The goal of any good nitrogen (N) management program is to maximize yield and minimize inputs. For corn growers that utilize manure or other organic forms of N, using the Presidedress Soil Nitrate Test (PSNT) can be a good tool for fine tuning N needs of the crop prior to sidedressing with N.
The PSNT is a way to measure the amount of N, in the form of nitrate, which is supplied by organic materials in the soil. The procedure was developed to measure the amount of N that is naturally released, or mineralized, from the decomposition of organic materials in the soil. This test is most applicable in fields where manure has been applied, following legume forage crops, or following cover crops.
Sampling for the PSNT is different than routine soil sampling. Samples are collected approximately 1 week prior to a planned sidedress application, generally when corn is 6 to 12 inches tall (V4 to V6). Samples are taken to a depth of 12 inches. Take 10 to 15 cores to represent one sample area. Sample area should be determined based upon factors that influence mineralization rates such as drainage class, slope, cropping history, and rate of manure applications. A single sample should represent no more that 15 to 20 acres. The samples should be shipped immediately to the lab for analysis. In situations when shipping is delayed, refrigerate or freeze samples until they can be shipped or delivered to the lab. Samples should be shipped early in the week to avoid weekend delays.
We understand the importance of PSNT in your nitrogen management programs, so we provide one day turnaround time for soil nitrate samples.
Most states have developed interpretive guidelines for the PSNT. While most states have very similar interpretations, we recommend looking into other states in the region to help guide you to make the best management decision for your operation.
Meet Kelsey Roth, A&L Great Lakes Labs' new receptionist and customer service specialist. She began her tenure with ALGL in early March 2018, but has worked in customer service for several years. Kelsey has a vital role within the company because she will often be the first person that our customers interact with, whether on the phone or when they come through the front door. She looks forward to working with and getting to know all of our customers.
In her spare time, Kelsey loves to golf, read, and spend time with her cat Wesley (he likes to go on walks outside). Kelsey is a native of Decatur, Indiana and went to Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, where she majored in psychology. Welcome to the A&L Great Lakes team, Kelsey!
Not that long ago, creeks, rivers, and ponds were an acceptable source of spray water. This practice seems unthinkable today, given our understanding that products like glyphosate are rendered inactive by clay particles and other impurities in the water. Through research it has been demonstrated that most pesticide chemistries are impacted, often negatively, by the various dissolved minerals and pH of the water used as the carrier.
Weed resistance, rising input costs, the need for effective cover crop kills, increased use of companion products such as foliar fertilizers, along with an increase in spray solution modifying adjuvants reaching the market have increased the need to quantify the quality of water used for pesticide dilution. Currently it is more common to analyze spray water quality after something has gone wrong rather than proactively testing to identify potential problems.
The stability of pesticides in the spray tank is often directly tied to the pH and the presence of dissolved minerals in the spray water. Depending on the pesticide chemical formulation, the active ingredient can be rendered inactive by either reacting with hydroxyl groups at high pH or with additional hydrogen ions at low pH. These chemical alterations of the active ingredient can also drive chemical reactions with the dissolved solids in the water rendering the pesticide inactive.
Herbicide products like dicamba and 2-4,D amine can be unstable at pH’s above 7.0. Insecticides and fungicides are even more sensitive to spray water pH. For example, some can be stable in the spray tank for days to months at a water pH of around 5, while at a pH of 9.0 are stable for only minutes. Many of your brand name pesticides that are pH sensitive are buffered in the formulation; however, this is not the case for all generics. Adjuvant manufactures have been addressing this need with a wide array of spray water modifiers to buffer pH concerns and tie up dissolved minerals before they impact the pesticide performance.
Analysis of your spray water will greatly improve the success in identifying the right adjuvant and using the product at the correct rate. The use of ammonium sulfate (AMS) with glyphosate applications is a good example of this. When spraying glyphosate, the label rate for AMS is 8.5 to 17 pounds per 100 gallon of spray water. By testing your spray water, you can pinpoint the rate needed for the application, possibly saving on the cost of excessive AMS while still ensuring adequate product to protect the efficacy of the glyphosate. If you are interested in seeing where your spray water stands, please contact the lab for sampling kits and for more information.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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