2008 Summer Direct Seed Link

	Click Here for Print Version (pdf)

What a difference direct seeding makes! By Hans Kok, Extension Conservation Tillage Specialist, U of Idaho/WSU		The Real Dirt ................................2 Carbon Offsets............................3 Direct Seed Benefits ..................4 PNDSA Membership Information .................................5 CHAFF, RESIDUE & STUBBLE PNDSA Member Comments....5 2008 Direct Seed Partners .......5

Now that we have our spring crops finally in the ground it is time to reflect on the winter and the moisture we received. According to the May weather data for Pullman we received 17.08 inches since September 1, which is about one inch short of our average amount. Since the beginning of the year we are just over two inches short. We received about double the average amount of snow in part of the region. In Moscow that meant about 80 inches of snow. Shoveling that out of my driveway is a distant memory, although the pictures of 7 foot walls of snow restore that feeling in my back quickly! So, we ended up with about average moisture, but more in the form of snow than usual. In a year where we get more rain and less snow, the water distribution over the landscape is pretty even. However this winter, with all the snow and the hard driving winds, massive drifting resulted in uneven moisture distribution. During spring planting I noticed that farmers were tilling their fields and producing big dust clouds, while huge snow drifts were still hanging on the north facing slopes. Parts of the fields close to the snow were so wet they had to farm around them. We even had wind erosion from tilled fields this spring. Yet as I spent some time with direct seeders, I noticed smaller snow drifts, and moist field conditions, no dust as they were planting. We took some soil samples in tilled and direct seeded fields and found more soil moisture in the direct seeded fields. My assumption was that the stubble in the direct seeded fields held more of the snow in place, and did not allow it to form the huge drifts we saw in tilled fields. So I was pleased to find out that a team of the Agricultural Research Service at WSU, under the direction of Dr. David Huggins, had indeed looked at that. They took snow measurements all winter long across a direct seeded field, and across an adjoining conventionally tilled field. They mapped the snow depth and took soil moisture samples to a depth of five feet after the snow melted. They found the same thing; the direct seeded field had smaller drifts, and more even snow distribution than the tilled field. The snow was held in place by the stubble in the field. On another note, recent insolated heavy rainfall events throughout the Palouse region and south into Nez Perce County have provided another good demonstration of some additional direct seed attributes. While rills and gullies have formed in many intensively tilled fields hit by these showers, the direct seed fields have demonstrated limited runoff and virtually no erosion. This will equate into better yields, higher and more consistent quality and easier harvest in the direct seed fields. Many old timers have commented that a good gully washer will bring on a bumper crop; in a direct seed cropping system we no longer have to fill up the streams and rivers with sediment and nutrients to get a bumper crop on the rest of the field.
New Office Location for PNDSA! The Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Association has moved to a new location. We are still in Moscow but you can find us at the University of Idaho Business Incubator: 121 Sweet Avenue, Suite 119D NEW MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 9428, Moscow, ID 83843 pndsa@directseed.org 208-301-0810 or 208-301-0811 www.directseed.org


Back to INDEX
EXCERPTS FROM: “Uncovering The Real Dirt on No-Till” An article by Dr. Jill Clapperton and Dr. Megan Ryan In this and the last Direct Seed Link concerns regarding the use of intensive tillage to bring CRP land into production were addressed. The paper quoted below provides additional evidence that supports the need for clear recommendations to use low disturbance direct seed cropping systems when bringing CRP land into production.
	“A soil is not a pile of dirt. It is a transformer, a body that organises raw materials into tissues. These are the tissues that become the mother to all organic life”. ~ William Bryant Logan, 1995. When we are standing on the ground, we are really standing on the roof top of another world. Living in the soil are plant roots, viruses, bacteria, fungi, algae, protozoa, mites, nematodes, worms, ants, maggots and other insects and insect larvae (grubs), and larger animals. Indeed, the volume of living organisms below ground is often far greater than that above ground. Thus, farm management practices such as crop rotations, tillage, fallow, irrigation, and nutrient inputs can all affect the population and diversity of soil organisms, and in turn, soil quality. CREATING AND MANAGING THE SOIL AS A HABITAT Soil management is defined by Nyle Brady (1984) as the sum of all tillage operations, cropping practices, fertilizer, soil amendments, and other treatments applied to the soil for the production of plants. Once again, the emphasis is on the interconnectedness between all farming practices and the soil.
TILLAGE Management practices that affect the placement and incorporation of residues like tillage can make it harder or easier for the soil organisms responsible for cycling nutrients. Tillage directly affects soil porosity and the placement of residues. Porosity determines the amount of air and water the soil can hold. Placement of residues affects the soil surface temperature, rate of evaporation and water content, and nutrient loading and rate of decay. In other words, tillage collapses the pores and tunnels that were constructed by soil animals, and changes the water holding, gas, and nutrient exchange capacities of the soil. Reduced tillage and particularly no tillage reduce soil disturbance, increase organic matter content, improve soil structure, buffer soil temperatures, and allow soil to catch and hold more melt and rain water. No tillage soils are more biologically active and biologically diverse, have higher nutrient loading capacities, release nutrients gradually and continuously, and have better soil structure than reduced or cultivated soils. No tillage dramatically increase the population and diversity of soil animals, particularly soil mites, that feed on fungi. Under no tillage, litter or residue is primarily decomposed by fungi that accumulate nitrogen in their hyphae, in response the population of fungal feeding mites increases rapidly, using some of the nitrogen from the fungi and releasing the remainder into the soil to be used by plants and other organisms. No tillage systems and rotations with perennial crops or pasture show greater resilience (they can recover faster after disturbances such as drought, flood or tillage) in terms of soil animals because populations and species diversity of animals are higher, there is more SOM, and nitrogen is recycled into the system at a greater rate compared with conventionally tilled systems. Soils after pasture phases and perennial crops are more structured and biologically active, have higher organic matter content, and turnover nitrogen more rapidly. Including a deep-rooted legume like alfalfa or lucerne can help increase the rate of nitrogen cycling and reduce plow layer compaction. Mixed- and inter-cropping systems increase above ground diversity which in turn increases diversity in the below ground community. Scientists and farmers alike speculate that a more diverse soil community results in a more flexible soil. This means a soil that has the ability to successfully grow a number of crops, and which is resilient in drought, low nutrient conditions, and after disturbance.


Back to INDEX
Carbon Offsets : What role will agriculture be allowed?
By Russ Evans, PNDSA As the prospect of a new government looms on the horizon so does legislation that will govern the allowable limits of green house gases (GHG) that can be released by industry. With each of the presidential candidates indicating they support climate change legislation the Capital has seen all sectors, including agriculture, putting forward their respective positions in preparation for this impending legislation. During the past year there have been eight or more bill proposals looking for support among the legislators. Many of these proposals have ignored or intentionally avoided including the potential of terrestrial carbon sequestration in agriculture and forestry lands. What was known as the Lieberman-Warner Bill gained enough support to nearly make a vote in Senate and while it did include support for agriculture and forestry offsets it was pulled due to the anticipated impact it would have on energy prices and the inevitable impact of these on the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector. While this particular bill did not pass, the issue of climate change legislation will not fade into distant memory any time soon. It will be back on the floor as one of the first issues addressed by a new administration. On May 21, 2008 PNDSA Past President, Dick Wittman traveled to Washington, D.C. to testify before the Senate Agriculture Hearing on the role of Agriculture Offsets. PNDSA helped fund the trip along with	Core samples at John Aeschliman's near Colfax, WA May 2008
the Agriculture Carbon Market Working Group. While in Washington, Wittman took the opportunity to meet with some key agriculture representatives to put forward agriculture’s concerns and help solidify support for including agriculture as legitimate offset option within future legislation. Those representatives with an understanding of agriculture expressed their support but during his visit Dick discovered there is still a lot of education required. At the same time he was meeting with various agriculture representatives, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, submitted a substitution that was much less friendly to agriculture interest. As it turned out this was the first of many amendments to be put forward and there will be many more before climate change legislation becomes law. After his return Wittman indicated the energy sector is starting to come on side and see that agriculture and forestry can provide the most economical offset alternatives and keep the cost of mitigating GHG emissions at a reasonable level. This will be in everyone’s best interest but the battle will go on for some time before we will know what role agriculture will be allowed in a national GHG mitigation strategy. What’s at stake? The terrestrial carbon pool, or carbon stored in soils, is second in volume only to the carbon stored in the oceans and is much larger than the atmospheric carbon pool. Throughout the history of annual crop production, the agriculture practice of plowing and intensive tillage seedbed preparation has resulted in the release of significant amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. This has intensified over the past century with the introduction modern mechanization and it is estimated that up to 50% of the original carbon stored in prairie soils, which for the most part have been in annual crop production for over 100 years, has been released to the atmosphere. This has been a significant contribution to rising global CO2 levels. This conversion of soil organic matter to atmospheric CO2 has other negative connotations, including: declining soil health, loss of fertility, increased erosion and a host of other economic and social impacts (See Direct Seed Benefits, Page 5 in this issue). It is estimated that in the U.S. the widespread adoption of direct seed cropping systems could provide 40% of the annual CO2 offset required to meet proposed national GHG reductions targets. Some climate change advocates however, would rather not provide incentives to growers for the adoption of these practices. Others see the environmental and social value that will be captured by accelerating the adoption process. Having this pool of offsets available over the short term can provide real reductions in GHG accumulations while industries retool and become more efficient in their use of non-renewable resources and reduce the economic impact of the impending transition to a carbon neutral economy. At the Local Level At the local level growers are asking “What is this going to do for me?” Unfortunately, there is no easy, certain answer for this question – yet! The short answer is that marketing carbon stored in your direct seed fields may provide another revenue stream for your farm sometime in the future. How this will happen and the value of this revenue stream will be dependant on a host of external and manageable variables (in addition to legislation). The value of carbon offsets can be considered an external influence. The North American price has largely been determined by what buyers are willing to pay to voluntarily reduce their GHG emissions. So far this has been between $2 and $8 /mT. Legislation will have a significant impact on this price. Even the hint of support of legislation by the presidential candidates impacted the price quoted on the CCX, driving up their list price by over $2/mT. In Europe, where cap and trade legislation has been in place for over four years, carbon offsets are trading at over $30 U.S./mT. In their current trading scheme Europe has not allowed carbon offset from agriculture soils to be traded, however there are rumors that soils will be included in their next program. The manageable variables include determining how much carbon will be stored in your soil. The amount of soil carbon that can be stored, changes by very small amounts over relatively long periods of time and large areas. It is influenced by agro-climatic conditions and variations in farming systems. One of the stumbling blocks to getting agriculture soils accepted as a legitimate GHG offset is showing that we can accurately and economically predict carbon sequestration rates within this variability. We are working on several fronts to do this, including with Dr. Dave Huggins, ARS Soil Scientist, at the Cook Agronomy Farm in Pullman. Huggins’ team is developing a soil sampling protocol that will provide accurate carbon sequestration rates for growers across the Pacific Northwest. It is anticipated this work will continue through this year and be ready for model testing and application in early 2009. PNDSA is also managing a pilot project for GHG emission reductions gained from the adoption of precision agriculture technologies plus developing a scoping report for a large scale aggregation project for carbon sequestration in soils. All of these efforts will eventually combine into a comprehensive, high quality package we can offer to both Pacific Northwest farmers and potential buyers. As an industry we also have to show that what we are providing as GHG offset is over and above business as usual – what is referred to as additionality. If everyone is already direct seeding then we are already storing that carbon on an annual basis – there is no additionality. So, we have to be able to show that we are gaining new direct seed acres as part of our offset package. On the other hand, what we don’t want to see happen is a grower taking perverse action and plowing their land one year so they can be considered new adopters the next in order to qualify for a carbon offset program. The incentive solution will be a compromise somewhere in the middle providing compensation for action taken and reducing the overall offset to represent an objective mitigation rate. The bottom line is, “how many dollars will the incentive to adopt direct seeding be?” Understanding there is still a great deal of uncertainty and many on farm variables that need to be accounted for, the carbon sequestration incentive for adopting direct seeding may range anywhere from $0.01 to $0.20 per bushel.


Back to INDEX
PNDSA is often asked to outline the benefits of direct seeding. Even though this is old hat to many it is good to be reminded of the many benefits direct seeding provides. These benefits can be referred to when talking to your neighbors, banker and landlords.
What are the benefits of direct seeding?
SAVE FUEL Every farm operation burns fuel. Reducing tillage operations can reduce fuel consumption by an average 3.5 gallons an acre or 3,500 gallons/year on a 1000 acre farm (CTIC). Burning one gallon of diesel results in 22.3 lbs of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) green house gases being released to the atmosphere. 3,500 gallons of diesel not burned will save 35.4 mT CO2e from being released as green house gas. REDUCE LABOR, SAVE TIME Fewer tillage passes equals less tractor hours, less labor hours to pay, more time for management and the ability to farm more acres. Spring 2008 spring wheat. Photo submitted by Eric Odberg, Genesee, ID
EXTEND FARM MACHINERY LIFE and reduce equipment support costs While direct seed equipment requires capital investment and in some cases additional horsepower, fewer tillage passes result in extended tractor life and requires less support equipment. The European Conservation Agriculture Federation (ECAF) estimates a savings of $6.5/acre (9.7 EUR/hectare) on machinery depreciation and maintenance costs, equaling $6,500 (4409 EUR) savings on a 1000 acre (454.5 hectares) farm (ECAF). BUILD SOIL QUALITY: IMPROVE CROP YIELDS Direct seeding builds soil, improves soil health and increases productivity. Limited soil disturbance and main-taining crop residue on the soil surface increases soil organic matter that feeds soil microbial activity resulting in healthy soil and improved nutrient exchange capacity. Surface residue also facilitates increased water infiltration rates, water holding capacity and reduces potential for erosion which maintains valuable top soil for production. Extended crop rotations help reduce pathogen loads and increase yields in high value crops.
Direct seeding is good for your soil Continuous direct seed cropping systems replace important biomass residues in the soil, feeding the soil’s micro flora and fauna and ultimately improve soil health. Healthy soil supports healthy, strong and competitive plant communities that are more resilient against pathogens and crop diseases.
IMPROVE SOIL FERTILITY In addition to increasing organic matter (OM), continuous direct seed cropping systems improve soil particle aggregation and create an ideal habitat for earthworms and micro biological activity. Plants establish roots, find moisture and utilize nutrients more efficiently. INCREASE SOIL ORGANIC MATTER and improve soil tilth Continuous direct seed cropping systems increase soil OM. Research has shown the more often soil is tilled, the more carbon is released to the atmosphere and less carbon is available to build organic matter for future crops. Increased OM levels result in better nutrient exchange capability and improved soil tilth for increased water holding capacity. EFFICIENT USE OF AVAILABLE MOISTURE Continuous direct seed cropping systems build a protective mulch on the soil surface which reduces the impact of raindrops, buffers the soil from temperature extremes and reduces soil moisture evaporation. More moisture gets into the soil and more moisture stays in the soil where crops can utilize it for increased productivity. Channels created by earthworms and undisturbed decaying plant roots also improve water infiltration. Reducing tillage also saves moisture. Each tillage pass uses, on average, 1/4 to 1/2 inch of soil moisture which is an equivalent of 7,000 to 14,000 gallons of water per acre - 7,000,000 to 14,000,000 gallons on a 1000 acre farm. (Rourke, Manitoba)
Direct seeding is good for the environment
REDUCES SOIL EROSION Crop residues anchored on the soil surface reduce erosion by water and wind by up to 90% compared to unprotected, intensively tilled soils. During the last 40 years, nearly 1/3 of the world’s arable land has been lost to erosion and continues to be lost at a rate of more than 22 million acres per year. Continuous direct seed cropping systems are recognized as a sustainable farming system by the United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. IMPROVES WATER QUALITY The increased water infiltration capacity of continuous direct seed cropping systems significantly reduce surface water runoff and the potential for the translocation of nutrients and surface applied crop protection products. Low volumes and slow moving surface water that may leave direct seed fields is cleaner and carries less sediment, nutrients and toxins than other cropping systems. Also, once water has infiltrated the soil, microbes that live in carbon-rich soils quickly degrade pesticides and utilize nutrients to protect groundwater quality. Reduced runoff and leaching decreases off-site nutrient loads and reduces sedimentation on country roads and ditches, streams and rivers IMPROVES AIR QUALITY Anchored crop residues significantly slow wind speed and intensity at the soil surface resulting in reduced airborne dust and herbicide particulate that can result from wind events. Reduced fuel consumption from direct seed cropping systems also reduce airborne fuel emission particulates from farming operations. BENEFITS WILDLIFE Crop residues provide shelter and food for wildlife while improved water quality enhances fish and waterfowl habitat.
Direct seeding is a climate change solution
Direct seed cropping systems increase and store organic soil carbon. Increasing soil stored carbon is, in itself, beneficial to agriculture production; it is also beneficial to society. For every ton of carbon stored in the soil 3.34 mT of CO2e has been removed from the atmosphere. Between 0.2 and .75 mT/acre CO2e per year (depending on tons of residue produced and management practices) can be removed from the atmosphere and sequestered in direct seeded soils. This is an atmospheric benefit the equivalent of not burning between 15 and 75 gallons of diesel per acre per year.
Stewardship
Direct seeding is the economic,environmentally and socially responsible cropping system choice for landowners and crop production managers.


Back to INDEX
	PNDSA Member Comments CHAFF, STUBBLE & RESIDUE A Better Solution By Eric Odberg, Genesee, ID PNDSA Treasurer
	The front cover of “The Progressive Farmer” magazine that arrived in my mail box made me take a second look with its picture of a tractor and a plow and the headline, “Breaking Out the Plow: CRP just can’t compare with high grain prices.” If that doesn’t make a direct seeder’s blood boil, I don’t know what will. I’m not here to argue the merits of what a great environmental program CRP is or how it has taken environmentally sensitive land out of production and cut soil erosion by approximately 450 million tons a year or that putting the land back into production will ultimately drive down grain prices. No, I won’t argue those issues but I will argue that you can put CRP land back into production while retaining all of the environmental benefits of CRP, just by direct seeding and not “Breaking Out the Plow”. Several years ago, I witnessed first hand a neighboring farmer some of you might know, Russ Zenner, take an eleven year old piece of CRP ground and put it back into production without any tillage and with great success. His takeout date was July 1st of that year and his first operation was the application of a high rate of glyphosate, approximately 64 oz of 6 lb. material. He then did something decidedly different, and did not plant winter wheat that fall. Instead he followed Dwayne Beck’s advice and planted a pulse crop the following spring after another normal rate application of gylphosate. He was able to seed the pulse crop deep to moisture with the seed zone being very mellow, no straw tucking and an excellent biological environment. This was accomplished with a single disk opener and, from first hand experience, it almost seems it was specifically designed for this purpose. Although Russ farms in a high rainfall zone, a lot of the same take-out techniques can be applied to a lower rainfall, chem fallow regions. A high initial glyphosate rate followed by a normal application prior to seeding will need to be used. Winter wheat still might be the best option for the first crop, but a winter pea or canola may also be options. A hoe opener can be used instead of a single disc, the field just won’t be as smooth. With CRP ground, you have an ideal seed bed and biological environment that will otherwise take years to accomplish when going from intensive tilled soils to direct seed. So, whatever you do, don’t “Break Out the Plow”.

	PNDSA Partnership Information: www.directseed.org/partnerinfo.html

Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Assocation Membership Information
Yearly membership contribution to the Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Association provides support for ... Delivering the Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Conference. Members take advantage of reduced conference fees. Peer support for growers developing their direct seed cropping systems. Input to research throughout the Pacific Northwest. Representation to government on policy and program development that effect the environment and direct seed growers. Your source for the latest information and research on direct seed cropping systems.			There are many ways to contribute: PNDSA Member or Associate Member $100 per year PNDSA Lifetime Member $1500 1 time contribution PNDSA Supporter ($250 - $2,499 per year) PNDSA Partner (Starting at $2,500 per year) PNDSA Board Member (4 meetings per year) Participate in a Working Group Contribute Financially to the Legislative Fund Make a Donation to support ongoing activities.
			More information at www.directseed.org/membership.html Click Here for PNDSA Membership Form.pdf



Click Here for Print Version (pdf)			Back to INDEX