Category Archives: MicroFarm

Playing with Peas

At the LandWISE MicroFarm, we are scoping the use of plant growth regulators to lift yields of peas for processing.

In our region, peas are produced for the global market, and the global price sets the local price. You’ll struggle to find a farmer that says the pay-out is generous. We could focus on increasing the price by $5 a tonne or even $50 a tonne. But that will make us uncompetitive. 

So how can we make it a profitable crop?

We could cut costs, though there is little left to remove. Peas don’t usually get fertiliser or slug bait, insecticides or disease sprays. Most get little or no cultivation. They do get herbicide treatment, but many chemicals are relatively cheap.

What’s left?

“Yield is king!” say LandWISE farmers. 

The yields of many crops have increased enormously over the last twenty years.  Pea yields have not, and are highly variable and unpredictable.  Even in good looking crops, yield can be disappointing.

As with any one pass harvest fresh vegetable crop, top yields need good plant, pod and seed numbers, all ready for harvest at the same time. Sometimes parts of a paddock are behind, sometimes parts of plants are left behind.

If part of a paddock matures differently, it is often because the plants emerged at different times. The cause may be soil moisture or temperature differences. Maybe it is compaction related.

If some plants mature at different rates it may be sowing or soil conditions causing uneven emergence.

If some pods mature at different times, maybe flowering was prolonged. If we condense flowering, all the plant’s resources go into peas that get harvested.

Farmers have noted drought-stressed crops can out-yield more vigorous ones. The stressed plants seem to have flowering curtailed, while vigorous ones continue flowering and have late pods and peas that will not be mature at harvest.

The MicroFarm group is looking at plant growth regulators to condense flowering and therefore the harvestable proportion of the crop.

Plant growth regulators control things such as shoot and root growth, internode length, flowering, fruit set and ripening. They are widely used in horticulture and have been used to manipulate flowering times.

We are applying a few options that have shown to have effect elsewhere. It is a first look to see if this is something worth researching further.

Our Discussion Group members’ experience has been brought together to formulate our “grand plan”.

Five different PGR products are being applied to the crop at different growth stages. The PGR’s include gibberellic acid, anti-gibberellin (Cycocel 750, Regalis), cytokinin (Exilis) and anti-ethylene (ReTain). These are potentially potent materials: one of our treatments is 8 grams per hectare.

The treatments are being applied in 3m x 10m strips, but are not being replicated in this initial scoping study. We do however have two sowings so we will get a couple of chances to compare. We will observe effects and yields. If we see evidence of a benefit, we will do a more detailed study.

Gibberellic acid was applied when peas were 10-15cm high. A rapid lengthening and yellowing of treated plants was quickly seen. The yellowing has reduced in time, but the plants are still double the height of their untreated neighbours.

But it is flowering we are interested in and that is still just around the corner. We have noted two flowers in one treated plant, and none elsewhere in the paddock.

The next set of treatments was applied about 10 days before anticipated flowering date. We are watching things closely.

Many thanks to the people involved in formulating the plan, and now implementing it: Plant Growth Regulators were supplied by BASF Crop Protection, Agronica and Fruitfed Supplies. Treatments were applied by Peracto. Plant & Food are monitoring the effects.

PGRSponsors

A report of results of the season’s PGR trials is posted on the MicroFarm website.

MicroFarm Open Day 3-5pm 2 April 2014

Ballance web150  BASF web  CLAW-light-150

The second MicroFarm Open Day date will focus on beans, sweetcorn and water management.

Bean planting P6 Airey 3 web

Bean planting – Richard Airey picture

The green beans are destined for McCain Foods Hastings plant. The four micropaddocks include demonstrations of:

  • Two row spacings 20″ and 15″
  • Four plant populations
  • Different varieties
  • Drip vs spray irrigation
  • Phosphorus: non vs normal vs double rate
  • Herbicide management variations

Sweetcorn demonstrations

  • Strip-till
  • No irrigation
  • Drip irrigation
  • Very late spray irrigation

Irrigation discussion

  • Soil monitoring records from 2013-2014 crops
  • Where crops are getting water from
  • Impact of drought stress
  • Cost of drought stress

More details on the MicroFarm website

Many thanks to:

Ballance AgriNutrients, BASF Crop Protection, Centre for Land and Water, ThinkWater, Netafim, HydroServices, McCain Foods, FruitFed Supplies, Agronica NZ, Nicolle Contracting, Te Mata Contractors, Drumpeel Farms, Agnew Hort, Greville Ground Spraying, True Earth Organics, Tasman Harvesting, Plant & Food Research and Peracto Research for support with this work.

MicroFarm Updates

Entering the MicroFarm after a three day gap highlights how rapidly sweetcorn grows at this tassling stage. The crop has moved quickly, although the in-paddock variability remains. This crop is desitined for McCain Foods Hastings plant. More details are available on the MicroFarm website.

Green beans were planted in four paddocks on 31 January 2014. We have a range of things being looked at including row spacing, plant populations, fertiliser and weed management options. More details are available on the MicroFarm website.

Beans and corn 20140225_151757

We started irrigating the beans in Paddock 2 on 18 February with the ThinkWater/Netafim buried drip system. The other blocks are not currently irrigated. Promised rain did not arrive so moisture levels in the dry land crops are starting to drop. HydroServices has put neutron access tubes into Paddocks 2 and 5 and are monitoring for us. The results of monitoring are posted on the Irrigation Monitoring page.

We are grateful to Stu Mawley and the Te Mata Contractors staff for a big job ripping the bean paddocks prior to planting. We have identified deep soil compaction as a significant limitation on-site. This is a legacy of the previous orchard impact and one we need to deal with. We also believe bonfire sites where old orchard trees were collected and burned have left a problem behind. The soils seems “fired” and has very large, very hard lumps. The drivers quickly tired of replacing shear bolts.

Te Mata Contractors used four-tine rippers from Lawson’s True Earth Organics. These are narrow shanked and set at 762mm spacing, so we could run them between the buried driplines in Paddock 2.

We have been learning about peas and irrigation. We have published two articles in The Grower (see the January and February editions). We were impressed to see vining peas drawing water from very deep in the profile. In our early plantings we could see the effects of a compaction layer on water availability. In our later plantings we had the comparison of drip irrigated cersus dryland, and were interested to see differences in water consumed in tha last couple of weeks before harvest. Thanks to HydroServices for providing our monitoring.

Steve Green has donated us a radiometer to add to the Plant & Food weather station on-site. Once we get the wind sorted we’ll be able to calculate our own potential evapotranspiration figures. The radiometer complements the existing rain gauge, temperature, humidity and leaf wetness sensors on the station. These are standard on Plant & Food “orchard monitoring” stations, which are mainly intended to support pathology and enable assessment of disease risk.

We have also installed an Aquaflex sensor which was donated by Streat Instruments. This is stabilising, but with little rain since installation, we are not yet fully confident of the data. These are available on the MicroFarm website courtesy of Plant & Food and HortPlus MetWatch.

Irrigation: Do peas benefit? Do farmers?

At the MicroFarm, we just harvested our second lot of peas.  We tracked their water use since planting to build on learning from our first crop (see the December 2013 issue of “Grower”, reproduced here>).

Pea Harvester MicroFarm2

Once again, HydroServices’ Melanie Smith established three neutron probe access tubes in each of two crops. These were read weekly and analysed to tell us paddock soil moisture content down to 80 cm.

Both pea crops were planted on the same day with the same drill. Paddock 1 is dryland and Paddock 2 has drip irrigation installed 200mm deep.

Figures Paddock 1 and Paddock 2 show soil water content for each crop.

Paddock 1_Peas
Paddock 1_Peas

 

Paddock 2_Peas
Paddock 2_Peas

We see the crops tracked about the same at the start. In mid-December, Paddock 2 received two 9mm irrigations from our buried dripline.

Melanie estimated that the irrigation was 80% efficient, so only added about 7.5mm to the budget each time. Paddock 1 is not irrigated, and continued to drop towards stress point.

Paddock 1 reached Refill Point on Boxing Day two days before rain fortunately lifted it back out of stress. Paddock 1 again hit stress point on about 6th January. With no more significant rain, it stayed stressed. With irrigation applied as required, Paddock 2 remained stress-free throughout.

Overall, the two crops used similar amounts of water through until early January. After that the 0 – 30 cm soil reached stress point, and water use from the unirrigated Paddock 1 began to taper off.  The steeper lines in the bottom part of the graphs show it began to get more water from deeper in the profile.

By harvest, Paddock 1 was using only about half as much water as the drip irrigated Paddock 2 and drawing it from much deeper in the profile.

The difference in what a crop did use and what it could have used if the water was available is described by Potential Soil Moisture Deficit.

We estimate that by harvest, Paddock 1 suffered about 100mm of PSMD. I am not sure what the pea response is to stress. I am told it is a “very elastic” crop. For many crops this would indicate a growth reduction of about 20%.

So did irrigation pay?

We sampled each crop pre-harvest and found Paddock 2 had about 30% more fresh weight canopy than Paddock 1. The difference was easily seen, being significantly taller and generally more “lush”. The peas in Paddock 1 reached harvest maturity at least three or four days before the irrigated peas in Paddock 2.

We get paid for peas not canopy. We also sampled yields and quality as measured by TR (pea tenderness) and found differences.

There was a lower tonnage in Paddock 2, but the quality (and pay-out value) was much higher.

At harvest the Paddock 1 tonnages were reasonable at 6.85 t/ha paid yield. But TR was 137; a bit high and the lowest pay-out grade.

We delayed harvesting Paddock 2 for two days. The paid yield was similar at 6.55 t/ha but the TR was 102, a 30% higher pay-out grade.

Paddock 1 returned $2,059/ha and Paddock 2 returned $2,625/ha gross, so a benefit of $566/ha from irrigation.

We applied 81 mm so our return from irrigation was $6.99/ha/mm applied. Many people quote an irrigation cost of about $2/ha/mm so let’s claim a benefit of $5/ha/mm applied.

Looking at it another way. If we had a 20ha paddock, irrigation would have made us about $8,000 better off. If we also sold pea hay, the benefit would be even greater.

Answer: Irrigation pays!

Thanks to: Centre for Land and Water, ThinkWater, Netafim, HydroServices, McCain Foods, Ballance AgriNutrients, BASF Crop Protection, FruitFed Supplies, Agronica NZ, Nicolle Contracting, Drumpeel Farms, Greville Ground Spraying, True Earth Organics, Tasman Harvesting, Plant & Food Research, Peracto NZ

MicroFarm Open Day

The first MicroFarm Open Day was held on Thursday 5th December. The event received significant media coverage, including a two page spread in Rural News.

We are grateful for the excellent presentations made by our speakers, and for the quality of discussion that followed. Attendees travelled from South Canterbury, Manawatu and Gisborne to join local growers, contractors and their support industry colleagues.

You can see Sarah Pethybridge’s presentation on Plant Growth Regulators on the MicroFarm website.

Programme

Short “theory” presentations in the Green Shed

  1. Why a MicroFarm; what we expect to learn – Dan Bloomer, LandWISE (and others)
  2. Soil nutrient picture; what we found, what we’ve done – Mark Redshaw, Ballance AgriNutrients
  3. Inoculants for legumes; our first trial and hopes – Weston Hazelwood, BASF Crop Protection
  4. Plant Growth Regulators; compressing pea flowering – Sarah Pethybridge, Plant & Food Research
  5. What the MicroFarm still needs – Dan Bloomer, LandWISE

Outside practical demos and discussions

  1. Buried drip for vegetables – Anthony Waites, ThinkWater
  2. Soil moisture monitoring; water use messages – Melanie Smith, HydroServices
  3. Soil compaction; penetrometers, VSA and a plan – James Powrie, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
  4. Herbicide selection – Vaughan Redshaw, Fruitfed Supplies
  5. Plant Growth Regulator treatments; a first scoping study – Tim Robinson, Peracto

Download a printable pdf Open Day Programme here

The MicroFarm is a genuine community activity, as shown by the sponsors and supporters listed below. We are unsure of all the outcomes, but we know there will be much learning along the way.

SponsorsPanel

Irrigation demand: alike as two peas?

The MicroFarm has two crops of peas almost ready for harvest. We have been tracking their water use since planting. We want to learn as much as we can about our soil and irrigation.

HydroServices’ Melanie Smith is our specialist support for soil moisture monitoring. She established three neutron probe access tubes in each of our first two crops. These are read weekly and analysed to give a Paddock soil moisture content down to 80 cm.

Both pea crops were planted on the same day with the same drill. One had some nitrogen starter-fertiliser because our discussion group wondered if it would make a difference, but that is another story. For now, we are talking irrigation management.

We are seeing significantly different patterns from our two crops. Significant in that considering the usual 30 cm root depth, one crop needed irrigating a week before the other. Significant in that one would get through to harvest at the start of December without needing to be irrigated. The other would need irrigation. What’s going on?

Let’s look at two graphs: Paddock 3a and Paddock 4a which are the two crops in question.

Paddock_3_a
Paddock_3_a
Paddock_4_a
Paddock_4_a

 

 

 

 

The top parts of these graphs show soil water content in the top 30 cm. We see that in each case the Full Point (116 mm) and Refill Point (82 mm) is the same. So we have 34 mm of readily available water our plants can access from the first 30 cm depth of soil.

The graphs show Paddock 4 reached Refill Point a whole week before Paddock 3. In fact, Paddock 4 hit Refill Point almost three weeks before Paddock 3, and but for a chance 12 mm rainfall would have gone into critical deficit in early November.

Let’s compare these graphs a bit more closely.

We see they tracked about the same to start with, then at the beginning of November Paddock 4 suddenly used significantly more water from the 0 ‑ 30 cm root zone than did Paddock 3. This is around the time the canopies reached full ground cover.

Our observations of the crops suggest Paddock 3 had more canopy so we thought it would be using more water than Paddock 4. Looking at the lower parts of Graphs 3a and 4a, we see that Paddock 3 used more water from deeper in the profile at 40 – 50 cm.

We did some Visual Soil Assessments and found more evidence of soil compaction in Paddock 4. Being the main gate access into the area it has seen more tractors, trucks and paddock forklift activity. So we expected to see compaction limiting root development.

Now lets look at the water content in the whole soil profile, right down to 80 cm, presumably well past any pea roots (Figures Paddock 3b and Paddock 4b).

Paddock_3_b
Paddock_3_b
Paddock_4_b
Paddock_4_b

The first thing to notice is much higher water storage, because 80 cm of soil has more readily available water than 30 cm of soil. So now Full Point is 314  mm and Refill Point is 232 mm giving 82 mm of readily available water for our crop to grow before we would need to irrigate.

When we compare these two graphs we get a different picture. Now we see the two crops using similar amounts of water through until 14 November. After that, Paddock 3 (the fuller canopy and better soil condition) used slightly more water than Paddock 4, and actually hit Refill Point a day or so earlier.

Overall, it seems our Paddock 3 crop is getting more water from deeper in the profile, accessing water from 50 ‑ 80 cm deep.

For a lower price crop like peas, reducing costs makes a big difference. Can avoiding compaction save the need to irrigate?

How deep are your crops’ roots?

HydroServicesBlue

 

Many thanks to HydroServices for the soil moisture monitoring at the MicroFarm

In search of best practice

The LandWISE MicroFarm in Hastings is an attempt to discover and apply best practice for cropping. Our aim to maximise production while minimising the environmental footprint.

We believe the soil has amazing abilities to grow and restore itself if we avoid compaction and over-working. So we want to minimise the area we drive on and do whatever operations are needed at the best time with least structural impact. 

We have seen time and time again that controlled traffic systems provide good “roads” to drive on and good gardens to grow in. But are they realistic in a typical process crop regime?

RandomWheelingsWeb

We can start by avoiding unnecessary traffic. Trucks can be particularly damaging

At the MicroFarm, this season started with six paddocks of vining peas for McCain Foods; early peas in early September, late peas in late October. They were followed by four paddocks of green beans and two of sweetcorn.

In September the soil was at field capacity, and it was raining.  The forecast promised showers or rain every day for a week. Thankfully, we got the pasture sprayed out while it was a bit drier, though even then the tractor and spray trailer left visible tracks.

Our paddocks are part of the overall “grand plan”. The planners at the factory worked out their through-flow needs on a daily basis. The field staff worked out how many hectares to plant each day. We need to plant when the schedule dictates. The alternative may be less attractive.

Think about risks. The basic idea behind risk assessment is to combine assessments of hazards with assessments of probability that the event will occur.  A serious hazard with a high probability of occurring is assigned the highest priority for risk management.

At planting time the average grower is facing many risks, and constantly ranking them in their mind, even if informally. “Not getting a crop planted” might rate higher than “avoiding a bit of compaction”. So we are going to plant. And there is a high risk of soil compaction.

What can we do to reduce the impact of the hazard, to reduce the likelihood of it happening, or to reduce its severity if it does?  

GreatPlainsWheelingsWeb

Conventional tractor set up can have a lot of ground:tyre contact and a lot more from drills and other equipment

The key is planning ahead, and taking sensible steps well in advance of the problem arising. We can plan for this when we have a less stressful period, install drainage in a quieter time, and plan a reduced wheeling strategy well before the season even starts.  

We can plan drainage to keep excess water off the paddocks and remove excess water in a timely way. That should reduce the likelihood and severity of damage.

We can ensure our soil is in the best condition possible. That will increase infiltration and drainage rates removing water faster and make it structurally stronger to carry traffic. We can put only essential wheels on only the minimum area of paddock. That will reduce the damage area.  

We could remediate. We could aerate after planting to remove compaction, get air back into the rootzone and give the roots a chance to penetrate. That won’t reduce the compaction, but at some financial cost it will help remove it.  And the soil is too wet anyway.

Last season we visited minimum tillage sites after operations in sub-optimal conditions. We were very pleasantly impressed at how little damage these paddocks suffered.

We’ll still have to tidy up if we make a mess, but we’ll have to do it less often and more easily.

This posting first appeared as an article in “The Grower” magazine

LandWISE MicroFarm Activated

With the generous support of many companies and individuals, the LandWISE MicroFarm is established and active. The first of two vining pea plantings has germinated and the rest is sprayed out in preparation for another planting in late-October.

We are holding the first MicroFarm Open Day on Thursday 5th December 2014. More in our newsletters.

We have set up a separate website for the MicroFarm at www.microfarm.landwise.org.nz There you’ll find an increasing amount of information as we post details of activities, progress and outcomes.

It is the first season of many over the next five years and like others we’ve struggled at times with weather and wet soil. Weather records from the on-site weather station are available on the MicroFarm website at http://microfarm.landwise.org.nz/farm/weather/ thanks to HortPlus.

With marking the paddocks out, setting AB lines and checking we can fit in the number of rows we want, spraying and planting we’ve driven on our soil a lot. A lot more than we would like. We want to minimise traffic impacts but with many different vehicles involved we’ve not done so well.

James Powrie and Dan Bloomer completed initial Visual Soil Assessments in each of the six Blocks. Worm numbers were lower than expected, contributing to moderate rather than good scores in two Blocks. More details here>

Block 4, with the main access gateway, shows significantly greater evidence of compaction. We’ll monitor that as we go: dealing with residual compaction is a key question as we try to maximise crop production.

Melanie from HydroServices has installed neutron probe soil moisture monitoring sites into Blocks 3 & 4. We are interested to see what the impact of compaction in Block 4 might mean for soil water holding. We’ll post results as testing progresses.

Paul Johnstone, Bruce Searle and Sarah Pethybridge from Plant & Food, together with Fenton Hazelwood and Grant Hagerty from BASF have designed a first look at plant growth regulators to control flowering in vining peas. We hope some control can raise harvestable yield. Vaughan Redshaw and Scott Marillier from Fruitfed Supplies in Hastings have sourced the materials we need. Because of significant rain, Tim Robinson from Peracto and Ben Watson from McCain Foods tested leaf status before first treatments are applied.

The remaining Blocks have been sprayed off for late peas. We are anticipating a slightly later planting date. In part we want to modify Patrick Nicolle’s drill to apply inocculants at planting and the parts have yet to arrive. . .