Middlesex Soil & Crop Improvement Association

Between The Rows

President's Message

We survived the worst winter in years. You know the one that didn't happen. It is looking like we're heading into another dry season. I hope that changes by the time you read this. But the winter was good to the wheat and hay crops so that is one less thing to worry about. The ground is warming up and before long, we will be at the corn and bean planting. I can't wait. So when you get rolling this spring, remember the crop projects you signed up for. There were lots of good ideas, let's get some results.

As always your Directors of this organization have been working hard planning all the events for this year. The first of which is coming up in a couple of weeks. The annual Strathmere Lodge Demo Day. It will be on April 22^nd this year. There are more details in the enclosed flyer. Also watch for the Conservation Tour this summer. It will be in the Parkhill area at the Denys Farm.

Lots to be learned at these events, so come on out.

After having to dip into our cash reserves in the last couple of years, it was decided that we needed to sell off some assets to help pay for some future projects. We have for sale: The Soil Doctor which consists of a pump, 7 Yetter parallel link coulters, a radar, and a toolbar/ We will sell them as a unit or as parts. Also the 2 GPS Beacons. There is more details later in this newsletter if you are interested, or if you know someone else who is.

In closing, I would still like to see a few more Directors from those townships to the west of London. So if you live in those area, think about it then give me a call. So this spring make an effort to put in good test plots, and have a safe and good planting season.

Joe Martens, President, MSCIA
(519) 461-1158
Fax: (519) 461-0867

SPECIAL AWARDS

1999 Ontario Volunteer Service Award

Each year the Premier of Ontario recognizes volunteers who have contributed continuous service to a single group in their community.

The Honours and Awards Unit of the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation hosted an Awards Ceremony at the London Convention Centre on March 26 where recipients received their awards.

MSCIA nominated three worthy candidates and were all accepted.

Congratulations to:

Alan Wood

Larry McGill

Nick Stokman

VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION AWARD

OAC, University of Guelph

This award recognizes individuals outside of government and university employment who contribute major time and effort to society through their connection to agriculture.

MSCIA nominated Nick Stokman for this award. On April 5^th Nick received an award and citation at the Awards Banquet in Guelph

Congratulations Nick!

Farm Show Draw Winner

MSCIA spponsored a draw at the 1999 Farm Show for up to 50 acres of a pro management package which includes:

• Smart Soil Sampling
• Crop Scouting for a Year
• Aerial Photo (with remote sensing if available)
• Fertility and Herbicide Recommendations

The successful winner was:

Mark Thomson, R. 5, Parkhill

Crop Insurance Deadline

If you are making any changes in your crop insurance coverage for 1999, you must call the Customer Action Centre before May 1^st, otherwise you will be automatically renewed for the same crops and coverage level as 1998.

Agricorp

1-888-247-4999

1999 MIDDLESEX CROP PROJECTS

Plot Protocol for On-Farm Trials and Side-by-Sides

Field Selection:

• Control field variability!
• Be sure to plant plots across any field variability. Sandy knolls, wet hollows, tile drains, etc. are not negative factors, as long as each treatment goes over the same land forms. Watch old dead furrows: they seem to be a real nemesis.
• Locate plots 50 feet away from fence rows and 150 to 200 feet away from trees and other features that could impact on parts of the plot. Large trees can provide wind protection for 5-10 times their height and create a microclimate different from the rest of the plot.
• Plots should be large enough to yield at least 1300 to 1500 lbs of harvested crop. Large samples produce less error when transferring grain from combine or grain buggy to weigh wagon.
• Long narrow plots are significantly better than short wide plots. Keep your plots combine friendly; one round or one header width.
• Locate plots where they will not interfere with regular harvest in case you have to wait several hours or days for a weigh wagon.
• BE PREPARED TO SPEND EXTRA TIME IN SPRING & FALL !! The largest cost in conducting on-farm trials is the time needed to properly set-up and harvest. Try to keep the plot simple….less time is involved, and more chance that the plot will be completed.
  

Setting up the Treatments:

• Test only one variable per plot, ie. fertility, placement, tillage, varieties etc. If another variable is desired, set up another plot to test that variable.
• Replication of a treatment will increase confidence in the results.
• When testing a new treatment, include your present system in your plot as well as a zero. As an example; if comparing 2x2 with seed placed MAP, include a strip without any starter, 2x2 only, seed placed MAP only, and 2x2 plus seed placed MAP.
• For wheat or soybean plots, consider plugging the outside plot row when planting to give a clear separation between treatments, or leave wider guessrows.
• CHECK STRIPS? Some feel that a check gives an indication of the variability across a plot. Scientific study leans toward no checks, to maintain a relatively narrow trial width, to minimize variability.
  

Record Keeping:

• Design plots on paper before going to the field and have it available in the truck or tractor when planting.
• Keep accurate records of your plots (e.g. planting date, harvest date, weed and disease pressure)
• Plot markings must be easy to locate at harvest.
• Walk your plots during the growing season and keep notes of your observations.
  

Measuring the Results:

• Plan ahead and have the weigh wagon ready when the combine is ready to harvest.
• The combine operator must know the setup of the plots and have a detailed plot map.
• 1200 to 1500 lbs of grain is the minimum for weigh wagon measurement.

If two weigh wagons are used, they should be calibrated to each other with a minimum of 2 weights prior to plot measurements. Adjustments in weights should then be calculated, ie. +/- 5%.

Yield Monitor Data:

• Combine yield monitors are useful to collect yield data, however accuracy may be questionable when using the monitors for treatments and variety comparisons.
• Grain flow across sensors can be the largest source of monitor error. It is advisable to combine all plots in the same direction at the same speed to reduce error.
• GRAIN DYNAMICS: Differences in variety and hybrid seed size, shape, test weight and moisture content are not accurately measured by yield monitors. Weigh wagons should be used for accurate weights.
• Yield monitor data is acceptable if grain dynamics do not change across the plot ie, test weight is similar and harvest moisture is within 2-3 %.

Reporting Information:

• More locations + more replications + more years = more reliable information.
• Individual farm data is more valuable when combined with plot results from other sites. If you have taken the time to plant and harvest a plot, make the time to share your results. ALL RESULTS ARE WORTH SENDING IN!
• Compile the data in a readable format and send to Peter Johnson or a Middlesex Soil & Crop Director as soon as possible.

30" Twin Row Planter

Elgin Soil and Crop is setting up a 4 row 30" twin row planter for plot work in Elgin and Middlesex. The planter has the Kinze double units as seen at the Soil & Crop booth at the Farm Show and can plant twins 7" apart or singles. The planter will be set up with coulters for no-till but can also do conventional and will utilize dry fertilizer in between the twin rows and mini MAP on the seed.

The plan is to have a tractor with operator to facilitate moving of the unit and planting plots across the counties. If interested in a plot, leave a message on Peter's voicemail at 873-4092.

Partial funding for this project comes from the Middlesex Stewardship Council. Their motto is "To Promote and Implement Voluntary Stewardship of Agriculture and Natural Resources in Middlesex County".

1998 Summary Phosphorus Placement on Corn

1998 Summary
Phosphorus Placement on Corn

1995-1998 Summary

Comments: As could be expected, after a warm dry spring like we enjoyed in 1998, seed placed MAP showed no yield response. Also note limited number of trials in some comparisons for 1998. However in the long term, the idea of placing some P with the seed makes solid agronomic sense!

Werner Seegelken

The Effect of Sulphur in a Fertilizer Band on Corn Yield

Sulphur is the sixth most essential nutrient to the corn plant. It's main function in the plant is that it is the building block of two of the amino acids (proteins). Sulphur also helps in the development of enzymes, vitamins, and is needed for chlorophyll formation. Under most Ontario conditions, it had been generally accepted that there is little benefit to including sulphur with fertilizer program for corn. This, because of adequate amounts of sulphur in the soil, and the soil reserves being replenished by large amounts of factory emissions of sulphur in acid rain. Sandy soils low in organic matter can be inherently deficient in sulphur.

According to some agronomists, with reduced sulphur additions as industrial pollution is cleaned up, sulphur may be becoming a limiting element in crop production. Theoretically, this problem should be most prevalent under cool wet soil conditions, with corn crops of high yield potential. As well, the addition of sulphur to the starter fertilizer band could potentially lower the pH of the band, increasing the availability of phosphorus and other plant nutrients, especially in high pH soils. This effect has not been measured to date.

In order to study this potential phenomenon, a project was initiated with Middlesex Soil and Crop to evaluate sulphur as an addition to the starter band on corn in side by side trials. The cost of the sulphur is minimal, at about 33/lb of actual sulphur, or about $3.00/acre. The results are tabulated below.

The average over the four sites saw an advantage of .6 bu/ac and a decrease of .1% moisture with the addition of sulphur to the starter blend. Under cooler soil temperatures at planting, we should (?) see a larger response than what we saw this year.

Mathew Aerts

Lab-Built Wheat Gene May Raise Dough Quality

By Marcia Wood

Editor's Note: Now that biotechnological advancements are becoming more common in cereals, scientists around the world are turning this staple food commodity into a valuable niche market. The following article documents one example of how American researchers are creating higher value end-use cereal products through genetic engineering.

Wheat plants of the future might provide grain for designer flours that yield delicious, wholesome new breads, pastas and other appetizing foods. And giving some of wheat's flour genes to other kinds of grains - barley, oats, corn, rye, or rice, for instance - could lead the way to innovative, versatile flours from these wheat relatives as well.

These futuristic flours are the target of genetic engineering experiments conducted by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists at the Western Regional Research Centre in Albany, California. They are investigating proteins unique to wheat flour, called high-molecular-weight glutenins. These glutenins are critical to making strong dough. For dough, strength is an asset because it leads to high-quality yeast-raised breads.

Strong dough, explains geneticist Olin Anderson, is able to trap tiny bubbles of carbon dioxide gas formed naturally by yeast during mixing and rising. Bubbles enable dough to rise, and help form high, light, loaves. Dough strength and the ability to contain gas bubbles is know as viscoelasticity.

Wheat with a large amount of certain high-molecular-weight glutenins yields flour that produces stronger dough, larger bread loaf sizes, and light, finer-textured breads. Recently, Anderson and geneticist Ann Blechl became the first to use genetic engineering to boost the amount of high molecular-weight glutenins in wheat kernels and the flour from those kernels. They did this by using a gene gun to move copies of a lab-built gene into wheat cells.

The gene gun fired gold particles coated with genes that cue wheat plants to manufacture more glutenins. So far, greenhouse plants with high levels of high-molecular-weight glutenins retained the trait through successive generations.

The researchers now want to fine tune this strategy for more precise control over wheat flour's glutenin levels. With colleagues from Australia's Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organization in Sydney, they are testing flours made from kernels harvested from these experimental plants.

No one knows exactly how high-molecular glutenins work - only that they're vital for strong dough and great breads. To reveal more about the inner workings of the proteins, Anderson is building and testing modified versions of other genes that control production of glutenins.

Some of these retooled genes are longer versions of the naturally occuring ones. Their central sections have more repeats of a portion of genetic material thought to be key to viscoelasticity. Anderson's test showed that increasing the copies of those portions of the genes increases dough-mixing time. That's a boon to bakers, because increase dough-mixing time is a key indicator of dough strength.

Scientists have anticipated that using genetic engineering to change a wheat-flour protein could change the character of the resulting dough. The Albany team was the first to succeed in doing that - using biotechnology. Wheat glutenin genes inserted into other grains may lead to unique, healthful products impossible to make today. Moving one or two of wheat's high-molecular-weight glutenin genes into barley, for example, might open the door to popular new products from barley flour.

Currently, American-grown barley is used mainly for malting and animal feed. Barley flour lacks the high-molecular-weight glutenins that wheat flour boasts. Although barley has flour proteins somewhat similar to those in wheat, barley flour does not make a similar viscoelastic dough.

Now, senior lab technician Jeanie Lin, who is with the Albany team, has succeeded in moving wheat glutenin genes into barley plants. And, says Lin, some of those plants produced kernels with good levels of wheat inside.

In another venture, Minnesota scientists using wheat glutenin genes furnished by the Albany researchers have produced oat plants with the borrowed wheat genes inside. David Somers led that work at the University of Minnesota. He used a technique that he, Kimberley Torbert, and geneticist Howard Rines of the ARS Plant Science Research Unit in St. Paul, Minnesota, developed for genetically engineering oats.

Like the barley foray, oat experiments may lead to the development of tasty new foods that rely on new oat flours. Today's oats are grown mostly for animal feed or processed into breakfast cereals and other foods for people.

The glutenin experiments with wheat target the protein-rich portion of wheat flour. But flour's other main component - starch - might also be reworked through genetic engineering into a more marketable product.

Wheat starch is composed of molecules known as amylose and amylopectin. Wheat flour low in amylose, for example, is desirable for noodle making because it improves noodle texture. Reudced-amylose flours may also improve dough for frozen foods like pizza crusts or ready-to-bake breads by helping maintain flavour.

Scientists suspect that boosting the amount of amylopectin in starch may concurrently reduce the amount of amylose, resulting in a value-added, low-amylose flour.

Geneticist Kent McCue, working with Anderson, isolated two genes that direct wheat to make amylopectin-producing enzymes known as starch-branching enzyme I and starch-branching enzyme II. McCue and Anderson used starch genes from corn to isolate the two genes in wheat. With the wheat genes now in hand, genetic engineers might soon be able to increase the ratio of amylopectin to amylose.

Modifying wheat starch could also make it more suitable for any hundreds of industrial uses ranging from pastes to papers to textiles.

Germination, Jan/99

Research Answers Planting Questions

By: Emerson Nafziger

Editor’s note:
Ontario data would suggest highest yields with corn planted the first week of May. Don’t expect big yields out of the corn you have already planted! (No joke, there has been corn planted for at least a week). And while you can’t wait forever, don’t get overly rambunctious…..note the soil concerns mentioned, almost always more of a problem in April. And if you do plant April corn, make sure to plant longer season corn than normal (add 50 to 100 CHU’s). To make best use of the added heat, you will need a longer season, higher yield potential hybrid.

P.J.

Q: It's early April and the soil is fit to plant. Should I start planting?

A: Based on research in Illinois, yields of corn are generally highest when the crop is planted in the last week of April. Yields are close to the maximum if planting is the week before or the week after the last week of April. Yields declined, though, both when planting earlier than April 20 and when planting was later than May 7. Our work showed an average of 3 to 5 bushels per acre lower yields for corn planted in mid-April. Even with slightly lower yields with early planting, most farmers will start to plant in the first two weeks of April in order to finish on time. Delays in late April due to weather push planting later than optimum, and also delays soybean planting. Risk management, in other words, favours early planting. If soils are fit to plant, planting can probably start the first week of April in Southern and Central Illinois (and we have reports of some corn planted in 1999 before April 1). In the northern part of the state, expectations for lower soil temperature probably mean that planting should not start much before April 10.

Q: But shouldn't we wait until soil temperatures are at least 50 degrees before we plant?

A: When it's April, we expect soil temperatures to start to increase, so we don't normally pay a lot of attention to soil temperature if the calendar suggests starting and if the soil is in good shape for planting. Drier soils warm more quickly than wet soils, so by the time there has been enough drying weather to bring soils into good shape for planting, soil temperatures usually have at least started to rise.

They can fall again, as we saw happen in 1997, but unless there is rainfall along with the lower temperatures, the seed and seedling are probably not badly injured by soil temperatures as low as the low 40's. The main concern would be corn seeds planted in soils that are both cold and wet. Planting into such conditions is never a good idea in April, and if such conditions occur after planting, emergence may be low.

Editor’s note:
So planter maintenance is an issue! And be realistic - as planting speeds increase, variation in seeding depth goes up, and on many years, differences in emergence will cause more yield loss than plant spacing.

Planting depth! Even in the great corn belt they don’t push deep corn planting! Weld them at 1.5 inches? I don’t think so…..but will cover that argument again next winter. Just be sure to do your planting depth plot!

P.J.

Q: Should I Operate the planter at lower speeds than I'd like in order to produce more uniform plant spacing?

A: It is certainly possible to plant too fast for some planters in some conditions, but our evidence would suggest that most farmers probably aren't planting too fast. A study we conducted recently involved 11 field trials in which farmers operated their planters at 3, 5 and 7 miles per hour in replicated strips. Averaged over the 11 trials, driving faster increased the variability of spacing between plants from a standard deviation of 2.87 inches at 3 mph to 3.22 inches at 7 mph. That's not a large increase-it would not be noticeable by looking at the rows-but in a few fields, especially when older planters were used, the planting got pretty sloppy at the faster speed. There was, however, no effect of planting speed on plant population or on yield, which was 152.5 bushels per acre at 3 mph and 153.1 bushels per acre at 7 mph. Although we don't have data yet, it may well be that effects of planting speed on uniformity of seed depth might be at least as important as on uniformity of spacing between plants. While it is difficult to do, digging up 20 or more seeds going down a row is the only way to tell whether your planter is placing seed at reasonably uniform depth.

Q: Is there a best depth for planting?

A: In a study we conducted in 1998, corn planted 1.5 inches deep emerged at 97 percent in about 12 days and yielded 181 bushels per acre, whereas seed planted 3 inches deep emerged at 90 percent, took two days longer to emerge, and yielded 18 bushels per acre less than that planted 1.5 inches deep. The lower yields were probably due both to the lower plant population and to the delay in emergence, which delayed pollination by a day or so, perhaps exposing the pollination process to slightly drier weather. We think that 1.5 inches is an ideal depth regardless of other factors, such as planting date and soil moisture. With depth somewhat variable, it may be necessary to set the planter slightly deeper to prevent placement of seeds very near the soil surface, where establishment of the nodal root system may suffer. Just setting the planter "by the book" is not enough: planting depth should be checked as you start to plant each field, and ideally checked again as soil types or conditions change within the field.

Pipe Tees and Nipples Don't Affect NH₃ Flow

Pipe tees divided ammonia flow fairly evenly, but nipples ahead of the manifold didn't help uniformity

By Rich Fee
Crops and Soils Editor

Editors note:
WOW! Apparently it is a good thing that nitrogen is really mobile in the soil. And for skip row N……better make sure we use the right outlets!

P.J.

Anhydrous ammonia application would be a lot easier to study if you could see what happens every step of the way from the tank to the knife. But, you can't. And everything we've studied in this series of projects has prompted new questions.

Earlier tests documented significant differences in nitrogen rates from one manifold outlet to the next. (Each outlet runs to an individual knife.) It was common for some outlets to be putting out twice as much nitrogen as others. And we found that some outlets were putting out two to four times as much nitrogen as other outlets.

Vapor the manifold, created by pressure drops in the system, seems to be the primary villain. The manifold is trying to meter liquid and vapour together, which doesn't work very well. The vapor doesn't carry much nitrogen, plus it gets in the way. Consequently, the manifold outlets carrying mainly vapor aren't putting out nearly as much actual nitrogen as outlets carrying mainly liquid.

Patterns of misapplication
There's a pattern to the unequal nitrogen distribution. Manifold outlets in-line with the supply hose to the manifold handle more liquid than the outlets perpendicular to that hose. Imagine looking down on the manifold as if it was the face of a clock. If the supply hose comes in over the 6 o'clock point and enters the center of the manifold through a pipe elbow, the most nitrogen exits the outlets located roughly between the 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock points. Despite the elbow, the anhydrous ammonia still has momentum in that direction.

A lesser amount exits outlets behind the entry, roughly in the region of the manifold between 4 o'clock and 8 o'clock. Part of this seems to be flow deflected back from the solid portions of the zone between 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock.

"The least amount of ammonia exits ports at positions midway between those ports," says Mark Hanna, the Iowa State University (ISU) ag engineer in charge of designing and implementing the experiments. Those are the outlets between 8 o'clock and 10 o'clock on one side and 2 o'clock and 4 o'clock on the other side.

Pipe tees and nipples don t affect NH₃ Flow
That caused Hanna, ISU Extension agronomist Mike White, and others familiar with the earlier projects to wonder if installing a 10-inch nipple (see photographs) between the elbow and the manifold might reduce the variation among outlets and improve ammonia distribution across the width of the applicator.

Here's why: "With the standard elbow and manifold, the flow tends to be concentrated toward the outside of the elbow," says Hanna. "It's like a river where much of the water is carried on the outside of a bend." The thinking was that the 10-inch nipple would stabilize the pattern by giving the anhydrous ammonia a longer flow path before it entered the manifold, in this case a popular Continental A-6006-B ductile iron manifold.

However, the nipple did not reduce the variability from one outlet to another around the manifold. "I was a little surprised by the findings," says Hanna. "I expected that the straight pipe would give better results."

David Ward, president of Continental NH₃ Products, says their test results have been similar. "Under certain circumstances, you can get a little better distribution with a nipple - maybe one time out of 10," he says. But, alluding to the difficulty in testing the movement of anhydrous ammonia, he adds, "You know that every time the wind blows different, you change the circumstances."

Pipe dreams
Hanna was also a little surprised that a simple pipe tee divided the flow of anhydrous ammonia as evenly as it did in the second phase of these tests, which were partially funded by Successful Farming magazine. Folding anhydrous ammonia applicators often use a tee in the supply line to split the flow and send it to two manifolds. The one we used was a schedule 2000 machined tee.

"I was a little surprised at how even the split was," says Hanna. "We had 12 independent runs, and the average difference was just 2.4%." That means 51% of the anhydrous ammonia was going out one side of the pipe tee, and 49% was going out the other side. "However," he adds, "we did go to some length to make sure that the tee was connected correctly."

Ward says a tee is sufficient for directing the flow to two manifolds. But not just any tee. "Don't use a schedule 40, black malleable tee," he says. "It will have castings and cast holes inside. And it could have a casting flash on one side. Consequently, it will have a rough surface that could cause turbulence and disarray inside the tee."

He recommends using a schedule 2000 (or higher) machined tee. "Those tees are machined all the way through out of a solid piece of material, or a cast material that has plenty of material to machine all the way through," says Ward. "This means you have a smooth surface where the ammonia is coming in and hitting."

When installing a tee, be sure that the base of the tee is used for the inlet rather than one of the two sides. Otherwise, some of the ammonia would flow straight through and the rest, probably a lesser amount, would have to make a right-angle turn.

This research on the use of pipe tees used two manifolds, each of which had five outlets in play. However, a lot of applicators have an odd number of knives. In that situation, one manifold is feeding an extra knife. Consequently, the application rate could vary from one side of the machine to the other.

Lots of rate variability
This project, like our earlier ones, revealed a lot of rate variation among the outlets on a manifold. "Before, we were using 11 of the 14 outlets on the manifold," says Hanna. "Here, we were only using five of the 14 outlets on each manifold. I thought maybe the variability wouldn't show up as strongly, but it did." (An 11-knife applicator typically uses five outlets on one manifold and six outlets on another manifold to simplify folding and plumbing.)

Continental recommends plugging four outlets, as shown, when using a nine-knife applicator with their popular 14-outlet manifold. Then start on the left side of the applicator and attach the hoses in this order: 1,5,9,2,6,8,3,7 and 4. The last hose goes to a gauge.

Hanna suggests dividing the manifold into zones: Ahead of the inlet point, behind the inlet point, and to each side of the inlet point. If the supply hose comes in over the 6 o'clock position, treat the area between 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock as the "ahead" zone. Treat the area between 4 o'clock and 8 o'clock as the "behind" zone. Then combine the areas between 2 o'clock and 4 o'clock, and 8 o'clock and 10 o'clock, into a "side" zone.

"Then alternate how you hook up the hoses around the manifold," he says. "I think this work builds a stronger and stronger case for that. Virtually every time we have divided that manifold into those three regions, the trend comes out the same."

Venturi Nozzles

These revolutionary tips eliminate fines and put a damper on spray drift

By Mike Holmberg
Farm Chemicals Editor

There was only one venturi-type spray nozzle on the market when I first wrote about them in 1996 - the GreenLeaf TurboDrop. It looked like an interesting way to reduce spray drift, but at $24 per tip, most sprayer owners shuddered.

Since then, other nozzle manufacturers have introduced their own versions of the venturi nozzle. And GreenLeaf has added a TurboDrop XL model, designed for lower pressure operation, to its lineup. The tips included in the chart on the next page are the main ones sold in the U.S., but there are other versions being sold in Canada and Europe that are just starting to be sold in the U.S.

The price of these tips has dropped from $24 per tip to about $7-$9 per tip. The original TurboDrop is now down to about $14 per nozzle.

That still may seem pricey compared to conventional spray tips. But it's cheap compared to other drift-reduction technology, according to Tom Wolf of Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada. He points out that venturi nozzles can cost from $2.15 to $11 per foot of boom. An air-assist setup could cost $70-$140 per foot, while a shroud over the boom would cost $14-$35 per foot of boom.

"This nozzle technology is available to everybody for relatively little money," says Wolf. He says it is a cheap way to reduce drift even if it looks expensive. You may get $1,000 tied up in nozzles on a big sprayer, he says, but the nozzles alone determine how well the sprayer will work.

"I believe these nozzles are revolutionary in their ability to reduce spray drift," says Wolf. The venturi nozzles produce a spray that is far coarser than what most sprayer operators are used to. They typically produce droplets with a Volume Median Diameter (VMD) in the range of 400 to 600 microns, even at spray pressures of 60 - 80 psi. And they practically eliminate driftable fines - the droplets smaller than 100-200 microns.

How they work
The venturi nozzles differ in design, but all work on the same principle. A preorifice meters the flow of the liquid into a mixing chamber. An internal venturi creates negative pressure inside the nozzle body, and air is drawn in through aspiration holes and mixed with the spray liquid. The liquid mixture that comes out the spray tip contains large air bubbles. The venturi body determines the flow rate while the discharge orifice creates the spray pattern. The discharge tip is typically twice as large as the metering orifice to accommodate the air-filled droplets.

Manufacturers claim that these nozzles are able to provide good spray coverage with large drop sizes because these air-filled droplets shatter or explode on impact to provide coverage comparable to conventional tips.

The Greenleaf TurboDrops are two-piece units that allow you to use exit tips in a variety of spray patterns. The original TurboDrops were designed primarily for custom applicators and large farmers, says Will Smart of Greenleaf Technologies. It has a ceramic metering orifice that should wear significantly longer (up to 50,000 acres) than stainless steel or polyacetal at higher spray pressures.

The TurboDrop XL, on the other hand, has a plastic metering orifice that can be expected to last for 5,000 - 10,000 acres of spraying. It was designed to accommodate a lower pressure range.

The TurboDrop tips come apart by hand for cleaning and allow users to add their own tips for different spray patterns. "A lot of our customers keep TeeJet tips on the shelf," says Smart.

The Spraying Systems AI (Air Induction) TeeJet is a slender nozzle about 1 inch long with a built-in stainless steel flat fan tip. The AI nozzles have two air induction openings in the barrel and a removable polymer preorifice. Wolf points out that you will probably need tools to remove the metering orifice for cleaning from these nozzles.

The Al TeeJet nozzles now come in sizes up to 10. Spraying Systems recommends Al tips when spraying at pressures of 30 psi or more. At lower spray pressures, the company recommends Turbo TeeJet or XR TeeJet tips.

While most of the venturi nozzles are similar in design, the Al TeeJets produce a bit tighter spectrum of droplet sizes, according to Marty Heyen of Spraying Systems.

The Delavan Raindrop Ultra has a slender molded plastic body with an orifice of 303 stainless steel. It has a removable, plastic metering orifice. It fits any standard nozzle cap and produces 70-80% less driftable fines than conventional nozzles, according to James Blowers of Delavan.

"It is a very simple design," Blowers says. It has two air intakes, one on each side. The preorifice easily pops out of the nozzle body to allow for easy cleaning.

The Lurmark Ultra-Lo-Drift tip, marketed by Precision Fitting and Valve, has two flow-metering holes. It's a compact nozzle that can be used at pressures as low as 15 psi and still hold a pattern. It fits into a conventional flat fan cap.

Complex designs
Venturi nozzles have a complex design that makes it difficult to predict any trends in droplet size, says Al Womac, ag engineer at the University of Tennessee. Unlike conventional nozzles, it's hard to make general statements about the droplet size you can expect with various combinations of flow rate and pressure. Bigger nozzles don't always make bigger droplets, he says.

Womac has done a series of droplet size studies with the various venturi tips and expects the results to be published soon. He has also done a series of droplet size measurements using actual chemical mixtures instead of water in the tank. He says switching chemicals was a more significant factor in determining the droplet size and percentage of driftable fines than changing types of venturi nozzles.

Measuring droplets containing chemicals and surfactants can produce different results than you would get with water only, Womac says. His earlier research (Successful Farming, October 1997, p. 52) indicates that the surfactant effect on droplet size is not the same for all nozzle designs.

Womac and colleagues' recent study indicates that the pesticide formulation (including the amount of surfactant) can influence droplet size more than the choice of nozzles. He found, for example, that the venturi tips produced smaller droplets and more driftable fines with Liberty than with Roundup or Gramoxone.

Are they effective on pests?
The easy answer is that they appear to be quite effective. Wolf enlisted a number of chemical companies to set up trials comparing one venturi nozzle (randomly assigned for the different trials) to a standard flat fan TeeJet and a Turbo TeeJet tip. He says his trials show that the venturi nozzles have very good efficacy with herbicides.

There are performance differences among the types of herbicides, however. Wolf's Canadian group tested the tips with 19 different herbicides. The tests showed the venturi nozzles work well with sulfonylureas, imidazolinones, growth regulators, Roundup and Gramoxone. He says you need to be cautious when using them to apply the "fops and dims" - the postemergence grass herbicides - and the contact-type broadleaf herbicides such as Basagran, Blazer and Buctril.

Wolf's trials showed that weeds that are difficult to wet, such as wild oats, foxtail and lambsquarters, present a challenge when spraying these contact herbicides with these venturi tips. He suggests keeping the pressure, volume and herbicide rate up for best control of these weeds.

While normal adjuvants and surfactants work well with venturi nozzles, Wolf says using a drift-control adjuvant will disrupt the spray pattern.

Need a pressure range
There doesn't seem to be much argument that these nozzles produce larger droplets and fewer fines. There are differences in how they respond to variations in pressure. The TurboDrop XL and Lurmark nozzles can both be used at 15 psi and still hold the pattern, while the original TurboDrop, Spraying Systems AI and Raindrop Ultra work best with at least 40 psi.

Wolf prefers to see these nozzles used at higher pressures. He says if your sprayer can't produce at least 60 psi, you probably shouldn't be considering the venturi nozzles. Higher pressure allows for pressure drops through a spray controller if you need to slow down.

If you have a nozzle calling for a minimum of 40 psi and you run at that pressure, pressure drops that occur when you slow down may seriously disrupt the spray pattern. You need to run the nozzles at a high enough pressure to allow for changes in speed.

When these tips were first introduced, there had been concern about the air intakes plugging in dusty conditions, but that has not been a major problem, the manufacturers say.

If you do have a tip plug, you need to consider whether you will be able to remove the orifice and clean these nozzles while wearing rubber gloves.

Succesful Farming, March 1999

Support Program Management Tips

by Carl Fletcher, Business Management Specialist

Farmers will aim to make profits in 1999. Looking at today's current farm gate and futures prices, profits will be hard earned in 1999. That being the case understanding how farm support programs affect your farm can help you plan your cash flow and farm business.

Be enrolled in NISA if you are eligible even if you keep no money in the account! Why?

NISA funds can now be accessed quicker and easier.

1. If your 1998 NISA year qualifies for a payout you can get the government's matchable share without putting in any of your own money through the Deemed Deposit process.

2. Through the Interim Withdrawal process you can get a payout during 1999 if your projections show that your 1999 year will result in a payout providing that you have funds in the account to cover the payout. Corporations can choose to use either their 1999 or 2000 NISA year for the Interim Withdrawal. This means that a corporation could use a 98-99 or a 99-2000 projection year to access money in 1999. To use the Interim Withdrawal you must complete the 1998 paperwork including responding to your Deposit/Withdrawal Options Notice in time to use the Interim withdrawal by the end of the year. If your projections look like you will get a payout on the 1999 or 2000 year but not 1998 consider making the 1998 deposit even with borrowed money and then submitting the 1999 Interim Withdrawal to access the projected withdrawal.

While the new disaster assistance programs provide additional funds beyond the NISA program they are linked such that the disaster relief programs will automatically deduct the NISA government matching amount for that year. If you are in NISA you can get this amount through NISA. If you are not in NISA you don't get the matching amount at all.

Disaster Relief Programs
Applications for business years ending in 1999 are now being developed and will be available at OMAFRA, FCC offices, and OMAFRA website. At the time of writing this article (April 12) the 1998 federal program (AIDA) forms were not available.

C.C.A.P. Entry Forms Now Available

With this year's crop prices being what they are, it is now more important than ever to get a handle on crop input costs. Knowing and controlling what it costs to bring a crop to market is critical to the bottom line. The Crop Cost Analysis Program (C.C.A.P.), managed by the Innovative Farmers Association of Ontario and underwritten by the CanAdapt Program is designed to help farmers better understand where their crop input dollars are spent.

Enrolling crop input data takes just a few minutes to complete on the new simplified forms. All participants get a detailed summary report when all the crop input data is collected and tabulated. In addition, all participants receive a comprehensive crop cost input summary for each field or plot they enter into the program. All data is held in the strictest confidence through a individual field-plot identification system. Funding from CanAdapt allows the I.F.A.O. to deliver this program at no cost to any participant.

Entry forms are included in this mailing to all members of Middlesex Soil & Crop Improvement Association. Anyone requiring more entry forms can get them by simply contacting Don Carruthers @ (519) 927-5234 or Jim House @ (519) 767-2777.

Strict Rules Apply to Pesticide Handling and Storage

Ontario's Pesticides Act is chiefly concerned with protecting the environment through proper handling, transportation, storage, use and disposal of agricultural chemicals. These matters are also crucial to protecting the health and safety of individuals who work with pesticides.

Successful completion of Ontario's Pesticides Safety Course is a legal requirement for use of many common pest control products. Contact your local Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) office for more information about the training program.

The Pesticides Act is administered by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). Following is a brief synopsis of the Act's requirements for safe transportation and storage of pesticides.

Pesticide Transportation

1. Never leave pesticides unattended in a parked vehicle, unless the vehicle is locked or parked in an area to which public access is denied.
2. A sign indicating "Chemical Storage Warning - Authorized Persons Only" must be displayed on unattended parked vehicles containing pesticides.
3. Vehicles transporting more than 500 litres of pesticides must be placarded with a chemical waRning sign at all times.

Pesticide Storage

1. Pesticides must be stored in an area that is used exclusively for this purpose. Separation from storage facilities for other commodities must be sufficient to prevent cross-contamination.
2. Pesticides and pesticide adjuvants (e.g. emulsifiers, diluents, spreaders, and dyes) are the only items to be stored in this building, room, or part thereof.
3. If the pesticide storage is later to be used for other purposes, it must be decontaminated.
4. Insecticides, herbicides and fungicides should be stored separately from each other.
5. The storage area must be screened and ventilated to the outside.
6. Chemical storage warning placards (available from OMAFRA and MOE) must be posted on the door(s) of the storage area.
7. The storage area must be lockable to control access. One staff member should be responsible for security. No one should be able to enter the storage area without authorization.
8. There must be no floor drains, unless they flow into a separate holding area which can be pumped out. Such spills must be disposed of in accordance with Regulation 309 of the Environmental Protection Act.
9. Protective clothing (i.e. neoprene or rubber glove, hat, coveralls, boots, eye and respiratory equipment, etc.) must be readily available to protect handlers from adverse effects of the stored pesticides. Protective gear must be stored in a manner that prevents its contamination (e.g. in an adjacent room or in polyethylene bags).
10. Post emergency telephone numbers in a prominent place. This list must include the doctor, poison control centres, fire, police, Spills Action Centre, and the MOE's Pesticide Control Officer.
11. Absorbent material (i.e. sawdust, soil or rags) should be available in sufficient quantity to clean up any spills or leaks from containers. The MOE's Pesticides Safety Handbook describes procedures for equipment decontamination.
12. Pesticides storage areas must be cool and dry to prevent product breakdown or inactivation.Check product labels for winter storage guidelines.
13. Pesticides should be stored in their original, labeled containers.
14. Any new pesticides storage structures should be place so as to avoid contamination of watercourses in the event of a spill, explosion, or fire. Existing buildings and surrounding terrain should be modified to ensure containment of runoff.
15. Wash-up facilities with adequate supplies of soap and water should be available.
16. The MOE must be notified of any fire or spill where there is an environmental impact. Any fire, spill, or theft of pesticides must be reported to the Spills Action Centre.
17. Only trained personnel wearing adequate protective equipment should be involved in any spill clean-up

For more detailed information about safe pesticides storage and handling, contact the nearest Environment Ministry office.

Be Mentally Tough

Source: Soybean Digest March 1999 by Richard A. Brock, President, Brock Associates

The mental and emotional aspects of marketing are a very large part of decision-making. Emotions often overshadow having the "right information at the right time." I've found in traveling and speaking to farmers this past winter that what most producers need is not just the right information, but knowledge of what to do with it and how and when to make a decision. Consider this:

• Learn marketing - it's never to late to get more education. The two basic tools of marketing are a balance sheet and a commodity bar chart. Few professionals in the grain industry would consider making a decision without a thorough understanding of these two tools
• Set definite goals and objectives. Don't use objectives such as "selling at the highest price you can" or " at the highest profit." Goals and objectives need to be definitive and useful in decision-making. For example, if your goal is to sell above an expected average price of the year and you expect, through fundamental analysis, that soybeans will average $5.30, then you have a realistic price comparison to help make your decision.
• Forget last year's mistakes. Many were made. You can't make good decisions this year if all you're worried about are the bad ones from last year. It's just like in baseball when a player is in a batting slump. If all he remembers are the times he struck out yesterday he's never going to hit well today. Put bad decisions behind you.
• Avoid emotional decision-making. Greed, hope and fear are still three of the most common emotions that guide our decision-making process. Last year many people were hoping El Nino would cause weather problems somewhere. Have you ever heard one of your neighbours say he hopes South American farmers are having good weather somewhere else is one of the most common hope theories around. We all go through it, myself included. At least recognize it and try to avoid it when it occurs.
• Keep ego out of the process. Trying to sell at a better price than your neighbour or better than the guys who write the newsletters accomplishes very little. Your competition is the market itself - one else.
• Be optimistic and plan to make money. With both the Asian and Brazilian economies falling apart, the U.S. is still the strongest of all capitalistic economies with the most stable of all governments. Opportunities have never been better. Low prices in grains do not have to mean low profits! All they mean is that we have to learn a different way to play the game - and to play it by the current rules!

One thing is sure: Becoming successful requires thinking, observing, deciding and doing.

New Herbicides for 1999

Hugh Martin, Weed Management Specialist, Guelph

In 1999 we have new chemistry, new formulations, new tank mixes and new names.

Viper (from Cyanamid) is a new herbicide with the active ingredient imazamox which is in the same family as that of Pursuit. Viper is only available as a tank mix with Reflex and together they are being marketed as Viper, which combines Group 2 and 14 chemistry.

Distinct (from BASF) combines the broadleaf control of dicamba with a new ingredient diflufenopyr. Diflufenopyr acts as a growth hormone to make the dicamba more active, allowing for a lower rate of dicamba to be used when compared to Banvel II. Distinct controls a wider range of weeds than dicamba alone.

Banvel II (from BASF) is the new name for the Clarity formulation of dicamba. The old Banvel formulation has been dropped. Product use and rates are similar as before.

Dual II Magnum (from Novartis) is the new metolachlor product for corn and combines the benoxycor safener of Dual II with a new, more active isomer (s-metolachlor) to allow a lower rate (about 30% lower) of Dual II Magnum than growers have used for Dual products in the past. For non-corn crops where the safener is not required there is also a Dual Magnum which is slightly less expensive per acre for soybeans and other crops. There is still some older Dual 960 and Dual II in the marketplace so growers should be aware of which product they have and which rate is needed.

Growers who want to use Primextra (from Novartis) now have the advantage of getting both the benoxycor safener and the lower rate isomer in the new product Primextra II Magnum. Again watch for rates with different products.

Assure II (from Dupont) is the new isomer product to Assure. A new formulation has allowed for new rates that are about 50% of the older product. Both new Assure II and last year's Assure will be on the market so check rates closely.

Poast Ultra (from BASF) is a new formulation that is used at a rate about 60% lower than for the previous Poast product. Both products may be in the marketplace this year so check the rates on the label.

Reliance (from Dupont) is the new combination of Classic and Pinnacle for STS tolerant soybean varieties. These two Group 2 herbicides combine to control a wide range of broadleaf weeds, but in combination they will injure varieties that are not STS herbicide tolerant.

Max (from Dupont) is the new name for the Striker component of Ultimax. Ultimax is a tankmix combining the ingredients of Ultim and Striker.

Ultim DF is a more concentrated formulation of Ultim and the packets will be slightly smaller.

Amitrol 240 is a new formulation of Amitrol. Rates are slightly different, check the label of the product you are using.

Roundup is now available in a number of formulations. Roundup Original is the product we have used for 25 years. Last year they came out with a new formulation called Roundup Transorb which is claimed to get into the plant faster. Both have the similar rates and concentration of active ingredients. For 1999 they have two new products which combine the glyphosate active ingredient of Roundup and the glufosinate ammonium active ingredient known in Liberty and Ignite. These new products are called Roundup Fast Forward PreSeed and Roundup Fast Forward PreHarvest. PreSeed is for the no-till burndown market and will give a faster visual response with the addition of the contact herbicide. The PreHarvest product is for desiccation or drydown prior to harvest and has a higher concentration of the glufosinate ammonium than the PreSeed. Growers should be advised that the Roundup Fast Forward PreSeed or Roundup Fast Forward PreHarvest are not safe to use on the Roundup Ready varieties of the crop.

Roundup is now registered for use on Roundup Ready corn hybrids as well as Roundup Ready soybeans and Roundup Ready Canola. Roundup Original, and Roundup Transorb are the only glyphosate products currently registered for use on Roundup Ready crops in Canada.

A Comparison of BASF Distinct Herbicide and Banvel II Herbicide

by Hugh Martin, Weed Management Specialist, OMAFRA, Guelph

Great Lakes Water Levels

Adam Hayes, Crop Specialist - Soil Management, Field Crops

The following charts show the water levels in the three great lakes which surround us for the period of Jan. 1998 to present. The charts also show the highest levels and the lowest levels recorded in the period from 1918 to 1998. It is interesting to note that the levels in all three lakes where near record high levels but through the second half of 1998 dropped significantly. This may be good for property owners but I am sure the soil that has found it's way to the bottom of these lakes may make shipping interesting if this trend continues. The question is where did this moisture go if it did not fall in our area? These charts were obtained from the Canadian Hydrographic Service web site:

http://chswww.bur.dfo.ca/danp/wlgraphs.html