harvest the plots.Alan Brutlag, Gerald H. Smith, Joseph F. Giles, Allan Cattanachl
1Sugarbeet grower, Wendell, MN; Consultant-Farm Management and Agricultural Research; Department of Soil Science, NDSU; Extension Sugarbeet Specialist, NDSU and U of M.
This three year project brings together a combination of individuals from several area sources. The site of the trial was on the Brutlag farm at Wendell, Minnesota managed by Alan Brutlag. In the fall of 1988, a group of advisors met by invitation from Alan to discuss their suggestions and directions on the scope and design of the research to gather the most information as accurately and extensively as possible. The group consisted of Dr. Allan W. Cattanach; Dr. Joseph F. Giles; Gerald H. Smith; Alvin Hanson, sugarbeet grower, Baker, MN and Chairman of the Sugarbeet Research and Education board of Minnesota and North Dakota (1988) and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative (1988); Don Lilleboe, Editor of "THE SUGARBEET GROWER", Fargo, ND; Joe Montonye and Jeff Lepp, SCS Elbow Lake, MN; Grant County Extension Agent, Elbow Lake, MN; John Bergman, Sales Agronomist, Hilleshog Mono-Hy, Glyndon, MN; and Randy Larson, Crop Consultant, Herman, MN.
The project was created to modify a ridge till system and make it adaptable to sugarbeet production. In the past, ridge tilling in sugarbeets has had very limited acceptance because of associated problems of crop rotation, soil type, residue management, row width and tradition.
The objective of the system is to reduce winter soil erosion by establishing a cover crop and building ridges in the fall on small grain stubble. Deridging in the spring and planting into a moist, well drained, warm seed environment should net higher yields and profits because of greater emergence, improved seedling vigor and increased stand. Residue from the fall cover crop would reduce spring erosion while aiding and protecting the growing sugarbeet seedling. A reduction in labor, fuel, herbicides and tillage to the soil will reduce cost to the farmer and damage to the environment.
In 1990, the same procedure was followed for soil testing, fall tillage, ridging and deridging as 1989. The main difference was three areas of study.
Plot A: Modified ridged till system compared to conventional tillage consisted of 6 replications, 12 rows wide the length of the field (1/2 mile).
Plot B: A comparison between modified ridged till system without fall applied nitrogen and conventional tillage with fall nitrogen application - four replications, 12 rows wide and 1/2 mile long.
Plot C: Red Root Pigweed control between ridged and conventional tillage in four replications, 12 rows wide and 150 feet long.
Soil Conservation Service measurements of the crop residue on the soil surface was 67% on the ridged and 41.5% on the conventional.
Prior to deridging, recording thermometers were placed in the ridged and conventional plots at the same depth to monitor the soil temperatures (Chart 1). Soil moisture samples were taken to a depth of 6 inches from the top of the ridge and on the conventional tillage before and after planting. The samples were divided into 1 inch increments and analyzed for percent moisture (Table 1 and Table 2). Before planting in the field, the Nodet Gougis vacuum planter was tested with three replications for the number of seeds dropped in 100 feet of row. The results are stated in Table 3. Plots were planted May 5, 1 1/9 inches deep at 4 mph, in moist soil with the planter set for a 4.1 inch seed drop of Hilleshog 8277 large size seed. Rainfall occurred as follows: March, 2.03 inches; April, 1.80; May 1-.02, 13-.77, 15-.27, 16-.09, 18-.12, 19-.27, 22-.81 (plus 2 1/2" of ping pong ball size hail), 25-.02; June, 4.89; July, 1.55; August, 3.41; September, 2.50; and October, 1.84.
The plots were cultivated 3 times during the summer and had 2 applications of Betanex and one application of Poast except for plot C. No fungicide applications were made due to a very low level of Cercospora infection.
Sharon Brutlag made daily counts of seeding emergence and staked each seedling with a color coded stake by day of emergence on 8 replications. Each replication consisted of 12 rows 10 feet long. Individual rows were counted to compare the rate of emergence and the total emergence between conventional and ridged rows plus each individual row on the planter. The results are shown in Tables 3, 4 and 5.
On October 15, the plots were defoliated with a 12 row topper and harvested with a 6 row harvester. Each twelve row replication was harvested separately. Three tare and sugar samples were taken from each replication to calculate sugar, purity, population and tare. Each replication was loaded into individual trucks and then delivered to the piling site.
The total emergence by planter row was in the 60-66% range with the exception of row 3 which was higher in total emergence on May 15. Row 4 was lower than the average in total emergence on May 15.
The purpose of this chart was to illustrate the uniformity of planter seed drop by row and what affect it may have on emergence rate and speed. The lowest and the highest emergence came from rows 4 and 3 respectively but had starting seed counts of 339 and 337. It would appear the planting units were in good mechanical conditions and the emergence difference was due to soil condition the seed was planted into.
Table 4 and Table 5 illustrate the amount and percentage of emergence by day. On May 15,-16,-17, the emergence was slightly higher in the ridge than conventional tillage, however; the highest emergence was in the conventional portion of the plot. Comparing these emergence counts to harvest counts in Plot A and Plot B, the harvest population was highest in the ridged treatments. Perhaps more emerged in the conventional treatments but do not survive until harvest which could be due to a more healthy seedling and growing environment in the ridged.
Table 7 and Table 8 of plot B illustrate a significant difference between two management systems for increase profit and nitrogen reduction in sugarbeet production. The purpose of the plot was to measure the difference between the ridged system without the recommended 60 pounds of nitrogen and conventional tillage with the 60 pounds added. Statistically the comparison is not sound because the comparison is made with two variables (nitrogen with and without) and ridged versus conventional tillage. A ridged plot with nitrogen applied would have given data that could have been analyzed statistically more accurately.
Comparing the two systems without reference to statistical analysis, increases can be noted in percent sugar, purity, recoverable sugar per acre and per ton plus return per acre. My judgement is the plot was under stress from the wind and hail which limited growth for higher tonnage. The added 60 pounds of nitrogen caused a negative affect on percent sugar and purity. This, with tonnage and population about equal, the increase in quality under these stress conditions produced more return per acre. This area of interest can be studied better with a different plot design next year. Table 8 illustrates there were 236 pounds of nitrogen available in the four foot dep thin conventional tillage and 156 pounds in the ridged plot or a difference of 80 pounds per acre.
In 1989, observations were made of improved control of Kochia and Red Root Pigweed population from ridging but no measurements were taken. Table 9 of plot C outlines data collected from a plot within plot A demonstrating a significant reduction in RRPW from 3580 (conventional) to 1748 (ridged) plants per acre for a reduction of 1832 plants or 51.1%. Counts were made by individual rows on the planter (or deridger) by replication and treatment to evaluate differences in hopes of determining what causes the weed reduction. Perhaps the deridger and/or planter change the micro-environment of the soil profile surrounding the seed enough to kill germinating RRPW seeds or reduces their ability to germinate and emerge. No Kochia was present in the plot to make an evaluation.
Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative - for analyzing samples for sugar, purity and tare.
Norm Cattanach - NDSU Soil Science Department - for seed counting and running the statistical analysis.
Soil Science Department, NDSU - for analyzing the moisture samples and typing the report.
Bob Aune - with Brutlag Farms - for the extra time and patience taken to
plant, maintain and
harvest the plots.
Victor Klosterman - Alloway Rau, Fargo, ND - for his input and cooperation in
developing the ridger
and deridger.
1990 Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. Volume 21, pages 122-131.