling was performed on October 1, 1993. An M&W subsoiler with straight points at 24" centers
was utilized. This implement also had a straight cutting disk gang in front of the subsoiler which was
hydraulically operated independently of the subsoiler. This aided in handling heavy Hill 81 straw from
the previous crop. Subsoiling was performed at a 12" depth. Chiseling was performed shortly after the
subsoiling. Chiseling was done at a depth of 8 inches. The field was then disked on May 9th and
cultivated on June 28th. Rodweeding was performed twice on July 18th and October 17th, following
fertilization. On October 18th 75 lbs of N and 10 lbs of S were applied. On October 20th Hyak club
wheat was drilled into dry soil dust with deep furrow drills at 10" spacing.

Data
Total available soil moisture prior to Total available soil moisture prior to fall
summer fallow (March 24, 1994) in the top seeding (Sept 20, 1994) in the top 3' of soil,
3' of soil, inches inches


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Chisel 9.0 8.7 9.2 9.3 9.0a
Subsoil 9.7 8.2 8.4 8.8 8.8a
LSD(5%) 1.06
CV 5.3%


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Chisel 5.8 7.1 7.9 7.1 7.0a
Subsoil 7.7 7.8 6.8 7.2 7.4a
LSD(5%) 2.0
CV 12.3%


Conclusions
Extremely drought conditions experienced this year showed very little advantage to the subsoiling
practice. The subsoiled plots averaged .25" more moisture in the 2nd and 3rd foot than the chiseled plots
at seeding time. Over two inches plus of moisture was lost during the summer fallow year.







Comparing Fall Tillage Options for Improving Moisture Infiltration
Lynn Ausman
with Jim Schroeder, Brian Sangster, Gary Delaney, and Baird Miller

Objective
Determine if fall tillage treatments following winter wheat production will improve soil water
infiltration and the following winter wheat yields.


Location: Asotin Co, WA, Anatone Flat
Rotation: winter wheat-summer fallow


Average annual precipitation: 15"
Soil: Pataha-Niessenberg silt loam and Stember silt loam


Treatments
Check no fall tillage
Fall chisel
Fall subsoil
Comments
Six ounce/ac Roundup was sprayed before the stubble was lightly disked (1-2 inch depth). The fall chisel
plots were then chiseled to eight inches on one-foot spacing with straight points. The subsoil plots were
subsoiled to 13 inches on 30 inch spacing. In the spring all three treatments received a Roundup
application followed six weeks later by chiseling 6 to 8 inches deep. In August, cultivation and fertilizer
application were performed in one operation. Fertilizer rates were 45 lb N, 10 lb K, and 10 lb S per
acre. Stephens winter wheat was planted with a Great Plains deep furrow drill with 15" row spacing.
Starter fertilizer was 10 lb N, 12 lb P, and 1 qt "super starter" micronutrient per acre. In the spring
Uran (5 lb N/ac) and "harvest plus" micronutrient was applied. The plot size was 40' x 2000'. The plots
were harvested July 25, 1994.

Data


Available soil moisture (inches) on 4 Oct 93,
in top 2 feet. This sample was taken in fall
following the fallow period.

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Check 4.9 4.4 4.8 6.0 5.0a
Fall chisel 5.1 4.7 5.9 5.1 5.2a
Fall subsoil 4.7 3.9 5.8 4.7 4.8a
LSD(5%) 0.9
CV 10.5%

Winter wheat yield, bu/ac

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Check 48.5 50.7 51.0 47.5 49.4b
Fall chisel 43.5 44.3 48.2 48.4 46.1a
Fall subsoil 45.0 46.6 48.0 47.1 46.7ab
LSD(5%) 2.8
CV 3.4%


Total available soil moisture (inches) on 18
Mar 94, in the top 2 feet during the winter
wheat crop.

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Check 4.8 4.2 4.7 6.4 5.0a
Fall chisel 4.5 4.8 4.7 5.2 4.8a
Fall subsoil 5.2 4.7 4.9 5.4 5.la
LSD(5%) 0.7
CV 8.8%


Conclusion
During the drought years that this study was conducted, there doesn't appear to be any improvement in
soil moisture by either fall chiseling or fall subsoiling. The final winter wheat yields tended to be lower
with the chisel or subsoil treatment when compared to the check.







Packing Summer Fallow Before Seeding Wheat: Agronomic
Benefits and Environmental Concerns
Bill Schillinger and Harry Schafer, WSU Ritzville
with Grant Miller and Ron Jirava

Objective
To determine the effects of compressing the dry surface soil mulch of summer fallow with a
coil packer on seedzone water content, soil bulk density, winter wheat emergence, and soil
susceptibility to wind erosion.

1993 1994
Location: Ritzville, WA Lind, WA
Annual precipitation: 11 inches 9 inches
Soil: Ritzville silt loam Shano sandy loam
Cropping System: Wheat-Fallow Wheat-Fallow

Treatments
Check no packing
Coil packed

Field Operations
1993: Coil packing was conducted on August 25. Plots were seeded to Lewjain at 35 lb/ac on August 27
with HZ split-packer drills (16" row spacing). Plots were seeded at two depths: shallow approximately
4" and; deep approximately 6". There were six replications.

1994: Plots were coil packed on August 29 and seeded to Lewjain at 35 lb/acre
on August 30 with International split-packer drills (18" row spacing). Seeding conditions were marginal.
The drills were set to place seed as deep as possible. Plots were replicated six times.

Results
Soil Bulk Density. In 1993, coil packing significantly increased soil bulk density (i.e. the weight of dry soil
per unit volume) between the 2.5 and 5" soil depths (Fig. 1). In 1994, the dry surface soil mulch layer was
thin, overlying a high bulk density layer. Because the loose surface layer was so thin, coil packing had no
effect on soil bulk density (Fig. 2).

Wheat Seedling Emergence 1993: With shallow seeding, there were significant differences in the number of
plants emerged between 7 and 9 days after planting (DAP) (Table 1). This would have been important, for
example, if a crusting rain had occurred between 7 and 9 DAP. For 10 DAP onwards there were no
differences in seedling emergence nor final stand establishment between treatments. With deep seeding, coil
packing resulted in significantly better seedling emergence on all sampling dates as well as the best final stand
establishment (Table 2). The reason for these differences in not clear, although roll-back of large soil clods
into the furrow may have hindered seedling emergence in control plots. Note: Because of the excellent
seeding conditions in 1993, deep seeding was somewhat of an "artificial" treatment.

1994: Coil packing had no effect on wheat seedling emergence in 1994 (Fig. 3). The hard tillage pan
impeded penetration of the grain drill points into the soil, and seed placement averaged only 1.8" below the
pan created by the rodweeder in both packed and control plots.


Soil Clods and Residue. Coil packing reduced the number and weight of clods in all size groups both years
(Fig. 4 and Fig. 5) The proportion of clod reduction with coil packing was similar for both the Ritzville and








Shano soil types. Clods are especially difficult to maintain on the coarse-textured Shano soil due to lack of
soil structure and low (< 1%) organic matter. There was a large quantity of surface residue remaining on the
Shano soil at the end of the fallow cycle at Lind in 1994. Coil packing significantly reduced surface residue
from 1124 lb/acre to 722 lb/acre.


Yield Components and Crop Characteristics. In the 1993-94 crop year, packing increased grain yield about 5
bu/acre over the control treatment in both deep seeded and shallow seeded plots (Table 2). The yield
difference was primarily due to more heads per unit length of row in packed plots (Table 2). Of interest,
grain yield with deep seeding exceeded that of shallow seeded plots for both packed and control treatments.


Summary
In 1993, coil packing a thick, low-bulk density soil mulch significantly increased wheat seedling emergence
and benefited grain yield. In 1994, on a soil with a thin mulch layer overlying a high-bulk density tillage
layer, there were no effects of coil packing on soil bulk density nor wheat seedling emergence. Packing
rendered the soil more vulnerable to wind erosion at both locations by burying residue and reducing clod
mass. In our opinion, the coil packer should: 1) always be used judiciously, and 2) not used when the soil
surface is already deficient in clods and/or residue.


Table 1. Wheat seedling emergence (plants per 3 ft of row) on several sampling dates
as affected by coil packing prior to fall seeding in 1993.


Shallow Seeding
DAP t Control Coil Packed Sig.
7 0.2 1.8 **
8 10.8 18.9 ***
9 26.0 31.8 *
10 35.5 38.3 NS
11 37.1 39.5 NS
12 36.9 39.8 NS
18 36.1 38.9 NS


Deep Seeding
DAP Control Coil Packed Sig.
8 0.2 1.4 *
9 6.2 13.1 **
10 20.7 30.0 **
11 24.8 32.1 **
12 26.4 33.6 **
18 26.7 33.2 *


t Days after planting
*,**,*** Significant emergence differences at the 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 probability levels,
respectively, for each sampling depth. NS = not significant.


Table 2. Yield components and crop characteristics of Lewjain winter wheat in the 1993-94 season.

COMPONENT Packed-Deep Control-Deep Packed-Shallow Control-Shallow Sig. CV LSD
Seeded Seeded Seeded Seeded (%)
Grain Yield (bu/acre) 58.4 53.0 53.6 48.6 4.9 7.9
Kernels per head 30.1 31.5 28.0 29.2 NS 9.2
1000 grain weight (g) 36.6 37.0 34.6 33.7 ..* 5.2 2.3
Heads per 3 ft of row 145.3 125.3 151.8 134.8 11.9 20.5
Residue (Ib/acre) 4578 4036 4302 3891 NS 5.2
Harvest index (HI) 43.4 44.0 42.9 42.8 NS 1.8


NS = no significant differences
S = significant at 10% level
* = significant at 5% level
"* = significant at 1% level
HI = (grain yield/total above-ground dry matter) x 100



















0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
BULK DENSITY (Mg m'3)
Figure 1. Soil bulk density as affected by packing in 1993.
*, **, ***, significant differences at the 0.05, 0.01, and
0.001 probability levels, respectively. NS = not significant.

S40
o 1994
S35 "-- control
o
o- 30 A-A packed
C0
25
,L 20
CD
0 15
Z
5 10
-J
05
w
co 0 i


0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
BULK DENSITY (Mg m-3)
Figure 2. Soil bulk density in 1994 as affected by packing.


DAYS AFTER PLANTING
Figure 3. Wheat seedling emergence as affected by
packing in 1994.


5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
CLOD SIZE (cm)
Figure 5. Clod weight (tons/acre) as affected by packing
in 1994.


S1994
*-* Control
--A Packed




SEEDZONE


o
(c





S1993.

0
0
F-



Figure 4.
in 1993.


5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213141516
CLOD SIZE (cm)
Clod weight (tons/acre) as affected by packing


15 3n








Kodiak Seed-Treatment for Lentil
Kenneth and David Wilken
with Larry Smith, Nez Perce Co. Extension

Objective
Test Kodiak biological seed treatment on lentil.

Location: Kendrick, Idaho
Annual precipitation: 22 inches
Rotation: Wheat, garbanzo, wheat (no lentils for 10 years)

Treatments
Kodiak lentil seed treated with Kodiak and Rhizobium innoculum
Check Rhizobium innoculation only

Comments
Kodiak is a biological seed dressing intended for root disease control. This field has a history of
Aphanomyces root rot, and had not been planted to lentils for ten years. The lentil variety was Red Chief and
they were planted the third week of March.

Data
Yield, Ib/ac


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Average

Kodiak 2079 2013 2060 2399 2132 2137a
Check 2343 2046 2096 2445 2305 2247a
LSD(5%) 129
CV 3.4%


Conclusion
There was not a significant difference in yield. The CV was very low and there was only about 100 lb/ac
difference between treatments, so the data is very persuasive, however, there also was no evidence of disease
during the growing season.







Seed Treatment Comparison on Colter Barley
Davern Riggers, Carrey Newman, Bill Flory, John Herman
with Great Western Malting Co.; Larry Smith, Nez Perce Co. Extension

Objective
Compare Vitavax 200 seed treatment versus Baytan seed treatment at four locations.

Location: Melrose, Cavendish, Winchester, and Genesee, Idaho
Annual precipitation: Range: 14 to 25 inches over locations
Rotation: Wheat/barley or wheat/barley/pea

Treatments
Vitavax 200
Baytan

Comments
Baytan's systemic activity will curtail stripe rust race 24 for six weeks after emergence. It is an inexpensive
first line of defense, since we have no resistant varieties available to date. This data will be important when
stripe rust race 24 becomes epidemic. The main question is whether Baytan reduces tillering and/or reduces
yield. There were no significant disease or insect problems in the tests. Drought in June and July reduced
yields and grain quality. One replication was placed at each location using Colter spring malting barley.

Data
Yield of Colter barley, lb/ac

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Vitavax 2464 4104 2376 3268 3053a
Baytan 2368 4408 1945 3420 3035a
LSD(5%) 510
CV 7.5%


Conclusion
Across the four locations there were no significant differences at the 5% confidence level for either grain
yield or number of tillers. Test weight and protein were also not different.







Regular Versus Reduced Herbicide Rates for Spring Barley
Eugene Butler
with Larry Smith, Nez Perce Co. Extension

Objective
Compare weed control and yield in spring barley treated with regular versus reduced herbicide rates.

Location: Culdesac, Idaho
Annual precipitation: 20 inches
Rotation: Pea, wheat, barley

Treatments
Reduced rate 0.20 pint/ac MCPA applied in water adjusted to pH 4.2 using citric acid
Regular rate 0.75 pint/ac MCPA (unadjusted water, pH 7.0)

Comments
The MCPA was applied on 5 May 94 to Harrington barley. Weed pressure was light, and there were no
significant insect or disease problems. The plots were 50 by 800 ft. The regular herbicide rate was applied
with unadjusted well water. The pH of the well water was adjusted to 4.2 before applying the reduced
herbicide rate. An application of Roundup six days prior to planting for quackgrass control may have
impacted weed pressure. By visual observation, there were good levels of weed control for both treatments.

Data
Barley yield, lb/ac

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Reduced 2239 1755 2662 2219a
Regular 2178 1876 2602 2219a
LSD(5%) 260
CV 3.3%

Conclusion
The regular and reduced rate of MCPA revealed no significant differences in grain yield of barley. Weed
control in the two treatments may have been different without the preplant Roundup treatment.







Reduced Herbicide Rate on Winter Wheat
Cecil Martin
with Larry Smith, Nez Perce Co. Extension

Objective
Test effect of reduced herbicide rate on weeds and yield of winter wheat.

Location: Culdesac, Idaho
Annual precipitation: 18 inches
Rotation: Wheat/pea

Treatments
Harmony Extra Bronate Hoelon Excel 90 spreader StaPut

Regular rate 0.4 oz 1 pt 1 pt 3.2 oz 1.6 oz
Reduced rate 0.2 oz 1 pt 12 pt 3.2 oz 1.6 oz

Comments
The pH of the water used for the reduced rate application was lowered to 4.9 with citric acid, while the water
used for the regular rate treatment was left at pH 7.0. The weed spectrum was mustard, tar weed, wild oat,
gromwell, lambsquarter, and starthistle. Weed pressure, rated from 0 to 100% ground cover inside a
randomly placed two-square-foot hoop, was 80, 80 and 50% for the reduced rate plots, and 70, 60, and 40%
in the regular rate plots. These ratings were performed on 15 April 94, the same day as the plots were
sprayed. The temperature was 68 F and the wheat was at Feke's 4 and 8.5 inches tall. The weeds were 1 to
3 inches tall. Wind direction was lengthwise to plots at 10 mph. A 10 square ft tarp was placed in each plot
for weed control/suppression comparison. Plots were 22 by 300 ft.

Data
Yield, bu/ac


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Regular 22 33 33 29a
Reduced 20 32 33 28a
LSD(5%) 2.5
CV 2.5%


Conclusion
There was no significant difference in grain yield between regular and reduced rate herbicide applications.







Night Tillage for Weed Control
Davern Riggers
with Larry Smith, Nez Perce Co. Extension

Objective
Determine if reducing exposure of weed seeds to light will help control weeds in crops.

Location: Culdesac, Idaho
Annual precipitation: 22 inches
Soil: Silt loam
Previous crops: Wheat, pea, spring barley, winter barley

Treatments
Day tillage 3 cultivations under normal conditions
Night tillage 3 cultivations at night. Cultivator was covered with a plastic tarp and front and rear
tractor lights were used.

Comments
The fall barley stubble was worked up in the spring. After the day and night tillage treatments were
performed all plots were planted to Harrington spring barley in the daylight. No herbicides were applied to
either the day or night treatment plots. Weeds were counted at six locations within each plot. Plot size was
36 by 500 ft.

Data
Yield, lb/ac


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Day 1912 2380 2301 2197a
Night 2336 2867 2053 2418a
LSD(5%) 1012
CV 12%


Weed emergence. Source: Joan M. Campbell, Larry Smith,
and Donn Thill

Time of Field Redroot Mayweed Total
cultivation pennycress pigweed chamomile Henbit weeds
.---------------------plants/yd2---------

Night 8 1 23 10 42
Day 12 3 35 16 67

Prob > F' 0.18 0.01 0.38 0.03 0.01

SProbability of a greater "F" value according to nonparametric analysis of variance
(values below 0.05 would be equivalent to significant at LSD(5 %))


Conclusion


There was no significant grain yield difference between day and night treatments. Weed
counts measured an average of 37% fewer weeds in the night tilled plots.







Nitrogen Rates for Winter Wheat Grown in Different Rotations in Western Oregon
Ron Lewis, Tim VanLeeuwen, Lincoln Volker with Kevin Sebastian and Russ Karow


Objective: To evaluate the nitrogen requirement of winter wheat grown after different
rotational crops in western Oregon.


Growers, Location, Rotation Crop, N rates:
Grower Location Rotation
Crop


Spring N rates
lb/a


Ron Lewis Amity, OR red clover 0, 50, 100, 150 Madsen
Tim VanLeeuwen Halsey, OR tall fescue 0, 60, 120, 180 Gene
Lincoln Volker Monroe, OR green peas 0, 50, 100, 150 Gene
Lincoln Volker Monroe, OR sweet corn 0, 50, 100, 150 Gene

Wheat crops were established in test fields in the fall of 1993 and test plots were established in
the spring with a single application of nitrogen fertilizer at the late tillering stage. Nitrogen was
applied with field equipment in either liquid or dry form. Plots ranged in size from 25 to 40
feet wide and 300 to 500 feet long. Three replications were used at all locations. No lodging
was observed in any plots. Zero N plots could be visually identified through the remainder of
the growing season, but other N rates could not be distinguished. Winter weather was
unusually warm and dry and mineralization rates are known to have been quite high. Plots
were combine harvested. Grain was weighed in a weigh wagon. Kevin Sebastian, a master
student in Crop and Soil Science at Oregon State University, is doing detailed nitrogen budgets
for each of the sites.

Data: See table 1.

Conclusions:

From a statistical standpoint, there was a difference in yield between the zero N plots and the
first N rate, and at two sites, a difference between the highest and next lowest rate. Middle
rates were not different. These data suggest that the first increment of nitrogen may be all that
is needed and, given the type of winter weather in 1993-94, even without nitrogen more than
85 bushel per acre yields are possible. Soil test data and economic analysis will further clarify
results. Similar trials will be conducted in 1994-95.


Wheat
variety







Table 1. Winter wheat yields in different Western Oregon
crop rotations. Preliminary results from field trials 1994.
Yield Height Test
N Rate (bu/a) (in.) Wgt.

Gene wheat following tall fescue
0 100 34.4 59.9
60 135 37.2 59.8
120 136 37.0 59.8
180 152 38.0 60.0
Trial Avg. 130.7
PLSD (5%) 15.7
CV 6
P-level 0.00

Gene wheat following peas
0 132 38.1 58.0
50 143 37.8 58.2
100 150 37.3 58.1
150 155 37.8 58.1
Trial Avg. 145.1
PLSD (5%) 9.8
CV 3
P-level 0.01

Madsen wheat following red clover
0 86 38.1 60.9
50 105 41.3 60.7
100 104 42.3 60.7
150 119 42.3 61.2
Trial Avg. 103.4
PLSD (5%) 15.9
CV 8
P-level 0.01

Gene Wheat following corn
0 116 35.9 58.7
50 135 38.2 59.0
100 144 38.9 59.4
150 152 38.3 59.4
Trial Avg. 137.0
PLSD (5%) 7.9
CV 3
P-level 0.00







Nitrogen Rates for Mustard
Stephen Guy, Roy Patten, Robert Gareau, John Johan

Objective
Evaluate nitrogen fertilizer rates on spring yellow mustard.

Location: Genesee, ID
Annual precipitation: 22 inches
Soil: Palouse
Rotation: 1992 pea; 1993 barley

Treatments
60 lb N/ac
100 lb N/ac
140 lb N/ac

Comments
Barley stubble was chiseled in the fall, leaving a large amount of residue and low residual N. On 15 April
94, 120 lbs/A of 16-20-0-14 was applied to all plots and incorporated with 2 passes of a field cultivator,
followed by a harrowing. Yellow mustard was planted on 20 April at 8.5 lb seed/A. The nitrogen
treatments were applied after seeding using a 14 ft drop spreader. It rained soon after fertilizing. Plots were
harvested using an International 453 combine and weigh wagon. There were no herbicides or insecticides
applied, and no significant weed or insect problems existed. Differences between N rate treatments were
visible during the entire season.

Data


Yield, lb/ac

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

60 lb N/ac 1021 898 749 953 905a
100 lb N/ac 1252 1021 844 967 1021b
140 lb N/ac 1157 953 817 994 980ab
LSD(5%) 79
CV 4.7%


Test weight, lb/bu

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

60 lb N/ac 56 55 55 55 55a
100 lb N/ac 56 56 56 53 55a
140 lb N/ac 56 55 55 55 55a
LSD(5%) 1.41
CV 1.5%


Conclusion

Fertilizer application rates were similar to the trial at the Lloyd ranch. A moderate N rate would appear to
be the best for plant performance and economics. The limited response to N and low yield level may be due
to lack of available moisture later in the growing season. Further testing is needed.







Broadcast Versus With-Seed Fertilizer for Spring Barley
Dave Olson
with Stewart Wuest

Objective
Compare total fertilizer applied with seed versus broadcast fertilizer for spring grain.

Location: Fairfield, WA
Annual precipitation: 20 inches
Rotation: 1991 spring barley; 1992 spring barley; 1993 winter barley

Treatments
Broadcast broadcast dry fertilizer: 225 lb 30-0-0-6
incorporate with field cultivator, work up "good" seedbed
seed approximately 1.5 bu/ac
Total fertilizer with seed
prepare "conventional" seedbed with field cultivator
seed 1.5 bu/ac, 240 lb/ac 30-0-0-6 with seed

Comments
The barley variety was Steptoe. Planting was 17 May 94. The amount of N applied differed slightly
between treatments. Broadcast treatment was with 45' Barber spreader at 67.5 Ib N/ac. With-seed treatment
used the 1206 Haybuster drill's starter fertilizer boxes adjusted up to 72 lb N/ac. There were no differences
observed between treatments during the growing season. Plots were 300 ft long and a strip 36 ft wide was
taken at harvest.

Data
Barley yields, lb/ac.


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Broadcast 741 1162 777 893a
With-seed 1276 1421 895 1197a
LSD(5%) 527
CV 14%


Conclusion
The low yield in the Rep 1, broadcast treatment may be an error, as that plot didn't appear to have problems
compared to its neighboring plot that would cause a 40% yield reduction. All "with-the-seed" treatments
showed a yield increase over broadcast treatments, but the statistics and question concerning Rep 1 indicate
we can't conclude "with the seed" definitely yielded more.








Comparison of Broadcast, With-Seed, and Split Fertilizer Applications
for Winter Wheat
Dave Olson
with Stewart Wuest

Objective
Compare broadcast versus all fertilizer with seed versus half with seed and half in
spring.

Location: Fairfield, WA
Annual precipitation: 20 inches
Rotation: 1991 winter wheat; 1992 winter wheat; 1993 lentils

Treatments
Standard 120 Ib 16-20-0-12 with seed plus 160 Ib 34-0-0-0 topdress broadcast in fall.
(fertilizer/ac = 74-24-0-14)
Total with-seed 260 Ib/ac 27-8-0-5 with seed (fertilizer/ac = 70-21-0-13)
Split 31 Ib/ac 11-52-0-0 and 120 Ib/ac 30-0-0-6 with seed in fall; 108 Ib/ac 30-0-0-8 broadcast
on 8 April 94 (fertilizer/ac = 71-16-0-15)
Comments
The long term goal is to find an alternative to expensive, high-power-requirement drills that fertilize and seed
into dry ground in the fall. The split treatment was originally intended to be half with seed and half banded
on the ground, but complications resulted in the change to fall with-seed plus spring topdress. It also ended
up with a lower seeding rate--standard and total-with-seed received 90 Ib seed/ac, and the split received 65
Ib/ac, all Hill 81 winter wheat. Soil samples were taken for soil moisture in the 0-6" surface at planting time.
Soil moisture in all plots averaged 2.2 inches/ft total moisture (very dry). Seeding was started 1 Nov 93.
Wheat had not yet emerged on 5 Feb 94. Plants per 3 ft of 2 adjacent rows were counted in three areas of
each plot on 31 Mar 94 at 2-4 leaf stage. Plants per 3 ft of row averaged 18.5 for standard, 16 for total-with-
seed, and 13 for the split treatment, which corresponds proportionately to the lesser seed rate in the split
treatment. There were no visual differences between treatments.

Data
Number of plants per 3 ft of row, 31Mar94, Yield, bu/ac of Hill 81 winter wheat


two to four leaf stage

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Standard 19.7 18.0 18.7 17.7 18.5b
Total 17.7 15.0 13.3 18.7 16.2b
Split 13.7 15.0 11.3 12.0 13.0a
LSD(5%) 3.0
CV 11%


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Standard 42.2 40.3 45.8 44.6 43.2c
Total 36.4 40.3 42.9 40.3 40.0b
Split 33.6 37.5 38.6 37.0 36.7a
LSD(5%) 2.6
CV 3.7%


Conclusion
There were statistically and agronomically significant differences in yield. It may be that the late emergence
of the crop gave an advantage to the most dense plant population, since the yields corresponded to plant
counts. Experts recommend against placing large amounts of fertilizer directly with seed as in the total and
split treatments. It may have been unusual weather conditions or the particular characteristics of placement
with this double disk drill that prevented a large stand reduction.







Zinc for Winter Wheat
Glenn Leitz
with Lawrence Brown and Paul Peterson, WSU

Objective
Determine if zinc will increase winter wheat yields.

Location: Fairfield, WA
Annual precipitation: 20 inches
Rotation: 1993 lentil; 1992 wheat

Treatments
1. Check no zinc
2. Zinc 2-1/2 oz Ruff 'n Ready Zn (chelated-10% cone.)

Comments
On 12 Oct 93 Zn was applied with 92 lb N as NH3, 20 lb P and 15 lb sulfur using a chisel fertilizer
applicator. (This was the only tillage before seeding on this lentil field.) Seeded field to Madsen on 13 Oct
93, 7" double disc drill. The plots were 30 by 450 ft. A 22 x 450 ft cut was taken for yield.

Data
Yield (bu/ac) of winter wheat with and without zinc

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Zinc 40 39 43 42 41a
Check 41 33 44 44 41a
LSD(5%) 6.9
CV 9.8%


Conclusion
There were no differences in yield, test weight (average 55.5 lb/bu) or protein (average 12.9%). Fall
conditions were too dry for wheat to emerge. Wheat came up during late winter. Stand was somewhat
ragged and uneven as spring growth began and wheat progress was slow, even with May rains. Balance of
summer was well below average rainfall--driest in this area since 1977. With poorer than normal plant
population and dry conditions, crop was marginal at best.







Innoculation of Lentils
David Ostheller


Objective


Test effectiveness of Enfix legume innoculant.


Location: Fairfield, WA
Annual precipitation: 21 inches
Rotation: Wheat/lentil

Treatments
Check no innoculant
Enfix innoculant applied to seed

Comments
Plots were 35 by 400 ft. At harvest 17.5 by 300 ft. was cut from the center of each plot and weighed
using portable truck scales.


Data


Yield, Ib/ac.

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Enfix 1628 1781 1439 1588 1609a
Check 1519 1599 1549 1702 1592a
LSD(5%) 241
CV 6.7%


Conclusion
The use of innoculum did not increase yield.







Spring Injection of Nitrogen and Sulfur on Winter Wheat
Jack Osterlund
with Phil Nesse and Don Wysocki, OSU Extension

Objective
Investigate the spring application of nitrogen and sulfur by spoke wheel injection on winter
wheat.

Location: Condon, Gilliam County, Oregon
Annual precipitation: 12 inches
Elevation: 2800 ft
Soil: Condon silt loam, 0 to 12 percent slopes
Rotation: Winter wheat/fallow
Tillage: Stubble mulch

Treatments
Check
Inject 20 lb/ac N as solution 32 (Uran), 12-inch wheel spacing.
Inject 20 lb/ac N and 10 lb/ac S as solution 32 and Thiosol, 12-inch wheel spacing.

Comments
Anhydrous ammonia was applied at 35 lb/ac N in June 1993. Stephens winter wheat was seeded on
25 September 93 at 60 Ib/ac with a JD HZ drill with 16-inch row spacing. Sencor and Finesse
were applied for control of cheatgrass. Plots were injected 31 March 94. Nitrogen solution was
1:2.7 Uran:water applied at 15.5 gal/ac. Nitrogen/sulfur solution was 1:1.3:2.1
Thiosol:Uran:water applied at 15.5 gal/ac. Plots were 24 by 200 feet. Wheat was harvested on 8
August 94.

Data
Yield of winter wheat, bu/ac Test weight of winter wheat, lb/bu


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average


Check 48.5 49.4 49.2 48.4 48.8a
N 50.4 49.9 46.1 48.4 48.7a
N+S 54.5 47.8 49.3 50.9 50.6a
LSD(5%) 3.4
CV 3.9%


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average


Check 59.2 59.3 59.0 58.9 59.1a
N 59.4 59.2 59.3 59.3 59.3a
N+S 60.1 59.6 59.1 58.7 59.3a
LSD(5%) 0.6
CV 0.53%


Conclusion
Winter and spring precipitation was well below average. Timely rains in May provided sufficient
water to attain average yields in spite of very dry conditions. The crop did not respond to spring
application of injected nitrogen or sulfur. Earlier application of injected nutrients or more spring
precipitation may be necessary to get a crop response.







Fall vs Spring Nitrogen Fertilizer for Direct-Seeded Spring Barley
Bob Wigen
with Roger Veseth and John Burns, WSU Coop. Ext.;
Lloyd Sunwold, The Mcgregor Co.; and Dennis Roe, USDA-NRCS

Objective
Compare the effect of fall versus spring direct-shank application of nitrogen fertilizer on yield, test
weight and residue production of direct-seeded spring barley after winter wheat

Location: Colfax, WA Average annual precipitation: 17 inches
Previous crop: 75 bu/A winter wheat Rotation: Winter wheat, spring barley, fallow
Soil: Athena silt loam
Treatments
Fall direct-shank application of 60 lb N/A and 12 lb sulfur/A in undisturbed winter wheat stubble
with the McGregor Straw Boss on November 8, 1993
Spring direct-shank application of 60 lb N/A and 12 lb S/A in undisturbed winter wheat
stubble with the McGregor Straw Boss on February 24, 1994

Comments
Soil samples were taken to a depth of 4 feet in the trial area in early November before the fall fertilizer
application. Nitrogen content included: nitrate nitrogen of 9, 9, 19, and 7 lb/A in the 1st 2nd, 3rd,and 4th
foot depths, respectively; ammonium nitrogen of 12 lb/A in the top foot; and an estimated nitrogen
mineralization from soil organic matter of 47 lb/A (1.87% organic matter). Total estimated available
nitrogen for the next crop was 103 lb/A.

All plots were direct-seeded to a spring barley varietal mix of Camelot/Steptoe on March 7 with a
conventional International double-disk drill with 7-inch row spacings. Each treatment was replicated 4
times. Plot width was 32 feet. Plot lengths were 640 feet for two replications and 1,400 feet for the other
two replications. Preharvest samples of two rows one meter long were clipped near ground level one week
before harvest. Preharvest sample data included number of heads, total biomass weight, grain weight, and
1000 kernel weight. The center 24 ft of each plot was harvested on August 3 with a combine and weights
were measured using portable truck scales. Grain samples were taken for test weight determinations.

Data
Yield, lb/A

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Fall 1240 1602 ---- 1773 1538a
Spring 1481 1661 1722 1917 1695a
LSD(5%) 226
CV 4.0%


Conclusion
There were no significant differences in test weight or in number of heads, total biomass, or 1000 kernel
weight. The combination of poor seed-soil contact and dry spring conditions adversely affected the stand.
Use of an air drill would probably have improved the stand under this fertilizer and direct-seed system. The
input costs of direct fertilizer application and direct seeding are far below that of conventional tillage. The
dry growing season minimized the possibility of treatment differences. Movement of nitrogen fertilizer
overwinter was probably minimal.







Foliar Fertilizer for Bluegrass
David Ostheller
with Lawrence Brown

Objective
Test use of foliar fertilizer on bluegrass.

Location: Fairfield, WA
Annual precipitation: 21 inches
Rotation: 8 year-old bluegrass stand

Treatments:
Check no foliar fertilizer
Foliar 7 GPA 16-0-2, 2 Ca, 2 Mg urea form, plus 1 quart R-900/60 gal solution

Comments:
Foliar was applied on 20 April 94 to pre-headed-out South Dakota bluegrass. Applied in 30 GPA using
800s nozzles, four miles per hour and 30 psi. Air temperature was 60F. Plots were 25 ft by 400 ft.
Harvest was 7 July 94.

Data
Yield, lbs per plot uncleaned seed

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Foliar 94 98 88 86 92a
Check 104 102 92 90 97b
LSD(5%) 4.8
CV 2.2%


Conclusion
Rainfall patterns were poor for bluegrass production last year. The yield difference is probably due to
wheel tracks in the foliar plots, I should have driven across the check plots also. Bluegrass doesn't seem
to respond well to spring fertilizer. Fall fertilizer and timely rains seem much more important.







Foliar Fertilizer for Winter Wheat
David Ostheller


Objective
Test use of foliar on club winter wheat.

Location: Fairfield, WA
Annual precipitation: 21 inches
Rotation: Wheat/lentil

Treatments
Check no foliar
Foliar 5 GPA, 16-0-2, 2 Ca, 2 Mg urea form (10.58 lbs/gal)

Comments
Foliar application was 24 May 94 in 50oF to 800F temperatures. Wheat was in flag leaf stage. Plots
were 25 by 300 ft. On 28 July 94 a strip 20 by 300 ft was harvested from the center of each plot and
weighed using portable truck scales.

Data
Yield, bu/ac

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Foliar 71 71 77 83 75a
Check 68 72 77 77 74a
LSD(5%) 5.2
CV 3.1%


Conclusion
Test weights averaged 56.8 lb/bu and protein averaged 11.6%. Neither were affected by the foliar
application. There probably was adequate fertility in the soil without the foliar and dry conditions didn't allow a
yield increase.







Foliar Alaska Fish Fertilizer for Winter Wheat
David Ostheller


Test effectiveness of an organic foliar N source.

Location: Fairfield, WA
Annual precipitation: 21 inches
Previous crop: Summer fallow


Check no foliars
Foliar 0.5 GPA 5-1-1 Alaska fish fertilizer at early flag (10 May 94), full flag (23
May), and headed out (7 June)


Comments
Madsen winter wheat was planted on summer fallow without fertilizers or chemicals. Plots were 25 by
400 ft.

Data
Yield, bu/ac

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Fish foliar 108 108 105 103 106a
Check 111 110 109 107 109b
LSD(5%) 1.5
CV 0.6%


Conclusion
The yield difference was probably due to the sprayer's wheel tracks in the plot with foliar applications.
The field had a clover cover crop before the fallow and was probably high in available nitrogen.


Objective


Treatments







Foliar Micronutrients for Winter Wheat
Bob Konen

Objective
Test the effect of spring foliar micronutrient application on yield, test weight, and protein of soft white
winter wheat.

Location: Tammany, Idaho
Annual precipitation: 14 inches
Soil: Silt loam
Rotation: Wheat/fallow

Treatments
Check no foliar micronutrients
Western Farm Service 7-14-8, 0.1% iron, 0.05% zinc, 0.15% humic acid
McGregor Bushel Builder 5-18-2-2, 0.4% iron, 0.8% zinc, 0.4% magnesium, 0.4% manganese,
0.1% copper, 0.1% boron, 0.05% molybdenum, 0.05% cobalt
Nu Chem Harvest Plus 5-18-2-1, 0.4% iron, 0.8% zinc, 0.4% magnesium, 0.4% manganese, 0.1%
copper, 0.1% boron, 0.05% molybdenum, 0.05% cobalt

Comments
The wheat variety was Stephens soft white winter. The foliar treatments were applied in mid April when the
wheat was tillering, Feke's stage 3 to 4. The field had received 55 lb N/ac anhydrous in the fall. Plot size
was 50 by 500 ft.

Data


Protein, %

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Check 10.3 9.6 9.6 9.9 9.85ab
McGregor 10.0 10.0 9.7 9.9 9.90b
WFS 9.9 9.7 9.4 9.6 9.65a
NuChem 9.7 9.6 9.4 9.8 9.63a
LSD(5%) 0.23
CV 1.5%


Yield, bu/ac

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

NuChem 54 51 51 46 51a
WFS 54 56 51 50 53a
McGregor 53 56 51 48 52a
Check 50 52 52 51 51a
LSD(5) 3.2
CV 3.9%


Conclusion
There were no significant differences in yield or test weight (average 61.1 lb/bu), although the McGregor
treatment produced significantly higher protein than the other treatments. However, all of the protein
readings were below 10% and suitable for the Pacific Rim low protein market. This is the second year that
micronutrients showed no effect on yield under this farmer's management conditions.








Effect of Mustard, Pea and Lentil on Residue and
Following Winter Wheat Yields
Stephen Guy, Roy Patten, Robert Gareau, John Johan

Objective
A 2-year study to evaluate the influence of different spring crops on a following winter wheat crop and
to follow residue levels of the crops.


Location: Genesee, ID
Annual precipitation: 22 inches
Treatments
Year 1 crops: Pea, lentil, mustard


Soil: Palouse
Rotation: 1993 barley; 1992 pea


Comments
Fall 93 Barley stubble chiseled lots of residue and low N residual.
4-15-94- Applied 120 lb/A 16-20-0-14 fertilizer and incorporated with 2 field cultivator passes. Harrowed
before seeding.
4-19-94- Planted Columbia pea at 155 lb/A seed rate; planted Crimson lentil at 75 lb/A. Used 8' JD drill
with double disk openers and drag chain. Planted 3 passes per plot.
4-20-94- Planted Gisilba mustard at 8.5 lb/A seed rate as above. Applied 58 lb/A of additional N as
NH4NO3. Applied 3 oz/A Pursuit.
5-20-94- Applied 2 pt/A Poast to control grass weeds in the plots. Quite a few mayweed and horsetail
were in plots--more on lower areas.
6-30-94- Applied insecticide dimethoate by air to control aphid to the whole experiment.
8-15-94- Harvested with International 453 (2 passes). Good residue distribution. Weighed yields in
weigh wagon.
8-94 Sampled 8 sq ft (1/2 of a combine width swath) for residue mass. Collected all plant material
except leaves. There was some barley residue left from 1993.
Data


Yields of mustard, pea and lentil plots

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Mustard 1133 1484 1830 1542 1497
Pea 3616 3441 3398 2853 3327
Lentil 2518 2439 2875 1451 2321
CV 15%

Residue after harvest, lb/ac, measured in
three 1 by 8 ft areas of each plot

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Mustard 5385 6608 7208 6884 6521
Pea 2075 3742 3574 2003 2848
Lentil 2759 4582 3502 2759 3400
CV 13%


Harvest index (ratio of grain to total above-
ground residue)

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Mustard 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.19
Pea 0.64 0.48 0.49 0.59 0.55
Lentil 0.48 0.35 0.45 0.35 0.41
CV 15%


Conclusion
This is year one of a two year study and the test area will be planted to winter wheat this fall to evaluate
wheat response to previous crop. Residue levels will be evaluated during the fall and winter. So far this
experiment has given good 1994 crops and is a workable setup for evaluating rotation effects.







Canola Versus Lentil in Rotation with Winter Wheat Yield
Ray Olson
with Paul Peterson and Lawrence Brown, Spokane Co. Extension;
Baird Miller, Ron McClellan, and Stewart Wuest, WSU

Objective
Compare yields, N carryover, and economics of canola and lentil and determine their influence
on winter wheat yields, erosion, and profitability of the rotation.

Location: Rockford, WA
Annual precipitation: 17 inches
Soil series: Larkin silt loam
Field history: Spring wheat 92

Treatments
Previous crop:
Spring canola
Spring lentil

Comments
We are reporting the initial canola and lentil yields and residual soil N levels after the canola and lentil
crops. The winter wheat yields are following either spring canola or lentils. The plots run up and over
a ridge and are 30 by 80 ft. Yield data is from a 12 by 800 ft swath. Soil samples, taken from each end
of the plots, were combined for each treatment.

We are considering the soil N carryover as different between canola and lentils even though the samples
did not show a significant difference. N rates applied to the winter wheat were 90 lb/ac following
canola and 60 lb N/ac following lentil. The lower N rate following lentils gives them a small N credit.

Data
Yield of canola and lentil, lb/ac

Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Rep 6 Average

Canola 1089 1325 1180 1334 1071 1207 1201
Lentil 1634 1561 1833 1742 1643 1797 1702



Inorganic soil N to three feet, lb/ac. Sampled 7 Oct 93

Previous Crop North end South end Average

Canola 35 36 36a
Lentil 53 47 50a
LSD(5%) 44.5
CV 8.2%







Yield of winter wheat, bu/ac

Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Rep 6 Average

Canola 25.8 26.9 25.8 25.8 21.0 25.4 25.la
Lentil 26.3 28.2 29.5 30.1 28.7 26.0 28.3b
LSD(5%) 2.9
CV 7.4%

Test weight of winter wheat, Ib/ac

Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Rep 6 Average

Canola 13.68 14.12 14.06 13.86 13.91 13.52 13.86a
Lentil 13.97 13.74 13.88 13.75 13.62 13.25 13.70a
LSD(5%) 0.25
CV 1.2%


Grain protein of winter wheat, %

Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Rep 6 Average

Canola 13.68 14.12 14.06 13.86 13.91 13.52 13.86a
Lentil 13.97 13.74 13.88 13.75 13.62 13.25 13.70a
LSD(5%) 0.25
CV 1.2%


Winter wheat residue, lb/ac

Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Rep 6 Average

Canola 2096 2322 2142 3248 1986 2233 2338a
Lentil 2476 2284 2605 2328 3662 2779 2689a
LSD(5%) 887
CV 23.8%


Conclusion
Under the drought conditions of the 1994 growing season, the winter wheat yield following spring
lentils was higher than following spring canola. The previous crop had no affect on the winter wheat
test weight or grain protein. The winter wheat residue production was also not significantly different
between previous crop treatments, but there was a trend for higher residue production following lentils.
This higher residue production would be associated with the yield increases found.







Spring Crop Choice (Canola, Lentil and Barley) Influence on Winter Wheat Yield
Ray Olson
with Paul Peterson and Lawrence Brown, Spokane Co. Extension;
Baird Miller, Ron McClellan and Stewart Wuest, WSU

Objective
Compare yields, N carryover, and economics of canola, lentil, and barley, and determine their
influence on winter wheat yields, erosion, and profitability of the rotation.

Location: Rockford, WA
Annual precipitation: 17 inches
Soil series: Larkin silt loam
Field history: Spring wheat 92

Treatments
Previous crop:
Spring canola
Spring lentil
Spring barley

Comments
We are reporting yields of the initial canola, lentil and barley and residual soil N after the canola, lentil
and barley crops. The winter wheat yields are following either spring canola, lentil or barley. The plots
run up and over a ridge and are 30 by 650 ft. Yield data is from a 12 by 650 ft swath. Soil samples,
taken from each end of the plots, were combined for each treatment.

The soil N carryover appears different between canola and lentils, but having only 2 replications was not
adequate to detect a significant difference. The winter wheat following these spring crops was fertilized
differently so that all three previous spring crop treatments would have equal available N. The winter
wheat N rates were 70 lb N/ac following canola, 60 lb N/ac following lentil, and 90 lb N/ac following
barley. The higher N rate following spring barley was necessary to compensate for N tie-up by the
barley residue.

Data
Residue of the previous crop following
Yield of canola, lentil, and barley, lb/ac harvest in 1993, lbs/ac


Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Canola 7371 6319 4384 6025b
Lentils 2940 3740 1054 2578a
Barley 3088 2223 2689 2667a
LSD(5%) 2156
CV 25.3%


Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Canola 849 1083 1050 1016 1000
Lentil 1553 1597 1251 1374 1444
Barley 2390 2089 2334 2167 2245







Inorganic N to three feet, lb/ac, 7 Oct 93

Previous Crop North end South end Average

Canola 37 37 37a
Lentil 54 46 50a
Barley 91 46 69a
LSD(5%) 73.1
CV 33%


Yield of winter wheat, bu/ac

Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Canola 29.3 37.1 38.7 38.3 35.8a
Lentil 42.6 43.9 40.6 41.8 42.2b
Barley 31.9 31.9 36.2 32.6 33.1a
LSD(5%) 5.0
CV 8.0%


Test weight of winter wheat, lb/bu

Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Canola 57.83 56.45 53.42 56.51 56.05a
Lentil 53.84 53.34 56.87 53.35 54.35a
Barley 55.86 56.98 56.64 56.72 56.55a
LSD(5%) 3.13
CV 3.2%


Grain protein of winter wheat, %


Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Canola 12.37 13.37 13.21 12.94 12.97a
Lentil 14.30 13.99 12.58 13.27 13.54a
Barley 14.83 13.12 13.36 12.86 13.54a
LSD(5%) 1.29
CV 5.6%

All crop residue following winter wheat
harvest, lb/ac

Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Canola 4292 4798 3190 4240 4130a
Lentil 3496 3617 3678 3956 3687a
Barley 3999 4268 3440 3490 3549a
LSD(5%) 1041
CV 15.9%


Conclusion
The canola residue remaining after the 1993 harvest was significantly higher than the lentil and barley
residue. Under the drought conditions of the 1994 growing season, the winter wheat yields following
spring lentils were greater than the winter wheat yields following spring canola or spring barley. The
winter wheat test weight and grain protein percentage was not significantly different among the previous
crop treatments. The total crop residue (winter wheat residue + previous crop residue carried over
from the previous year) was also not significantly different among the previous crop treatments.
However, there was a trend for higher total crop residue following canola, possibly as a result of the
higher canola residues in 1993.







Spring Crop Choice (Wheat and Oat) Influence on Winter Wheat Yield
Ray Olson
with Paul Peterson and Lawrence Brown, Spokane Co. Extension;
Baird Miller, Ron McClellan and Stewart Wuest, WSU

Objective
Compare yields, N carryover, and economics of spring wheat and oats, and determine their
influence on winter wheat yields, erosion, and profitability of the rotation.

Location: Rockford, WA
Annual precipitation: 17 inches
Soil series: Larkin silt loam
Field history: Winter wheat 92

Treatments
Previous crop:
Spring wheat
Spring oat

Comments
We are reporting the initial spring wheat and oat yields and residual soil N levels after the spring wheat
and oat crops. The winter wheat yields are following either spring wheat or oats. The plots run up and
over a ridge and are 30 by 650 ft. Yield data is from a 12 by 650 ft swath. Soil Samples, taken from
each end of the plots, were combined for each treatment.

The soil N carryover was not different between spring wheat and oat. The N rates applied to the
following winter wheat was 60 Ib N/ac following the spring wheat, and 90 lb N/ac following the spring
oats. The higher N rate following the spring oats was necessary to compensate for N tie up by the
greater amount of oat residue.


Data
Yield of spring wheat and oat, lb/ac

Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Spring wheat 2010 1789 2100 1970
Spring oat 4066 4166 4691 4308



Residue of the previous crop following
harvest in 1993, lb/ac

Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Spring wheat 5162 2238 3782 3727a
Spring oat 2003 2634 3579 2739a
LSD(5%) 4728
CV 41.6%


Inorganic N to three feet, lb/ac, 7 Oct 93

Previous Crop North end South end Average

Spring wheat 43 55 49a
Spring oat 40 64 52a
LSD(5%) 76.2
CV 12%


Yield of winter wheat, bu/ac

Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Spring wheat 32.3 29.9 29.3 30.5a
Spring oat 31.3 35.3 32.6 33.la
LSD(5%) 8.1
CV 7.3%










Test weight of winter wheat, lb/bu

Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Spring wheat 56.66 52.96 53.14 54.25a
Spring oat 56.06 54.78 54.33 55.06a
LSD(5%) 3.12
CV 1.6%

Grain protein of winter wheat, %

Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Spring wheat 12.99 13.83 14.13 13.65a
Spring oat 13.48 14.00 13.77 13.75a
LSD(5%) 1.07
CV 2.2%


All crop residue following winter wheat
harvest, Ib/ac

Previous Crop Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Spring wheat 3311 3738 4518 3856a
Spring oat 4540 3878 5017 4478a
LSD(5%) 1379
CV 9.4%


Conclusion
There was no consistent trend in the amount of the previous crop residue harvested in 1993. Under the
drought conditions of the 1994 growing season, there were no significant differences in the winter wheat
yields following spring wheat or spring oat. The winter wheat test weights and grain protein percentage
was not affected by the previous crop. The total crop residue (winter wheat residue + previous crop
residue carried over from the previous year) was also not significantly different between the previous
crop treatments.







On-farm Winter Wheat Variety Trials In Oregon
Bruce and Helle Ruddenklau, Bob Barnes, Bill Guthrie, Mike Bernards, Alan Klages,
Mark Hales, Mary Ann Hill, Bill Miller, Steve Johnson, Van and Tom Rietmann,
Dean Nichols, Mike Weimer, M&M Ranch, and Jim Bird
in cooperation with Susan Aldrich-Markham, Mylen Bohle, Gordon Cook, Gale Gingrich, Sandy
Macnab, Phil Nesse, Roland Schirman, and Mike Stoltz
with coordination by Russ Karow

Objective
To test performance of newer winter wheat varieties across Oregon using farm scale plots and
field equipment


Growers, Location and Conditions:
Growers City


County


Irrigation


Bruce and Helle Ruddenklau
Bob Barnes
Bill Guthrie
Mike Bernards
Alan Klages
Mark Hales
Mary Ann Hill
Bill Miller
Steve Johnson
Van and Tom Rietmann
Dean Nichols
Mike Weimer
M&M Ranch
Jim Bird


Amity
Salem
Powell Butte
McMinnville
Joseph
Pendleton
Pendleton
Dufur
The Dalles
Condon
Dayton, WA
Arlington
Wasco
Grass Valley


Yamhill
Marion
Crook
Yamhill
Wallowa
Umatilla
Umatilla
Wasco
Wasco
Gilliam
Columbia, WA
Gilliam
Sherman
Sherman


Cooperating County Agents:

Susan Aldrich-Markham
Mylen Bohle
Gordon Cook
Gale Gingrich
Sandy Macnab
Phil Nesse
Roland Shirman
Mike Stoltz


Yamhill
Crook
Wallowa
Marion
Wasco/Sherman
Gilliam
Columbia, WA
Umatilla


Growers were provided with 50-80 pounds of seed of each of six varieties Gene, MacVicar, Madsen,
Rod, Rohde and Stephens. Additional varieties of local interest were added to the trial at some sites.
Seeding was done by growers, in many cases with county agent assistance. Plots ranged in size from 8-
20 feet wide by 300-1500 feet long. Single replications were planted at each site. Plots were harvested
by growers with grain weighed in weigh wagons, on truck scales or on farm scales. Grain samples
were submitted to the OSU Extension Cereals Project for test weight and protein analysis.

Seed donations for 1994 trials were made by Eric and Marne Anderson, lone, OR, and Pendleton Grain
Growers, Pendleton, OR. Their support made this testing effort possible and is greatly appreciated.

Comments: Trial results show that no one variety is superior to others over all locations. Performance
varies significantly. Based on an over-sites analysis, Rod is the only variety that showed statistically
significant superior performance. Results are in general agreement with small plot test data. Trials at
many locations were used for field tours.











1994 grower drill strip wheat variety tests at fourteen sites across Oregon and southeast Washington
Rudden John- M&M Average
klau Barnes Guthrie Bernards Klages Hales Hill Miller son Rietmn Nichols Weimer Ranch Bird over 11
Variety Amity Salem Pwll Bt McMinn Joseph Pendl Pendl Dufur Dalles Condon Dayton Arltng Wasco Grs Vly sites
Yield bu/a


Dur. Pride
Gene 160
MacVicar 154
Madsen 149
Malcolm 147


113
141
126


118
133
123


120
119
114


10 88
!0 33 88
i1 31 86


138 153 133 125 89 82 69 91 57 45 65
117 131 115 116 82 70 65 55 51 54 31
121 121 109 83 78 79 61 57 50 50


147 94 112 106 100 70 65 59 52 46 46 43 25 20 88
PLSD (5%) 8
PLSD (10%) 7
CV 10
P-VALUE 0.04


D. Pride --
Gene 57.4 57.9 56.6 60.1 56.2
MacVicar 58.2 60.7 58.8 61.6 55.4
Madsen 61.1 60.0 58.3 61.6 57.9
Malcolm 58.9 -
Rod 58.0 60.1 59.2 60.8 57.1
Rohde 61.4 61.7 61.1 62.5 59.5
Stephens 59.1 59.2 58.6 60.7 57.7
Crew/Hyak -

Average 59.2 51.4 50.4 40.8 38.2


Test weight Iblbu
61.6 62.5 -
58.6 60.5 58.9 60.5 58.8
62.0 62.5 60.0 60.7 60.2
60.6 61.2 59.4 60.7 59.3

61.9 60.9 58.8 59.2 58.1
61.9 62.8 60.4 61.5 58.6
60.3 61.8 59.5 61.2 59.6
57.7 -

47.4 48.0 46.1 40.4 39.4


57.5 -
55.0 60.5 58.0
56.0 61.8 57.1 61.7
58.0 60.2 58.8 57.8

56.0 59.5 56.6 58.5
60.0 61.2 60.7 60.2
55.0 61.3 56.5


44.2 40.5 38.6 26.5
PLSD (5%)
PLSD (10%)
CV
P-VALUE


Due to harvest problems, some yield data were lost.


141
131
149


Rod
Rohde
Stephens
Crew/Hyak


Average


58.5
59.8
59.8

59.0
61.0
59.5


59.6
0.8
0.7
2
0.00







Seeding Rates for Winter Rapeseed
Stephen Guy, University of Idaho; Roy Patten, John Johan

Objective
Test seeding rate response of winter rapeseed, from 2 to 12 lb/A rates.

Location: Genesee, ID
Annual precipitation: 22 inches
Soil: Palouse
Rotation: 93 fallow

Treatments
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 lb/A of rapeseed

Comments
One hundred lb N/A as anhydrous was applied in spring 93 before summer fallow. Rapeseed (Dwarf
Essex) was planted 18 Aug 93 with an 8 ft drill. Each plot was 16' wide and 600' long. Stand counts
were taken in fall and spring. There was no winterkill. A topdress of 50 lb N/A was applied 1 April 94.
Plot borders were sprayed with Roundup to make 14.5 ft plots on 1 May 94. Parathion for seedpod
weevil was applied 10 June 94. An International 453 with 16 ft header and weigh wagon was used at
harvest.

There were no herbicides applied and no weed problems. Visually, the number of pods was similar
between treatments although you could see that there were fewer plants in the low seed rate treatments.

Data

Yield, lb/ac Fall stand count, 1000 plants per ac


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Average

21b 2360 2323 2586 3017 2790 2615a
4 lb 2314 2223 2459 2586 2786 2474a
6 lb 2314 2428 2223 2496 2723 2437a
8 lb 2223 2423 2450 2269 2859 2445a
10 lb 2087 2087 2087 2496 2586 2269a
12 lb 2133 2178 2360 2450 2477 2320a
LSD(5%) 178
CV 5.5%


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Average

2 lb 142 133 145 139 145 141a
4 lb 244 218 221 196 207 217b
6 lb 312 400 332 340 318 340c
8 lb 394 360 397 437 474 412d
10 lb 479 522 505 383 454 468d
12 lb 559 542 505 462 717 557e
LSD(5%) 68
CV 14.4%


Conclusion
This large scale evaluation of seeding rate successfully validates information generated in small plots on
seeding rate. From this trial and other trials I am confident that a grower using a seeding rate of 2 to 4 lb/A
of live seed will have the potential of higher yields than at the higher seeding rates. This will be true under
good seeding conditions that lead to uniform establishment of vigorous plants. The only other potential
problem with low seeding rate is plant competition for weed control. In this experiment, no herbicide was
applied except between plots in a 3.5' gap, and no weed problems were found anytime throughout the
growing season. This system of validation of small plot results with large strips should be a valuable tool for
researchers.







Winter Wheat Trials in North-Central Idaho
Bill Flory, Bob Konen, Bruce Yenni, Bob Bumgarner
with Idaho Wheat Commission, Lewiston Grain Growers and Larry Smith

Objective
Determine yield, test weight, and protein of winter wheat varieties

Location: Winchester, Tammany, Cavendish, and Genesee, Idaho
Annual precipitation: 14 to 25 inches
Rotation: Wheat/pea, wheat/pea/barley, wheat/summerfallow

Comments
A single replicate was placed at each farm using the farmer's normal management practices. The strips were
placed on as uniformly flat areas as possible. Plot widths ranged from one planter box up to 30 ft. Lengths
ranged from 300 to 800 ft. These tests are part of an ongoing winter wheat on-farm strip trial evaluation
conducted for several years in north-central Idaho.


TAMMANY RIMROCK CAVENDISH WINCHESTER AVERAGE
Yield Test Protein Yield Test Protein Yield Test Protein Yield Test Protein Yield Test Protein
WWt Wt. Wt. Wt._
Rhode* 91 60.9 9.8 71 62.3 11.2 81 61.6 10.5
Cashup 86 60.9 9.7 72 60.3 10.8 61 55.0 11.3 72 55.9 12.2 73 58.0 11.0
Rod 91 59.4 9.7 74 58.4 10.5 49 54 12.6 66 54.8 11.5 70 56.7 11.1
Gene 77 58.0 10.9 73 58.5 11.1 57 54 11.6 74 54.7 12.3 70 56.3 11.5
Stephens 82 59.6 10.0 75 59.8 11.3 41 52 13.4 75 55.7 12.6 68 56.8 11.8
Hyak 79 60.2 9.6 71 60.6 10.3 52 54.0 10.9 70 54.6 12.8 68 57.3 10.9
Hill 81 68 60.9 10.8 72 59.7 11.6 56 58.0 10.7 74 56.2 12.8 68 58.7 11.5
Salmon 75 60.1 10.7 75 58.3 12.3 52 54 11.6 65 55.1 12.3 67 56.9 11.7
Madsen 70 60.7 11.0 72 58.7 11.9 53 54 11.9 73 55.2 13.2 67 57.1 12.0
Mac 1 79 60.7 10.3 73 60.4 11.9 47 55.0 13.3 66 57 12.7 66 58.3 12.1
Sunderman 64 61.1 11.4 60 61.3 12.5 -- 62 61.2 12.0
Hard White**
Kmor 70 58.8 9.5 64 57.5 11.1 40 53 12.6 66 54.0 12.7 60 55.8 11.5
Daws 65 60.5 10.1 67 59.0 11.6 53 54 12.4 55 56 12.3 60 57.4 11.6
Lewjain 49 60.4 10.8 65 58.0 11.5 47 54 12.5 60 55.7 12.1 55 57.0 11.7
Average 75 60.2 10.3 70 59.5 11.4 51 54.3 12.1 68 54.4 12.5 67 57.8 11.5

*Rhode: Averages for two locations
**Sunderman Hard White: Averages for two locations


Conclusion
Drought during June and July 94 from flowering to harvest negatively impacted yield and quality, except for
the summer fallow location in Tammany. Cavendish was hit hard by heat at flower and low moisture
following lentils in the rotation.
On average over the four locations, Rhode club wheat had the best yield and test weights and the
lowest protein. Next highest yield in descending order: Cashup, Rod, Gene, Stephens, Hyak, Hill 81,
Salmon, Madsen, Mac 1, Sunderman hard white, Kmor, Daws, and Lewjain. Yields ranged from a high of
81 bu/ac for Rhode to 55 for Lewjain. Average for the four locations was 67 bu/ac.
Average test weight was 57.8 lb/bu. Varieties with above average test weight in descending order:
Rhode, Hill 81, Cashup, and Mac 1. Kmor had the lowest test weight. Average protein for the four locations
was 11.5%. Varieties above average in descending order: Mac 1, Madsen, Sunderman hard white, Stephens,
Lewjain, Salmon, and Daws. Those with average or below average protein in descending order were Kmor,
Gene, Hill 81, Rod, Cashup, and Rhode. Protein ranged from 12.1% (Mac 1) to 10.5% (Rhode).






1994 Winter Wheat Yields from On-Farm Tests in Adams County
Jerry Knodel, Tim Smith, Curtis Hennings, Steve Taylor,
Grant Miller, and Bill Schillinger

Objective
To obtain better information on the performance of winter wheat varieties in
low-rainfall areas under actual field conditions.

Location: Several farms in Adams County
Annual precipitation: Less than 12 inches
Rotation: Winter wheat-summer fallow

Treatments
Lewjain, Eltan, Madsen, Rod, Rely, and Tres were each planted in single drill strips 1000 to 2500 feet
long at five locations.

Data
1994 Grain Yield (bu/ac) from On-Farm Tests in Adams County

Variety J. Knodel T. Smith C. Hennings S. Taylor G. Miller Average

Lewjain 45.3 47.4 50.4 44.7 44.5 46.5a
Eltan 45.5 60.6 48.6 50.0 42.2 49.4a
Madsen 45.5 46.5 47.1 48.1 35.6 44.6a
Rod 51.6 45.2 50.3 46.4 33.1 45.3a
Rely 48.1 47.4 47.7 47.8 45.6 47.3a
Tres 48.4 45.0 50.8 47.7 36.9 45.8a
LSD(5%) 5.0
CV 8.2%


Conclusion
Although there was almost a 5 bushel difference in average yield between the highest and lowest performing
variety, yields among varieties were not statistically different. Certified wheat seed was generously donated
by United Grain Growers in Harrington, WA. Grant funds have been provided by the Lincoln-Adams Crop
Improvement Association for continuation of this project.







Polymers for Erosion Control in Furrow Irrigation
Ray Wardenaar
with David Granatstein, Harold Crose

Objective
Test the effectiveness of water-soluble polyacrylamide, when added to irrigation water at 10 ppm,
in controlling erosion in furrow irrigated fields.

Location: Othello, WA
Annual precipitation: 7 inches (irrigated)
Soil: Warden silt loam
Previous crop: Corn; current crop is corn

Treatments
Check no polymer
Polymer applied each irrigation during the advance phase at a concentration of 10 ppm in the
irrigation water

Comments
The field was relatively level on the upper end and then sloped to the bottom at 7-10% slope. Plots were
8 rows wide and ran the length of the field (approx. 900'). Sediment was measured hourly using Imhoff
cones, from morning when water was turned on until about 4 pm. The experiment began after the last
cultivation and ran for seven consecutive irrigations. Measurements in each plot were taken from one
furrow that had a wheel track, and one that did not.


Data 9
SCheck. wheel track
Corn grain yields (T/ac) at 13% moisture 7


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Polymer 4.40 3.37 5.86 4.54a
Check 3.86 4.17 4.37 4.13a
LSD(5%) 2.9
CV 19%


3 5
4 Check
non wheel
-3
2 Polymer \
) w heel %
,non wheel -

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Irrigation


Conclusion
Overall, the polymer was very effective in reducing soil erosion. The polymer also increased water
infiltration and slowed advance times compared to untreated furrows. This could lead to greater water
conservation. Also, there could possibly be a grain yield benefit from the polymer, due to improved soil
wetting patterns even though no yield increase was indicated in this test. Both the cooperating farmer
and fertilizer dealers were able to mix the polymer and handle the application logistics. Based on the
results, the polymer might be used 3-4 times per season at a cost of $4-$5 per application. The
cooperating farmer felt that the polymer would pay for itself just by reducing the frequency and cost of
cleaning out sediment ponds now in use.







Gypsum to Improve Soil Condition and Crop Yield
Potential for Asotin County Sodic Soils
Galleried Appleford
with WA Conservation Commission, Jim Schroeder, Brian Sangster,
Gary Delaney and Baird Miller

Objective
To test the effectiveness of the soil amendment gypsum for improving moisture infiltration,
surface texture, soil quality parameters, and crop yields for sodic soil conditions.

Location: Asotin, WA Anatone Flat
Average annual precipitation: 13 inches
Soil: Weissenfels-Nims silt loam
Rotation: Winter wheat-fallow

Treatments
Check no application
Gypsum at 1/2 T/ac
Gypsum at 1 T/ac

Comments
The field was chiseled in the fall of 1992 prior to the summer fallow. Roundup was applied in the early
spring. The field was chiseled again in late spring. Fertilizer was applied at the beginning of July,
including 45 Ib N/ac. The gypsum treatments were broadcast applied with a 40' barber-type spreader in
mid July 1993, during the summer fallow. The gypsum plots were cultivated to incorporate the gypsum.
The entire field was culti-weeded twice before seeding. The trial was seeded to a Stephens/Madsen
winter wheat mix the first week of October. "Power Up Plus" at 1 gal/ac and "Phos" at 2 gal/ac was
applied as starter with the seed. Plot size was 44' by 1800'. The trial was harvested 7/19/94.

Data
Winter Wheat Yield, bu/ac

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Check 53.5 45.0 46.6 46.1 47.8a
1/2 T/a 49.2 48.1 47.1 47.3 47.9a
1 T/a 47.4 45.6 46.0 48.0 46.8a
LSD(5%) 3.5
CV 4.2%


Conclusion
Under the drought conditions the first year of this trial, the gypsum treatments did not have any effect
on grain yield. A longer period of time is needed to evaluate the impact of gypsum on soil quality
parameters and crop improvement.







Gypsum Additive to Improve Soil Condition, Moisture Infiltration,
and Crop Yields for Asotin County Sodic Soils
Doug McMillan
with WA Conservation Commission, Brian Sangster, Gary Delaney,
Baird Miller, Jim Schroeder

Objective
To test the effectiveness of the soil amendment gypsum in improving moisture infiltration, surface
texture, soil quality parameters, and crop yields for sodic soil conditions.

Location: Asotin Co., WA Cloverland
Average annual precipitation: 13 inches
Soil: Weissenfels-Nims silt loam 3-8%, with a depth of only 2'
Rotation: Winter wheat (Stephens in 1994)-fallow

Treatments
Check no application
Gypsum at 1/2 T/ac
Gypsum at 1 T/ac

Comments
The field was chiseled in the fall of 1992 following winter wheat harvest. In the spring of 1993 Roundup
was applied and then in May the field was chiseled again. During the summer fallow the field was
cultivated and then rod weeded twice before seeding. Fertilizer was applied during the summer including
45 lbs N/ac and 10 lbs S/ac. The gypsum treatments were applied with a 40' barber type spreader during
the summer fallow and then cultivated to incorporate the gypsum. The field was seeded with a press
wheel drill on 10" spacing on October 25, 1993. Starter fertilizer was banded with the seed including
"Super Starter" (micronutrient product with Ca, Cu, Zn, Mg) 8-10 lbs P/ac and boron. The following
spring micronutrients and Uran were added to the herbicide application.

Data
Winter wheat yield, bu/ac

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Check 36.3 26.5 35.5 35.4 33.4a
1 T 28.7 36.4 40.4 35.2 35.2a
1/2 T 30.3 35.1 35.1 37.8 34.6a
LSD(5%) 7.25
CV 12.2%


Conclusion
Under the drought conditions of the trial no yield differences were found due to the applied gypsum.
The winter wheat crop looked good in the spring but showed moisture stress during June. More time is
required to evaluate gypsum's impact on soil quality parameters and crop improvement.







Gypsum as a Soil Amendment to Improve Soil Conditions, Moisture Infiltration,
and Crop Yields for Asotin County Sodic Soils
Steve Vickery, Clarkston Farms
with WA Conservation Commission, Gary Delaney, Jim Schroeder,
and Baird Miller

Objective
To test the effectiveness of the soil amendment gypsum in improving moisture infiltration, surface
texture, soil quality parameters, and crop yields for sodic soil conditions.

Location: Silcott
Annual precipitation: 12 inches
Soil: Weissenfels-Nims Silt Loam 3-8%
Rotation: Winter wheat-fallow

Treatments
Check no gypsum application
Gypsum at 1\2 T/ac
Gypsum at 1 T/ac

Comments
The plots were chiseled with sweep points in the fall of 1992 for Russian thistle control. Sprayed May 7
with 12 oz RoundupRT + 2 oz Banvel + AmSulfate @ 10 gpa. Fertilized May with 72 lb N and 10 lb S
per acre. Rodweeded in June and July. The gypsum was applied during the summer fallow period in
1993. All plots were cultivated to incorporate the gypsum which was applied with a 40 foot barber-type
spreader. The plot size was 44' wide and 500 to 805' long. Seeded in early October to Stephens at 60
lb/ac with 12" hoe drills. In March flew on weed control: .25 oz Finesse, 3 oz Lexone + 1.6 oz M-90.
Harvested on July 12.

Data
Winter wheat yields, bu/ac


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Check 29.8 24.8 20.6 25.la
1/2 ton/ac 28.0 27.1 22.4 25.8a
1 ton/ac 27.5 25.8 22.7 25.3a
LSD(5%) 3.0
CV 5.3%


Conclusion
Droughty conditions prohibited movement of gypsum into soil profile. No yield response was observed
as a result of the applied gypsum. More time is needed to assess soil quality and crop improvement
changes due to gypsum additive.







Recropping Spring Barley after Biosolids Fertilization
Gary Wegner
with: Dan Sullivan and Andy Bary, WSU Puyallup; Tim Pelton, City of Spokane

Objective
Compare yields and postharvest soil nitrate for the second crop after a single biosolids application.

Location: Reardan, WA Previous crop: Barley, 1991; fallow, 1992; winter wheat, 1993
Soil: Kuhl silt loam Annual precipitation: 14 inches

Treatments (applied June, 1992 in summer fallow)
Check (No fertilizer)
Aqua ammonia, 60 lb N/ac
Biosolids, 3 dry ton/ac
Biosolids, 4.5 dry ton/ac
Biosolids, 6 dry ton/ac

Comments
No additional fertilizer was applied to any of the treatments for the 1994 crop. Following the 1993
harvest, the field was disked in the fall, and cultivated two times in the spring before planting. Spring
barley (Baroness) was seeded 26 April 94 at 50 lb seed per acre with a 10 inch row spacing. Soil
moisture was good at planting, and an excellent stand emerged. Aerial photos in early June clearly
showed superior crop response (darker green color) on biosolids-treated plots. Low soil moisture and
high temperatures severely stressed the crop starting in mid-June. Grain yields were measured with a
weigh wagon on 15 Aug 94. A swath 37 by 970 ft (0.82 acres) was harvested from each plot. Average
yield on the rest of the field (excluding the on-farm test) was 29 bushels per acre. Soil cores for nitrate
analysis were collected in one foot depth increments using a Kauffman hydraulic soil auger on 31 Aug
94. Two soil samples per plot containing 9 soil cores (1 foot depth) and three cores (2, 3, and 4 foot
depths) were collected.

Data
Postharvest soil profile nitrate, lb N/ac/4 ft
Grain Yield, bu/ac (15 Aug 94) depth* (31 Aug 94)


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Check 25.8 24.7 21.7 23.1 23.8a
Aqua ammonia 25.7 26.2 24.6 21.6 24.5ab
Biosolids 3 T 26.5 30.1 31.1 27.9 28.9c
Biosolids 4.5 T 26.7 28.2 27.2 26.0 27.0bc
Biosolids 6 T 25.4 30.7 27.4 31.6 28.8c
LSD(5%) 3.1
CV 8%


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Check 23 32 35 25 29a
Aqua ammonia 47 104 32 52 59a
Biosolids 3 T 54 90 84 53 70a
Biosolids 4.5 T 67 54 116 87 81a
Biosolids 6 T 112 132 235 72 138b
LSD(5%) 54.2
CV 47%


Conclusion
Biosolids application for the 1993 crop increased 1994 barley yields. The yield increase (about 4 bushels
per acre) was small, due to soil moisture and heat stress conditions during grain fill. All biosolids rates
performed similarly; yields were equal for application rates of 3.0, 4.5, and 6.0 dry tons per acre.
Postharvest soil nitrate test results had high variability within a treatment. The additional soil nitrate
found with biosolids application was equal to about 15 lb N per dry ton applied. We plan to plant spring
grain again in 1995 to determine the residual value of the 1992 biosolids application.







Biosolids Fertilization in Low Precipitation Dryland Cropping Systems Summary
Dan Sullivan and Jim Kropf, WSU Cooperative Extension
with: Gary and Douglas Poole; Gary and Harold Wegner; Ron Jirava; Dan Sturgill, Seattle Metro;
Tim Pelton, City of Spokane

Objective
Biosolids are a valuable resource for dryland cropping systems. They provide many essential plant nutrients
and organic matter. With the current low metal levels in biosolids, application rates are based on nitrogen.
The plant-available nitrogen (N) content of biosolids is less predictable than commercial fertilizers. Because
of the high pH (8 to 8.5) of anaerobically-digested biosolids, ammonium (about 25% of the total N in
biosolids) can be lost as ammonia gas after biosolids application. Organic nitrogen (about 75 % of the total N
in biosolids) must be converted to plant-available forms (ammonium and nitrate) by soil microorganisms.

Five on-farm test locations were established in the low (10 to 14 inch) precipitation zone to measure biosolids
effects on grain yield, grain quality, grain N uptake, and postharvest soil nitrate to compare biosolids with
aqua or anhydrous ammonia fertilization.

Treatments
Biosolids, 3 to 5 dry tons per acre; average rate: 3.6 dry tons/ac (292 lb total N/ac)
Anhydrous or aqua ammonia, 40 to 60 lb N per acre, injected
Check (no fertilizer applied)

Comments
Biosolids were produced by anaerobic digestion of wastewater solids at Renton and Spokane treatment plants.
Dewatered biosolids (about 20% solids; 80% water) were applied with a manure spreader. The 3 dry ton
rate is the minimum rate for accurate spreading with most manure spreaders.

Data shown in the tables is the average of 3 or 4 replications per location. Biosolids were applied to one
acre plots (usually 50 by 1000 ft). Grain was harvested from the center of each plot (approximately 25 by
950 ft strips). Soil samples were collected in the fall after grain harvest in one foot depth increments. For
conversion of soil nitrate test values, we assumed an average soil bulk density of 80 lb per cubic foot: soil
nitrate-N (lb/ac/ft) = 3.5 (ppm nitrate-N). For statistical analysis for average treatment effects, we treated
locations as replications in a randomized complete block design.

Biosolids On-Farm Test Locations

Harvest Annual Biosolids Wheat
County Year Precip. (in) Source lb N/ac dry ton/ac Variety

Douglas 92 10.5 Renton 161 3.1 Penawawa
Douglas 93 10.5 Renton 312 3.0 Eltan
Douglas 94 10.5 Renton 433 5.1 Eltan
Lincoln 93 14.0 Spokane 296 3.7 Rely
Adams 94 11.5 Renton 258 3.0 Tres
All Locations 292 3.6








Conclusion
Biosolids produced equal (4 locations) or better (Douglas 93 location) grain yields compared to anhydrous or
aqua ammonia. An application rate of 3.6 dry tons provided greater N than needed for maximum yield. This
greater N availability is indicated by higher protein, lower test weight (Douglas 93 and 94 locations), and higher
postharvest soil nitrate with biosolids fertilization. At the end of the first cropping cycle, an average of 10
percent of the applied N was removed by grain harvest, with another 16 percent of the applied N present as soil
nitrate. The remaining N (74 % of applied) was either lost as ammonia at application, or was still present as
organic N in the soil and crop residues. The distribution of nitrate in the soil profile suggested that leaching
losses were low. Biosolids application rates cannot usually be reduced below 3 dry tons per acre because of
spreading equipment limitations. We recommend that N fertilizer applications for the crop following a biosolids
application be reduced from normal, based on soil nitrate testing.


Grain yield, bu/ac
Treatment Douglas 92 Douglas 93 Douglas 94 Lincoln 93 Adams 94 Average
Check 13.1 71.3 37.9 49.7 46.1 43.6a
Anhydrous ammonia 17.5 76.7 57.0 52.0 51.2 50.9b
Biosolids 17.3 89.9 56.4 50.9 55.0 53.9b
LSD(5%) 7.2
CV 10%

Grain protein, percent
Treatment Douglas 92 Douglas 93 Douglas 94 Lincoln 93 Adams 94 Average
Check 15.8 10.4 8.1 10.2 7.7 10.4a
Anhydrous ammonia 16.4 11.6 9.9 10.6 8.3 11.4a
Biosolids 17.0 14.7 14.4 10.4 11.4 13.6b
LSD(5 %) 1.9
CV 11%

Grain test weight, percent
Treatment Douglas 92 Douglas 93 Douglas 94 Lincoln 93 Adams 94 Average
Check 57.9 60.3 58.6 59.3 60.5 59.3a
Anhydrous ammonia 56.6 60.9 59.8 59.1 60.7 59.4a
Biosolids 56.2 57.6 57.2 58.6 61.1 58.la
LSD(5%) 1.3
CV 1.5%

Grain N uptake, lb N/ac
Treatment Douglas 92 Douglas 93 Douglas 94 Lincoln 93 Adams 94 Average
Check 20.4 77.7 31.4 52.1 37.4 43.8a
Anhydrous ammonia 28.0 94.0 59.2 56.8 45.0 56.6ab
Biosolids 28.9 132.1 80.6 53.8 66.9 72.5b
LSD(5%) 18.1
CV 22%

Postharvest soil nitrate-N, lb\ac
Treatment Douglas 92 Douglas 93 Douglas 94 Lincoln 93 Adams 94 Average
3ft 4ft 4ft 4ft 3ft
Check 39 28 24 29 19 27.9a
Anhydrous ammonia 43 25 21 59 22 34.0a
Biosolids 68 56 74 126 83 81.3b
LSD(5%) 22.0
CV 32%







Biosolids Effects on Grain Yield and Quality
Ron Jirava
with: Dan Sullivan and Andy Bary, WSU Puyallup; Dan Sturgill, Seattle Metro;
Mikki Kisson, O'Neill and Sons
Objective
Compare biosolids to aqua ammonia for grain yield, test weight and protein.


Location: Ritzville, WA
Soil: Ritzville silt loam


Field history: canola 90; fallow 91; winter wheat 92; fallow 93
Annual precipitation: 11.5 inches


Treatments
Check (no fertilizer)
Aqua ammonia, 50 lb N/ac, applied 27 May 93
Biosolids, 3, 6, and 9 dry ton/ac, applied 19 Oct 92
Comments
Biosolids from the Renton wastewater treatment plant were applied with a manure spreader to 50 by
1000 ft plots. The biosolids contained 86 lb total N and 22 lb ammonium-N per dry ton and were
incorporated on 29 Mar 93 with a skew treader. Tres winter wheat was seeded 8 Sep 93. Growing
conditions were above average. Soil moisture was good following the winter of 1992-3. Several inches
of rain fell in early June, 1994 as the crop was reaching the grain fill period. At harvest, we cut a 24 by
794 ft strip from the center of each plot. We collected two grain samples from each plot as the grain
was augered from the weigh wagon for test weight and total N measurements. Total N was determined
with a LECO combustion analyzer. Grain protein was calculated as: LECO total N times 5.75. The
aqua ammonia treatment in Rep 4 was lost because of a biosolids application error.
Data:


Grain Yield, bu/ac (25 Jul 94)

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Check 43.0 42.3 47.1 52.0 46.la
Aqua ammonia 52.6 49.2 51.8 51.2ab
Biosolids 3 T/ac 58.7 53.2 52.5 55.5 55.0b
Biosolids 6 T/ac 54.1 54.6 46.8 49.7 51.3ab
Biosolids 9 T/ac 55.1 50.3 45.5 47.8 49.7ab
LSD(5%) 5.7
CV 7

Grain Protein, percent (25 Jul 94)

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Check 8.1 7.5 6.9 8.3 7.7a
Aqua ammonia 8.1 8.6 8.3 8.3a
Biosolids 3 T/ac 12.1 10.9 10.9 11.8 11.4b
Biosolids 6 T/ac 13.2 12.4 12.7 13.2 12.9c
Biosolids 9 T/ac 12.4 12.9 13.8 13.8 13.2c
LSD(5%) 0.8
CV 5


Grain Test Weight, lb/bu (25 Jul 94)

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Check 60.2 60.7 60.2 60.8 60.5b
Aqua ammonia 61.0 60.6 60.6 60.7bc
Biosolids 3 T/ac 61.3 61.2 60.7 61.2 61.1c
Biosolids 6 T/ac 60.2 60.4 60.4 60.6 60.4b
Biosolids 9 T/ac 60.2 59.9 59.5 59.4 59.7a
LSD(5%) 0.4
CV 0.5


Conclusion
The 3 dry ton/ac biosolids application rate produced the highest grain yields and the highest test weight.
Higher biosolids application rates (6 and 9 dry ton/ac) produced lower grain yields and lower test weights.
The lower test weights (6 and 9 dry ton/ac) were probably due to increased water stress caused by
excessive vegetative growth. Grain protein increased with all biosolids application rates, indicating a
greater supply of plant-available N in the soil than needed for maximum yield.







Effect of Biosolids Application on Soil Quality
Ron Jirava
with David Granatstein, Ann Kennedy, Astrid Andersen

Objective
To determine what, if any, measurable impacts a single application of biosolids has on soil quality
and erosion potential on dryland grain fields.

Location: west of Ritzville, WA (Adams Co.)
Annual precipitation: 11.5 inches
Soil: Ritzville silt loam
Rotation: Canola 1990, fallow 1991, winter wheat 1992, fallow 1993

Treatments
Check (no fertilizer)
Aqua ammonia (50 lb N/ac)
3, 6, and 9 dry tons/ac biosolids

Comments
This project consisted of measuring a number of physical, chemical, and microbial parameters of soil
quality on plots already established (see other report from Ron Jirava). Green cover was measured
with a residue rope in November 1993. Infiltration was estimated by a measurement of initial
absorption with a single-ring infiltrometer. The results are reported as the number of minutes required
for infiltration of a ponded inch of water. Straw samples were collected just prior to harvest in July.
Soil samples (0-4" depth) were collected in April and August for chemical and microbial analysis.

Data


Green Infiltration Rate Organic
Treatment Cover Apr 94 Aug 94 Straw Straw: Matter pH P Zn
% min/in min/in lb/ac Grain % ppm ppm

Check 33 11.3 6.3 4669a 1.3 1.6a 6.la 22.3a 0.9a
NH4 32 8.7 7.4 5812ab 1.4 1.6a 6. la 20. la 0.7a
3T biosolids 35 11.8 6.4 6697b 1.4 1.8b 5.5b 47.5b 3.4b
6T biosolids 34 8.1 6.0 6267b 1.3 2.3c 5.2c 77.1c 7.2c
9T biosolids 29 11.2 6.4 6891b 1.4 2.4c 5.2c 98.6cd 9.0c

LSD(5%) NS NS NS 1432 NS 0.17 0.2 17.57 1.92
CV % 5 67 31 15 9 6 2 21 30
NS = not statistically significant


Conclusion
Overall, we were surprised to find measurable changes in soil organic matter which is generally slow to
change. The reduction in pH with increasing biosolids rate is probably due to the sulfur and nitrogen
oxidation and the increase in soluble salts. Also, biosolids tended to suppress the microbial populations
(data not shown), perhaps due to the same cause. Levels of both P and Zn were elevated by biosolids,
but a single agronomic application (3-4 T/ac) should not lead to any problems with these elements and
would supply adequate P and Zn where deficiencies exist.







Biosolids as a Fertilizer for Winter Wheat
Gary Poole
with Jim Kropf, Douglas Co. Extension; Dan Sturgill and Lisa Vogel, Seattle Metro;
Douglas Poole, Boulder Park Inc.; and Dan Sullivan and Andy Bary, WSU-Puyallup

Objective
Compare winter wheat yields, test weight, grain protein, and nitrogen and sulfur recovery from
plots fertilized with biosolids versus anhydrous ammonia.

Location: Mansfield, WA
Annual precipitation: 10.5 inches
Soil: Touhey fine sandy loam
Previous crop: Winter wheat 1992, fallow 1993

Treatments
Check no fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia 50 Ib N/ac and 10 lb S/ac applied 22 June 93
5 dry tons/ac biosolids
10 dry tons/ac biosolids

Comments
Biosolids were applied with a manure spreader on 15 October 92 to standing stubble and immediately
incorporated by disking. The plots were 50 by 1000 ft and the harvest area was 25 by 995 ft. Eltan
winter wheat was seeded 27 Aug 93 at 35 lb/ac on 14 inch row spacing. The treatments were replicated
three times. The stand was very thick and uniform due to good seeding moisture and a long, warm fall.
A short, mild winter and wet April and May got the stand off to a good start prior to the hot, dry
summer. This turned out to be one of the driest cropping years on record. Shallow soil areas began to
stress and burn in June. Harvest was 26 July 94 and utilized a set of jump scales. Postharvest soil
samples were taken 14 Sep 94 with a Kauffman probe to a depth of 4 feet.

Data


Yield (bu/ac) from 25 by 955 ft strips

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Check 37.0 38.5 38.2 37.9a
Anhydrous 52.8 64.8 53.4 57.0b
5 T/ac 61.7 58.5 48.9 56.4b
10 T/ac 62.8 61.8 53.5 59.4b
LSD(5%) 8.9
CV 8.5%

Test weight, lb/bu

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Check 58.9 58.6 58.3 58.6bc
Anhydrous 59.6 59.3 60.5 59.8c
5 T/ac 56.2 57.9 57.4 57.2ab
10 T/ac 57.0 55.6 54.8 55.8a
LSD(5%) 8.1
CV 1.6%


Protein, %

Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Average

Check 8.9 7.8 7.7 8.la
Anhydrous 10.5 10.8 8.6 10.0a
5 T/ac 15.0 13.7 14.5 14.4b
10 T/ac 15.5 17.4 16.5 16.5c
LSD(5%) 1.9
CV 7.7%







Postharvest soil profile sulfate (Ib S/ac/4 ft depth)

Treatment Rep IS* Rep 1N* Rep 2S* Rep 3S Average

Check 136 102 113 115 116a
Anhydrous 131 106 152 101 122a
5 T/ac 135 175 182 126 155b
10 T/ac 203 172 196 200 193c
LSD(5%) 31.2
CV 13.5%
* Reps 1 and 2 were sampled in two locations within each plot, "S"
"N" = north.


= south,


Postharvest soil profile nitrate (Ib N/ac/4 ft depth)

Treatment Rep 1S* Rep IN* Rep 2S* Rep 2N* Rep 3S Average

Check 37 21 21 20 20 24a
Anhydrous 28 22 13 24 16 21a
5 T/ac 50 104 65 86 63 74b
10 T/ac 313 324 200 244 165 249c
LSD(%) 44.2
CV 35.5%
* Reps 1 and 2 were sampled in two locations within each plot, "S" = south,
"N" = north.


Conclusion
All plots had a good, uniform stand of winter wheat in the fall. The biosolids treatments had a
significantly greater vegetative cover than the other treatments in the fall. This resulted in greater
competition to fall emerging weeds and reduced the possibility of wind erosion. The plot site received
approximately 6.5 inches of precipitation from late May through August 1993 of the fallow period, over
350% of normal.

Check yields were significantly lower than the other treatments. This was due to low residual fertility
from previous crops. The check plots headed 16 days earlier than the other treatments, resulting in
smaller heads with fewer kernels. The biosolids caused extensive lodging on the deeper soil resulting in
heads that were poorly filled with shriveled kernels. Both rates of biosolids produced wheat plants that
were taller and more prone to lodging. This is reflected in the low test weight of the biosolids
treatments indicating increased stress in these plants. Protein was increased significantly in both
biosolids plots, a factor which is undesirable for soft white wheat.

The biosolids plots have increased residual nitrogen and sulfur as compared to the other treatments. The
residual nitrates and sulfates from the 10 dry ton per acre treatment is at a level that is undesirable for
normal crop production since these nutrients are subject to leaching. However, both rates of biosolids
will provide a carryover of nutrients for the next crop.







Effect of Biosolids Application on Soil Quality
Gary Poole
with David Granatstein, Ann Kennedy, Astrid Andersen

Objective
To determine what, if any, measurable impacts a single application of biosolids has on soil quality
and erosion potential on dryland grain fields.

Location: West of Mansfield, WA (Douglas Co.)
Annual precipitation: 10.5 inches
Soil: Touhey fine sandy loam
Rotation: Winter wheat/summerfallow

Treatments
Check (no fertilizer)
50 lb N/ac as anhydrous ammonia
5 dry tons/ac biosolids
10 dry tons/ac biosolids

Comments
This project consisted of measuring a number of physical, chemical, and microbial parameters of soil
quality on plots already established (see report from Gary Poole). Green cover was measured with a
residue rope in November 1993. Infiltration was estimated by a measurement of initial absorption with a
single-ring infiltrometer. The results are reported as the number of minutes required for infiltration of a
ponded inch of water. Straw samples were collected just prior to harvest in July. Soil samples (0-4"
depth) were collected in April and August for chemical and microbial analysis.

Data


Green Infiltration Rate Organic
Treatment Cover Apr 94 Aug 94 Straw Straw: Matter pH P Zn
% min/in min/in lb/ac Grain % ppm ppm

Check 52a 5.9 7.2a 5033a 1.93 1.7 5.5a 17.2a 0.6a
Anhydrous 54a 5.6 4.8ab 9176ab 1.83 1.8 5.4a 18.0a 0.9a
5T biosolids 70b 3.7 6.8a 10144b 2.23 2.1 4.9b 51.2b 3.5b
10T biosolids 74b 3.2 2.6b 12334b 2.67 2.2 4.7b 57.1b 4.5b

LSD(5%) 10.3 NS 3.42 4168 NS NS 0.27 17.01 1.35
CV % 8 71 32 23 19 15 3 24 28
NS = not statistically significant


Conclusion
Overall, we were surprised to find measurable changes in such parameters as infiltration and soil organic
matter which are generally slow to change. The reduction in pH with increasing biosolids rate is
probably due to the sulfur and nitrogen oxidation and the increase in soluble salts. Also, biosolids
tended to suppress the microbial populations (data not shown) perhaps due to the same cause. The
greater green cover, higher infiltration, and increased straw production are positive effects on soil
conservation. Levels of both P and Zn were elevated by biosolids, but a single agronomic application
(3-4 T/ac) should not lead to any problems with these elements and would supply adequate P and Zn
where deficiencies exist.






Biosolids Nitrogen Availability During Summer Fallow
Grant Miller
with: Dan Sullivan and Andy Bary, WSU Puyallup; Dan Sturgill, Seattle Metro;
and Mikki Kisson, O'Neill and Sons

Objective
Measure the amount of plant-available nitrogen released from biosolids (municipal sewage sludge
meeting all regulatory standards for land application) during the first year after application.

Location: 15 mi. SE. of Lind, WA; 1 mi S. of Hwy 26
Annual precipitation: 10 inches
Soil: mapped as Ritzville silt loam; soil is sandier than the typical Ritzville soil.
Previous crop: winter wheat, 1993

Treatments
Check (No fertilizer)
Aqua ammonia 45 lb N/ac with 5 lb S/ac as 12-0-0-26
Biosolids 3, 4.5, and 6 dry ton/ac

Comments
Biosolids from the Renton wastewater treatment plant were applied with a manure spreader on 30 Nov
93. Each biosolids rate was applied to four 70 by 700 ft plots. Biosolids were incorporated the day after
application by chiseling. The biosolids contained 109 lb total N and 22 lb ammonium-N per dry ton.
During summer fallow, the field was disked to a depth of 4 to 7 inches on 15 Mar 94, and rodweeded
about every 30 days (4 rodweedings during fallow period). Aqua ammonia was applied with an 18 inch
shank spacing on 21 Apr 94. Soil samples were collected with hand probes (27 Apr 94) and with a
hydraulic Giddings probe (27 Jul 94) in one foot depth increments. Fifteen soil cores (1' depth) and 6
cores (2' and 3' depth) were collected from each plot.

Data
Soil N on 27 April 94 (lb/ac). Ammonium Soil N on 27 July 94 (lb/ac). Ammonium to
to 1 ft, nitrate to 3 ft. 1 ft, nitrate to 3 ft.


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Check 92 60 78 76 77a
Biosolids 6 T/ac 189 149 184 206 182b
LSD(5%) 28.5
CV 10%


Treatment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Average

Check 116 82 74 91a
Biosolids 3 T/ac 203 150 158 170b
Biosolids 6 T/ac 275 251 332 286c
LSD(5%) 70.8
CV 17%


Conclusion
Available N increased during summer fallow. The amount of additional ammonium and nitrate
produced by the biosolids application was equal to 16 percent of the total biosolids N applied (April) and
30 percent of the total N applied (July). One dry ton of biosolids supplied 33 Ib of plant available N
(July). Over 90 percent of the plant-available N measured was in the top foot of soil (April and July).
We conclude that there was enough soil moisture at this site for normal plant-available nitrogen release
from the biosolids. The amount of plant-available N released per dry ton of biosolids was similar to that
observed at WSU research sites on irrigated cropland (Yakima Valley) and in high rainfall areas
(western Washington).







Designing an On-farm Test


The on-farm test design presented here is aimed at measuring and comparing the performance
of two or three different crop management strategies, or "treatments". An on-farm test can be
used to measure performance in terms of yield, stand establishment, protein, water infiltration,
weed counts, or other criteria. The treatments could be as modest as the application of
fungicide in one treatment and not in the other, or as different as zero-till seeding compared to
plow, cultivate, and seed, or even a comparison of different crop rotations.

Designing a test that will produce accurate, conclusive information requires replicated, side-
by-side comparisons. This is the only way to distinguish yield differences that occur naturally
between two strips from differences actually caused by the treatments. Extensive research in
the Inland Pacific Northwest has shown that long, narrow, side-by-side strips replicated four to
six times can produce a very accurate comparison. The longer the strips are, the better the
data is likely to be. There have been many successful tests with four replications of 300 ft
strips, but 750 ft or longer strips are more likely to produce accurate results. Four replications
are recommended, but five or six replications should be used if the comparison might produce
small or very important differences. It is difficult to understand the importance of adequate
replication until you have had some experience trying to draw conclusions from data with only
two or three replications. Try to resist the temptation to minimize the number of replications.
With the availability of portable weighing equipment, eight to twelve strips can be harvested in
less than three hours.

After deciding what the treatments are going to be, pick locations in the field where you can
place the treatments in long, side-by-side strips. All strips in a replication should have an
equal chance to perform well, in your best judgement. In other words, do not place one strip
on flat ground and the other on a hill slope. Other areas to avoid are fence lines and field
corners where extra fertilizer and tillage occur. Flip a coin to decide which treatment goes in
which strip. Repeat for each replication. Replications can be next to each other, or in
separate parts of the field.

When measurements are made, such as stand counts or yield, record them separately for each
strip. The data can be analyzed statistically using a hand calculator and step-by-step formulas,
a free, easy-to-use computer program from OSU called AGSTATS, or with help from your
county extension agent. Even without statistics, a lot can be learned by looking at each
replication to see if one treatment was consistently better than the other.

If you are a beginner at doing experiments, ask for some help from your extension agent or
someone with OFT experience. Most likely a little discussion with an experienced
experimenter will save a mistake or two and make your OFT more successful.











1994 Pacific Northwest On-Farm Test Results
From the Idaho, Oregon, and Washington STEEP II On-Farm Testing Projects



Stewart Wuest

STEEP II On-Farm Testing Coordinator
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington


Solutions to Environmental & Economic Problems


STEEP II On-Farm Testing Project
Principal Investigators


Baird Miller
Roger Veseth

Stephen Guy
Don Wysocki
Russ Karow


- Extension Agronomist, Washington State University
- Extension Conservation Tillage Specialist, Washington State University and University
of Idaho
- Extension Crop Management Specialist, University of Idaho
- Extension Soil Scientist, Oregon State University
- Extension Agronomist, Oregon State University









INTRODUCTION


This bulletin details many of the on-farm tests performed by farmers
with help from fieldmen, extension agents, and researchers in the Pacific
Northwest during 1993-94. Most are connected in some way to the STEEP II
On-farm Testing project, a federally funded effort aimed at helping farmers
make use of on-farm tests to increase development and adoption of soil and
resource conserving farming methods. The OFT project is lead by extension
workers from Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, and provides technical
assistance and educational materials to farmers through their local Cooperative
Extension office. We also work with Ag industry, Conservation Districts, and
other organizations. For more information on the project or on-farm testing,
contact Stewart Wuest (509-335-3491). Also see the article on designing on-
farm tests and the guide to resources later in this bulletin.

One of the most important aspects of a well designed on-farm test is
replication. This is why I have put the data from each replication in the reports.
Statistics help in deciding if measured differences in performance are due to the
treatments applied or simply due to the random variation that exists in every
field. If the difference between the treatments is greater than the "least
significant difference at a 5% probability level" (LSD(5%)), we know that there
is only a 5% probability that it was caused by random variation and not the
treatments. Personal judgement and thought must go into any conclusion, and
final decisions regarding a farming practice should reflect many economic and
management factors and more than one year of tests. On-farm tests are
designed to provide farmers with an accurate, low risk tool for exploring
production options and making successful decisions.







Guide to Resources


1992 Pacific Northwest On-farm Test Results. S.B. Wuest, B.C. Miller, R.J. Veseth, S.O.
Guy, D.J. Wysocki and R.S. Karow. 1992. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences
Technical Report 92-4, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.

and

1993 Pacific Northwest On-Farm Test Results. S.B. Wuest, B.C. Miller, R.J. Veseth, S.O.
Guy, D.J. Wysocki and R.S. Karow. 1993. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences
Technical Report 94-1, Washington State University, Pullman WA.

These give results from previous year's on-farm tests.


On-Farm Testing: A Grower's Guide. B. Miller, E. Adams, P. Peterson and R. Karow.
1992. Washington State University Cooperative Extension EB1706.

A guide to designing and carrying out OFT. Includes forms for record keeping. 20
pages, $1.00. Order from WSU Cooperative Extension Bulletin Office (509-335-
2857).
















































Issued by Washington State University Cooperative Extension, Harry B.
Burcalow, Interim Director, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture in
furtherance of the Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914. Cooperative Extension
programs and policies are consistent with federal and state laws and
regulations on nondiscrimination regarding race, color, gender, national
origin, religion, age, disability, and sexual orientation. Evidence of
noncompliance may be reported through your local Cooperative Extension
office.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs