Ron Gares Research Manager

Any business is in operation to make a profit or it Will not last very long. The size of the profit will determine if expansion is possible, if newer and more efficient equipment can be purchased and if raises or bonuses will be available to the staff A farm is no different. It requires a profit be made on each acre to allow for expansion, replacement of depreciated equipment and a wage or salary for the owner or operator. The membership of the Manitoba Zero Tillage Research Association (MZTRA) is composed of progressive, curious and innovative growers who have shifted to zero tillage farming because they feel it is better for the land, the environment and is more profitable than conventional farming.

The growers who make up the MZTRA were, are and probably always will be interested in steady profits, but I believe when they formed the association back in the fall of 1992, they had several other objectives. These included finding solutions to problems they currently had on their farms such as weed control, residue management, dealing with wet conditions, equipment requirements, fertility placement, suitable crop rotations, and seeding rates. They also had long term concerns on disease, input expenses, crop diversification, soil quality, and alternate non-chemical weed control.

Some of the answers to these problems are available to a limited extent, but little work has been done using true field size equipment under the full range of good and bad conditions that exist in the field. For this reason the MZTRA developed a plan to set up a true functioning zero tillage farm where applied research could be conducted to answer current and future problems in real conditions and hopefully pass these solutions on quickly to growers via summer tours, newsletters, and annual reports.

The farm and the research conducted there is operated as a whole system just as a grower would operate his or her farm. This "systems approach" means that certain research imperatives are considered. The farm is a zero tillage farm; comparing other types of tillage is fruitless and in fact is similar to comparing apples and oranges and should be avoided. Experiments are designed to include interdisciplinary approaches looking at the soil, plants, environment, wildlife and soil micro-organisms.

Research must be innovative, informative, practical, and at times risky. New things must be tried even if they seem strange and unusual at first. We have tried to diversify the farm as a whole to address concerns as crops, wildlife and their habitat, and natural pastures for cattle grazing all work together under one system which will conserve all for today and tomorrow.

To allow for as many crops, conditions, and rotations as possible the farm was originally divided into small fields or paddocks only 5 - 15 acres each in size as compared to the normal farmer field size in the province ranging from 50 - 150 acres. With this arrangement we currently have six separate rotational blocks (six paddock areas) plus a large area set aside with Ducks Unlimited as a water fowl preserve and native pasture area to allow the integration of wildlife, cattle grazing and farm operations.

The rotational blocks are set up on four year rotations and generally consist of four fields per paddock area. In this way each field represents one of the four years of the rotation. Each field can be further divided to look at separate research interests on a given crop.

For an example of an experimental layout, one field was seeded with 3-4 replicates using our if 750 15' low disturbance drill running the length of the field (1000 feet) and comparing 2-3 treatments of seed rate and the effect on weed emergence, densities, and final crop yield. Another experiment was simply seeding wheat in the same field with a low disturbance (if) 750) and a high disturbance (Edwards) drill and proceeding to monitor soil temperature, plant emergence, and final yield. Although this second example may not seem "scientific", its serves the purpose of answering several producer questions. What advantages or disadvantages does low disturbance have on soil temperature and plant emergence? Will this lead to reduced chemical costs and increased yields? Such an experiment is not that difficult for the farm to manage, but may be impossible, very time consuming and inconclusive for a grower.

We have some experiments which run for only one year. If an experiment is developed to answer several questions and at the end of the year all questions are considered answered, the experiment will not be run again. More often it requires several years on a given experiment to answer all the questions. As we all know each year brings different weather patterns for example, warm, cool, wet, dry, frosty springs; summers with intense heat, pests plenty of downpours, and cooler high disease periods; and falls with either too much rain or too much heat and no rain. Given these changing patterns, it is often difficult to say that a given crop will always do well, that control of a specific weed can be guaranteed, that fungicides will be required if you seed by a certain date and that swathing is a must before combining. Long term rotations allow us to conduct many experiments on several crops each year so we can average as many weather patterns as possible.

Another segment of our research includes crop diversification. Again, for the average grower to attempt to grow a new crop without any experience can be costly and time consuming. The research farm is able to prepare, seed, spray, evaluate, and harvest new crops. This includes looking into marketing, seed availability and final return on investment. We consider crops that may have a special marketing niche, a special rotational fit, an ability to produce well in a reduced growing season, and those that may fit a mixed farm where livestock are important in the farming operation.

For these reasons the farm was set up, and now I will present some of the farm's current research and some results from 1996. This past year saw three farm managers running the farm at different times. In early February, the original manager Daryl Domitruk resigned to take on a position with Manitoba Agriculture at Carman. By March Curtis Cavers was on duty and was able to successfully complete the spring, summer and fall research on the farm before moving on to a new position with Manitoba Agriculture in Carman, I started in early November and hope to remain on for the next few years continuing the ambitious research program that was started by the association members.

In 1996 part of the research program was spent looking at disturbance trials involving wheat, flax, and canola. There was also a desire to compare the performance of low disturbance openers. Weed control options was another area of interest and investigation. Some work was done on fertilizer placement, more specifically with nitrogen fertilizer and its effects on yield.

Soil disturbance seems to be a subject that comes up every year with zero tillage farmers depending on where they live and what type of opener they use. Low disturbance openers (disk type) require less power and should prevent moisture loss, but they also prevent the soil from warming sooner in spring and this can be important in cool springs and cooler climates. Higher disturbance openers, for example knives, hoes, and side boots, expose the soil to the sunlight which potentially warms the immediate soil and seed, but can also increase the chances of weed germination, increase moisture loss and generally require more power to pull through the soil.

In 1996 we compared an Edwards hoe drill (high disturbance) to a JD 750 disk drill (low disturbance) with wheat, flax and canola crops. The results on final yields are in Table 1 below.

Table I showing the yields of wheat, flax, and canola seeded under zero tillage management with a low and high disturbance drill.
Crop	JD750	Edwards
	Yield (bu/ac)
wheat	*48.6	44.1
flax	35.8	35.0
canola 1	28.4	28.5
canola 2	29.3	26.6
* seeded May 23rd (5 days earlier than Edwards)

With the exception of the wheat crop, the drill type which is responsible for the amount of soil disturbance appears to have little effect on final yield in this study. Although there is a difference in the wheat yields, the difference in seeding date makes it difficult to conclude if the difference is real.

In 1996 we were fortunate enough to have flexicoil bring a new seeding machine out to the farm which allowed us to compare the "Barton opener" on their experimental 6000 disc seeder with our JD 750 offset disc opener in the field side by side on a canola crop. Penetration with the 6000 disc was exceptional, but at times was too good and depth control appeared to be a problem. This resulted in either seed placed to deep or an exposed seed bed which dried out the surrounding area. Average yields of the cash canola for the 6000 disc and JD 750 were 16.1 and 20.3 bu/ac respectively. Although the yields between the two drills were different, they were also very low overall. The lower yields from the flexicoil unit may be due to poorer germination and less moisture available to seedlings initially. It must be remembered that the 6000 disc is a prototype and subject to modification before it becomes commercially available.

Weed control continues to be high on the priority list of producers as does the prevention of weed resistance. One possible disadvantage of zero tillage farming is the loss of tillage as a weed control option. To replace tillage producers have gone back to conventional herbicides, but the resistance concern has meant using pre-emergent products, and with zero tillage that means no incorporation. At the same time there is interest in missing a herbicide application year once every 3, 4, or 5 years. In 1996 two separate experiments were conducted looking at wild oat control with pre-emergent, post emergent and no chemical application in crop. Final dockage, moisture, protein and yield were determined.

In Experiment 1, Fortress and Avadex were applied pre-emergently without incorporation and Matavin was applied in crop. Table 2 lists the effects on dockage, moisture, protein and yield.

Table 2 showing the variation in dockage, protein, moisture and yield in wheat with different herbicide applications.
Herbicide	Dockage	Moisture	Protein	Yield
Treatment	(%)	(%)	(%)	(bu/ac)
Check	1.2	13.9	14.2	42.3
Matavin	1.0	14.1	13.6	36.6
Avadex	1.0	14.5	13.7	37.7
Fortress	1.0	14.5	15.4	36.4

Wild oat populations were low in this experiment which may give a partial answer as to why the check yielded higher than all of the chemical treatments. Another factor leading to the high check yield may have been the area harvested. Of all the treatments, the check was by far the smallest plot harvested encompassing less than an acre, while the other treatments were 2-6 acres in size. This experiment will be repeated next year with two changes. First, the treatments will be evenly sized, and secondly replications will be set up to deal with the variability in the field.

In Experiment 2, (Table 3) three chemical treatments were applied. The first treatment consisted of Roundup applied as a burnoff before seeding and no further chemical weed control applied throughout the season. The second treatment was the same as the first, but a post emergent herbicide (Triumph plus) was also used in crop. Finally, treatment three used only the post emergent herbicide for weed control all season long.

Table 3 showing the dockage, grain moisture, protein and yield in wheat with three weed control options applied.
Herbicide	Dockage	Moisture	Protein	Yield
Treatment	(%)	(%)	(%)	(bu/ac)
Triumph plus only	0.8	13.9	14.4	26.3
Roundup only	1.1	13.8	14.7	24.3
Triumph + Roundup	1.0	14.1	14.1	40.9

There were no large differences between dockage, moisture or protein, but yields were affected. The combination of Roundup and Triumph plus yielded much higher than either of the single herbicide applications. Although the two herbicide applications would increase input costs these costs would more than be made up by the increased yield advantage. This experiment will be repeated again next year with similar treatments and will be replicated as well to determine if the yield differences were real.

Finally, the question of when and where to place nitrogen fertilizer is often asked by growers. At one time equipment was not available to allow fertilizer placement and seed placement to take place at the same time, but today even anhydrous can be applied at seeding with no seedling injury providing the proper separation is present. Some growers apply most of their fertilizer in the fall because more time is available then and prices may be better, but this requires another operation over the land which is time consuming and will lead to greater soil disturbance. In the spring you have several options to apply your fertilizer, but which one is the most efficient and cost effective?

One can broadcast ammonium nitrate (34-0-0), but it usually costs more than urea (46-0-0), liquid nitrogen (28-0-0) or anhydrous (82-0-0) and requires good timing ( to avoid volatilization losses) and another field operation. Using urea is fine if it is banded, but requires more handling and separation from the seed must be present to ensure good germination. This may require more soil disturbance than you want. Midrow banding reduces the number of openers required to get the fertilizer in the ground, but requires large application rates at each point since there are half the number of openers. This could lead to leaching losses and plant starvation. A final alternative is a type of broadcasting/banding system which uses liquid nitrogen and is applied in a dribble band beside each opener. This allows you to place all the nitrogen the crop requires at seeding without risk of seedling injury. Table 4 shows the 1996 results for three nitrogen application methods. Liquid nitrogen fertilizer was either side banded, midrow banded or dribble side banded on the surface.

Table 4 shows the effects of nitrogen fertilizer placement on dockage, moisture, protein, and yield in wheat.
Fertilizer	Dockage	Moisture	Protein	Yield
Treatment	(%)	(%)	(%)	(bu/ac)
sideband	0.8	9.5	14.7	52.2
midrowband	0.9	9.7	14.8	54.1
sidedribble	1.0	9.1	14.6	53.7

No application methods gave a significant yield increase over another. Apparently the liquid nitrogen volatilization is minimal in the spring as the yield for this nitrogen application is comparable to both the midrow and side band applications. The three types of nitrogen placement had no significant effect on protein content in this study. Similar results were found in 94 and 95 with no yield differences found between nitrogen placement types. The side dribble application method has the advantages of being inexpensive to install, does not increase the amount of soil disturbance, and allows one to save a field operation in the fall or in the spring which would otherwise be required to supply nitrogen for the subsequent crop.

The previous experiments and data are some examples of the type of applied research we undertake at the zero tillage farm each year. Other research in the area of crop diversification from last year included Chinese broadbeans, envoy beans, hull-less barley, winter wheat, annual forages, buckwheat, millet (the crop), semi-dwarf corn, and dwarf rape.

Another aspect of the farm research occurs in cooperation with Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Manitoba Agriculture, and the University of Manitoba. We cooperate with these groups on projects which are of interest to all involved. The association allows these groups to set up their experiments as part of our existing system. In this way we can increase the overall research on the farm with their research also benefiting the membership. In the past year some cooperator work included alternative crops (Dale Sands and Jack Mopes), dormant seeded canola (Owen Beever), fertilizer placement and weed communities (Dr. Doug Derkson), underseeding annual forages, (Dennis Joosse), seeding rates for peas (Peter Entz), barley breeding (Dr. Mario Therrien), urease inhibitors (Dr. Cindy Grant) and nitrogen rates on landscape positions (Dr. Les Fuller).

As you can see the farm is a busy place in the spring, summer and fall and we hope it will remain so for many years to come. As long as there are questions about zero tillage farming we hope to be available to set up trials, in house experiments or cooperative experiments to find the answers. Our interest is to keep zero tillage farming innovative, progressive, and sustainable now and in the future.

Names of U.S. and Canadian Fungicides Seed Treatments
COMMON NAME	U.S. TRADE NAME	CANADIAN NAME
Benomyl	Benlate	Benlate
Carbathin, Lindane		Vitavax RS Flowable Powder & Cloak
Carbathin, Thiram, Lindane		Vitavax Dual Powder, Vitavax Dual Solution
Captan + Thiabendazole	Agrosol Flowable
Carboxin	Vitavax 34	Vitavax Single Solution
Carboxin + Captan	Nu-Gro, Captan 20, Carboxin 20, Seed Mate, Captan - Vitavax 20-20, Enhance
Carboxin + Maneb	DB-Green + Vitavax, Enhance Plus
Carboxin + Thiram	Vitavax 200 Flowable, RTU- Vitavax-Thiram, Vitavax- Thiram-Lindane, Vitaflo 280, Vitavax T-L	Vitavax Powder, Vitaflo-280, Anchor
Carboxin + Imazalil + Thiabendazole	Vitavax Extra RTU Vitavax Extra
Chlorothalonil		Bravo 500
Difenoconazole	Dividend
Imazalil	Agsco Double R, Flo-Pro, lmZ Flowable, Nuzone 10, ME
Mancozeb	Dithane M-45, Grain Guard, Grain Guard Plus, Manzate 200 DF	Manzate 200-DF, Dithane DO, Tuberseal
Mancozeb + Metalaxyl		Ridornil M2Y2WP
Iprodione		Rovral
Maneb	Agsco OB green, or Granol, NM, or Seed Mate Maneb, Lindane Agsco DB-Green L	N-M Drill Box Seed, Treatment Powder, N~M Dual Purpose
Maneb + Thiabendazole	Granox Plus
Prevail		PCNB (Terraclor)
Terra-Coat LT-2N, RTU-PCNB		Iprodione, Lindane
	Rovral ST	Tebuconazole + Thiram
	Thiram	42-S Thiram, Thiram 5OWP
Thiram 75WP	Thiram + Thiabendazole	Agrosol T

FUNGICIDES - FOLIAR SPRAYS
ACTIVE INGREDIENT	U.S. NAME	CANADIAN NAME
Benomyl	Benlate WP	Benlate
Copper	Champion WP, Champ Flowable, Kocide 101, Kocide 606 Kocide DF Kocide LF
Mancozeb	Dithane DF, Dithane F-45, Dithane M-45, Manzate 2OODF Pen ncczeb, Penncozeb DF	Dithane D6
Propiconazole	Tilt 3.6 E	Tilt
Tnadimefon	Bayleton
Sulfur	Sulfur DF Thiolux

NAMES OF U.S. AND CANADIAN INSECTICIDES
COMMON NAME	U.S. TRADE NAME	CANADIAN NAME
Acephate	Orthene	n/a
Aldicarb	Temik	n/a
Azinphos-methyl	Guthion	Guthion/Azinphos N
Bacillus thurinqiensi	Dipel
Carbaryl	Sevin	Sevin
Carbofuran	Furadan	Furadan
Chiorpyrifos	Lorsban	Lorsban
Chiopyrifos-methyl	Reldan
Cypermethrin	n/a	Ripeord
Deltamettirin	n/a	Decim
Diazinon	Diazinon	Diazinon
Dimethoate	Cyqon	Cygon/Lagon/Hopper Stopper
Disulfoton	DI-Syston	DI-Syston
Endosul fan	Thiodan	Thiodan/Endosulfan
Encapsulated methyl parathion	Penncap M
Esfenvalerate	Asana XL
Ethoprop	Mocap
Ethyl parathion	Parathion
Fenvalerate	Pydrin
Fonofos	Dyfonate	Dyfonate
Malathion	Malathion	Malathion
Methamidophos	Monitor	Monitor
Methidathion	Bupracide	Supracide
Methomyl	Lannate	Lannate
Methyl parathion	Methyl parathion
Nosema locustea fungus	NOLO (TM)Bait
Oxamyl	Vydate
Oxydemeton-methyl	n/a	Metasystox R
Permethrin	Ambush, Pounce	Ambush, Pounce
Pirimicarb	n/a	Pirimor
Phorate	Thimet	Thimet
Phosphamidon	Phosphamidon
Tefluthrin	Force
Terbufos	Counter	Counter
Tralomethrin	Scout X-TRA

Names of U.S. and Canadian Herbicides
Active ingredient	U.S.	U.S. Premix	Canadian	Canadn Premix	Herb. Group
Acetanilides
Acetachlor	Harness Plus, Surpass		n/a		n/a
Alachlor	Lasso/Other	Bronco, Bullet, Freedom	n/a	(Ontario only)
Dimethenaniid	Frontier	Contour	Frontier		Other
Metolachlor	Dual	Cycle, Broadstrike + Dual	Dual		Other
Propachlor	Ramrod	Ramrod/Atrazine	n/a		Other
Propanil	Stampede 80EDF	Stampede CM	Stampede	Stampede CM	Other
Amino Acids
Glyphosate	Roundup/others	Bronco, Landmaster BW, Fallow Master	Roundup/others		Other
Glufosinate	Ignite, Finale		Ignite, Harvest, Liberty		Other
Sulfosate	Touchdown		Touchdown		Other
Aryloxphenoxpropionic acids/Cyclohexanediones
Clethodin	Select		Select		1
Diclofop	Hoelon		Hoe-Grass	Hoe-Grass11	1
Fenoxaprop	Option 11, Whip	Cheyenne, Dakota, Fusion, Tiller		Laser, Laser DF, Puma, Truimph Plus, Champion Plus	1
Fluazifop-p	Fusilade 2000	Fusion	Fusilade 11, Venture	Fusion	1
Quizalofop-p	Assure 11		Assure		1
Sethoxydin	Poast/Poast Plus		Poast		1
Tralkoxydin			Achieve	Achieve Extra, Prevail	1
Benzoic Acids
Dicamba	Banvel/Banvel SGF	Fallow Master, Marksman	Banvel	Dyvel, Dyvel Ds, Kil-Mor, Target	4
Benzonitriles
Bromoxynil	Buctril	Bronate, Buctril/Atrazine	Parder	Achieve Extra, Laser, Buctril M, Hoe-Grass 11	6
Benzothiadiazoles
Bentazon	Basagran/many	Laddock, Galaxy, Storm	Basagran/many	Laddock, Marksman	Other
Bipyridiliums
Difenzoquat	Avenge		Avenge 200C		8
Diquat	Diquat		Reglone		Other
Paraquat	Cyclone, Gramoxone Extra		Gramozone		Other
Dipnenylethers
Acifluorfen	Blazer	Galaxy, Storm	n/a
Lactofen	Cobra		n/a
Dinitroanilines
Ethalfluralin	Sonalan		Edge		3
Pendimethalin	Prowl	Pursuit Plus, Squadron	n/a
Trifluralin	Treflan/others	Broadstrike + Treflan, Buckle, Freedom, Salute	Treflan/others	Fortress	3
Imidazolinones
Imazanethabenz	Assert		Assert		2
Imazaquin	Scepter	Squadron, Tri-Scept	n/a
Imazethapyr	Pursuit	Pursuit Plus	Pursuit		2
Isoxazolidinones
Clomazone	Command	Commence	n/a
Phenoxy-carboxylic acids
2,4-D	many	Curtail, Landmaster, BW, Tiller	many	Diphenoprop, DyVel DS, Estaprop, Ki-Mor	4
Dichloprop				Diphenoprop, Estaprop, Dichlorprop-D, Turboprop	4
MCPA	many	Bronate, Cheyenne, Dakota, Stampede CM, Tiller	many	Achieve Extra, Blagal, Buctril M, DyVel, Laer, Laer DF, Target, Triumph Plus	4
Meccoprop			Compitox/Mecoprop	DyVel DS, Kil-Mor, Target	4
Pyridines
Clopyralid	Stinger	Curtail	Lontrel	Prevail	4
Picloram	Tordon 22K		Tordon	Tordon 202C	4
Sulfonylureas
Chlorimuron	Classic	Lorox Plus, Preview	n/a
Chlorsulfuron	Glean	Finesse	n/a
Rimsulfuron		Matrix	n/a
Ethanetrsulfruron			Muster		2
Metsulfuron	Ally	Finesse	Ally/Excort		2
Nicosulfuron	Accent		n/a
Primsulfuron	Beacon		n/a
Thifensulfuron	Pinnacle	Concert, Harmony Extra	Refine	Laser DF, Refine Extra, Truimph Plus, Champion Plus	2
Triasulfuron	Amber		Amber
Tribenuron	Express	Harmony Extra	n/a	Express Pack, Refine Extra	2
Thiocarbarnates
EPTC	Eptan, Eradicane		Eptan, Eradicane		Other
Triallate	Far-Go	Buckle	Avadex BW	Fortress	8
as-Triazines
Metribuzin	Sencor/Lexone	Canaopy, Matrix, Preview, Salute, Turbo	Sencor/Lexone		5
s-Triazines
Atrizine	many	Bicep, Extrazine 11, Laddok, Lariat, Marksman, Sutan +	Atrazine	Ladok, Sutan +	5
Cyanazine	Bladex	Cycle	Bladex		5
Triazolopyrimidine sulfonanilides
Flumetsulan		Broadstrike + Dual, Broadstrike + Treflan	n/a
Ureas
Linuron	Lorox	Lorox Plus	Afolan F/Lorox DF		7
Tables update by Dave Kelner, Weeds Specialist, Manitoba Agriculture