Quality pasture is one of the greatest assets in the production of ruminant livestock. Good pasture provides high quality feed very cost effectively and with a relatively low labor requirement. However, many pastures receive little if any management; resulting in low yielding, low quality feed. Here are a few basic tips when it comes to managing for a quality pasture.
Forages are unique plants that require careful management to perform to their fullest potential, which in turn can have major benefits to animal productivity.
In 2015, the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) released their report on soil test levels. Potassium was one of the soil nutrients that were exhibiting a steady decline in soil test levels. A&L Great Lakes Laboratories regularly contributes to the IPNI data set, and we also analyze our data for the Eastern Corn Belt region.
In the graph above the green bars indicate the average potassium soil test levels in ppm. The dashed line is the trend line of the soil test values, indicating an average 1.3 ppm per year decline. In addition, the blue line on the graph indicates the percentage of samples that are likely deficient. This trendline is of particular concern since it exhibits a steady increase in the percentage of soils which are likely deficient in soil test K levels.
While it is difficult to attribute these declines to only one factor, yield and fertilizer application trends show an overall net negative balance. On average, potassium is being removed from the soil faster than it is being supplied. It takes, on average, the addition of 8 pounds of K2O raise a soil test by 1 ppm. Inversely, the removal of 8 pounds of K2O lower a soil test by 1 ppm. On an annual average, crop removal of K2O exceeds application by 10 pounds per acre per year. Looking at USDA data, the crop removal of potassium at USDA average yields for corn and soybeans began outpacing average potash applications in the late 1990’s, just before the steady increase of deficient soils begin in the early 2000’s.
There are many factors that may potentially contribute to these trends. Better crop management practices and improved genetics are leading to rapid increases in yields. If those higher yields are not accounted for when generating fertilizer recommendations, particularly if actual yields exceeded yield goals, nutrient recommendations may be inadequate to supplant what the crop actually removed. Predicting future yields in these high yield environments can be difficult, so it may be more beneficial to base crop removal on yields obtained in previous years, and to adjust future removals to accommodate high yielding crops that occurred since the previous fertilizer application.
Another factor may be the financial, logistical, and equipment limitations brought about by the high amounts of fertilizer material which are required to meet these higher crop removal needs. As an example, if applying nutrients in the form of MAP (11-52-0) and potash (0-0-60) on a two-year application cycle to replace the nutrients removed from a 240 bushel corn crop and a 70 bushel soybean crop, a total of 500 pounds of fertilizer per acre would be required. If an application is capped below this level due to fertilizer budgets, equipment limitations, or concerns of overloading the soil’s ability to retain nutrients, applications adequate to meet crop removal may not be made. Often these maximums are in the range of 400 to 500 pounds, not covering crop removal in some yield environments.
A final management practice that may be reducing the amount of potassium held by the soil is the application of high calcium products at the same time as potassium applications. The soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) has a limited ability to hold cation nutrients, and if a large quantity of calcium is added to the system, it can lead to losses of soil potassium. This is amplified when multiyear applications of potassium are made, or when large applications of calcium products are made in a similar time frame as a potassium application.
As the weather begins to warm up and our landscapes begin to show new life, we occasionally receive phone calls from homeowners and landscape professionals about plants that are exhibiting injury symptoms. These symptoms can range from minor yellowing of foliage even to death of plants. While a number of factors can cause this, a common one is injury from deicing salts.
Salt injury is generally limited to areas adjacent to an area that has received deicing salt applications during the winter, such as along roads, sidewalks, or patios. Salts that come in contact with foliage can cause burning and discoloration of the foliage. This type of injury can be significant depending on the percentage of the foliage affected, but the injury will generally subside once the foliage is rinsed by rainfall or irrigation. However, if high levels of salt enter the soil, they can continue to cause damage.
When salts enter the soil, they can change the way that water moves within the soil and cause the plants to be stressed by restricting the ability of roots to take up water from the soil, in essence causing water stresses similar to drought stress. These salts can also displace essential plant nutrients, leading to possible nutrient deficiencies within the plant.
However, not all landscape injuries that we observe in the spring are salt damage. Winter can be brutal on landscaping plants in other ways. Cold temperatures, extremely dry air and strong winds can cause many plants, especially evergreen trees and shrubs, to lose moisture rapidly, leading to browning of foliage. This type of injury, known as desiccation injury, may closely resemble salt injury, but can be found in plants away from deicing salt applications.
If salt injury is suspected, it is recommended that the soil be tested for soluble salts and sodium (Na), in addition to a routine soil test, to determine if salt levels are high enough to cause further injury to plants. By analyzing for these properties, you can assess the amount of impact that the deicing salt has had within the soil profile and take steps to mitigate its effects.
Correcting mild to moderate salt injury generally involves flushing the excess salt from the rooting zone. This requires thorough and repeated watering to cause the water to flow through the rooting zone, thereby reducing the potential for toxicity. This should be done as soon as possible to reduce further injury. In situations of very high salts or poor drainage it may be more practical to remove and replace the affected soil.
Did you miss sending a picture in for the 2018 A&L Great Lakes Laboratories calendar? You have another chance. The response to the 2018 calendar was great, and we are going to again ask for your pictures for the 2019 calendar. We want to see pictures that illustrate what fuels your passion for agriculture and customer service. When you get that picture captured, send it to email@example.com along with your name and address. Please submit your pictures in the highest resolution possible before August 1st, 2018. In August we will select our favorite pictures, then we will be letting our followers on Facebook vote on their favorite, to be on the cover of the 2019 calendar. Follow us on Facebook for voting details.
There are still a few seats available for the 2018 Soil Fertility Workshops. While the presentation materials evolve to include current research, the focus on fundamental soil fertility concepts remains at the core of the workshops. The workshops are designed with a focus on how nutrients interact with the soil and function within the plant, and how these relations impact nutrient management decisions. The program uses fundamental text references and university research to introduce concepts and then make them applicable to modern production agriculture.
The workshops run from 8 am to 4 pm local time. For CCA’s, the workshops will provide 7.0 CEU’s, consisting of 4.5 hours in Nutrient Management, 2.0 hours in Soil and Water Management, and 0.5 hours in Crop Management. Please visit our website for more information or to register for one of these workshops today!
February 6, 2018 - Perrysburg, OH
February 7, 2018 - Frankenmuth, MI
February 13, 2018 - Lansing, MI
February 15, 2018 - Rockford, IL
February 20, 2018 - Fort Wayne, IN
February 21, 2018 - Champaign, IL
The 2017 Soil Test Data Summaries for the Great Lakes region are now available on our website. The summaries are compiled for the Great Lakes region as a whole, as well as broken down by state and into geographic quadrants within each state.
The Soil Test Summaries are valuable tools that provide the average soil test levels for a given region, as well as the distribution of soils by rating. This data can be used by growers and advisors alike to identify regions where soil test levels tend to be low or high for a given nutrient, and can allow them to better focus their soil sampling and nutrient management priorities.
A&L Great Lakes has been providing soil test summaries since 1996, and the information provided has been used by countless agricultural professionals ever since.
As I sit down to write this article about Thanksgiving it would easy to focus on negative events that have occurred in my life and be grumpy and ungrateful. Family, friends and coworkers also have challenges. One might lose perspective or become depressed. Or put on a disingenuous smile and just “fake it”. How does one remain grateful when they aren’t necessarily “feeling it”?
Robert Emmons and Michael McCullough are two of the leading American investigators of gratitude. They describe gratitude as personality strength—the ability to be keenly aware of the good things that happen to you and never take them for granted. Grateful individuals express their thanks and appreciation to others in a heartfelt way, not just to be polite. If you possess a high level of gratitude, you often feel an emotional sense of wonder, thankfulness and appreciation for life itself.
A grateful person takes nothing for granted. Rather, they take a beginner’s thrill at a word of praise, at another’s good performance or at each sunny day. They are keenly aware of their continual dependence on others and the blessings they’ve been given. This is certainly counter-cultural to what we see in the general public and mainstream media.
Thinking back to the original Thanksgiving I remember that it arose from a very difficult time in history. Many pilgrims died from a rough winter. They certainly didn’t have any of the conveniences we have today. You’ve heard the saying that “Happiness is a choice” and perhaps “Gratefulness is a choice” as well.
Beyond rotten circumstances, some people are just naturally more grateful than others. A 2014 article in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience identified a variation in a gene (CD38) associated with gratitude. Some people simply have a heightened genetic tendency to experience, in the researchers’ words, “global relationship satisfaction, perceived partner responsiveness and positive emotions (particularly love).” That is, those relentlessly positive people you know who seem grateful all the time may simply be mutants. As an owner of a company, I want such mutants working for me!
So, I decided to take an informal survey among the employees at A&L Great Lakes Laboratories, Inc. I asked them what they were grateful for this Thanksgiving when it came to the lab, their workplace. Here is a sampling of some of the results:
Amazingly, after speaking with the staff and hearing their comments I realized how much I have to be thankful for this season. I’m rebelling against the feelings that were bringing me down. Soil busy season is always a challenging time for any ag lab, but I’m so thankful that I get to go through it with grateful “mutants”! HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE
Greg Neyman, Vice-President/COO
Emmons, R.A., and McCullough, M.E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84: 377-89.
Brooks, Arthur C (Nov. 21, 2015). Choose to Be Grateful. It Will Make You Happier. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/opinion/sunday/choose-to-be-grateful-it-will-make-you-happier.html
As harvest progresses, some of you may have questions about when a field was last sampled, and whether it is due to be resampled. Many of our customers use their Soil Sampling History Reports to identify which customer fields need to be resampled. These reports are available on our eDocs online document and data management system.
Following is a brief overview of how to access your Soil Sampling History Reports and Soil Test Data Summaries:
The Soil Sampling History Report helps identify or confirm which fields need to be resampled. Future summary reports will be posted to eDocs on an annual basis. We hope that these tools will be useful to you and make your sampling efforts more efficient.
Day 3 begins with data from the previous days analysis being compiled into spreadsheets for quality control review. The quality control review is conducted by a QC team consisting of a quality control chemist and quality assurance chemist.
The first spreadsheet contains the results of all known, blind, and equipment checks that were analyzed. These check samples account for approximately 10% of total samples. From this data, it can be determined if there were any instrument or technician errors throughout the process. A second spreadsheet reports any potential “problem” samples that do not meet a predetermined set of criteria. The third spreadsheet contains all data from that day’s analysis. This spreadsheet is thoroughly examined line by line to identify any unusual patterns or anomalies in the data, for both individual and groups of samples. Problem samples identified in the review process are also compared to the surrounding samples to determine if an error may have occurred in the testing process. Samples requiring reanalysis are identified, and a list is sent to the appropriate technician for reanalysis. When the analytical data passes the quality control review, it is approved and available for review by our Agronomists.
Our Agronomists review reports using a multi-screen computer application to view a pdf version of the final report alongside a scanned copy of the original submittal form sent with the soil samples. An Agronomist will first do a clerical check to ensure that the report is assigned to the correct account, that there are no spelling errors on manually entered information, and check that the customer is receiving the soil tests that they requested.
Agronomists then check the data to ensure that the analyses for a sample reasonably complement one another. If the Agronomist cannot rationalize the result based on the data or their experience with the soil in the region, the report is held for further investigation. An Agronomist’s first option is to check the physical sample to determine if there are any visual differences between the samples to explain the results. If the Agronomist is still not confident in the result, the sample is returned to the QC team for reanalysis of the questionable data. Once the Agronomist is confident that the results accurately represent the sample that we received, the report receives its final approval.
Once soil test data is approved, it is sent to our electronic reporting system. The data will be used to generate a pdf report and any data exports required by the customer for import into precision ag software. These data files are then automatically e-mailed to the customer. In some cases, the data is automatically transferred to the precision ag software for the customer to access immediately. All data formats, pdf reports, and an electronic copy of the original submittal form can be uploaded to eDocs, our file management system, where the information can be accessed at any time.
While growers throughout the corn belt faced challenging weather from spring planting through the growing season, weather has also been delaying soil sampling this fall. In Late September, much of the Great Lakes Region was dealing with dry soil conditions. These dry, hard soil conditions made achieving the proper soil sampling depth difficult when working with a hand probe or light hydraulic probe. We had reports of customers seeking out auger units simply to keep soil sampling on pace. In fields with spot replanting, many producers are harvesting around late planted soybeans, leading to partially harvested fields that are yet to be sampled.The welcome rains blanketing the region through much of October helped alleviate the hard soil, but brought soybean harvest to a crawl for nearly two weeks in parts of the region. This break in the harvest allowed samplers to catch up, and many found themselves waiting for additional fields to sample. Looking forward, we see a sizable number of acres remaining, and the forecast for colder weather adds more uncertainty. In the midst of these challenges, it is critical to keep in mind that the goal should always be to capture quality data. Consistent sampling depth is perhaps the most critical aspect of sample collection, and every effort should be made to ensure that a uniform sampling depth is maintained in all conditions. Poor soil test data from improperly sampled fields can be much worse than no data at all. Keep your eye on quality, and the rest will fall into place.