A successful future requires a solid foundation combined with vision. A small group of farmers, believing in the concept and practice of zero tillage knew that more work and research would be required to ensure that this system would flourish in the future. They also knew that their own farms were not ideal to do this research. In 1992 they envisioned the concept of "farming in the future" and created the Zero Tillage Research Farm located north of Brandon, run by the Manitoba Zero Tillage Research Association (MZTRA).

Since then considerable confusion has arisen about the similar names and aims of the two groups. MZTRA has existed for only a few years, while the Manitoba-North Dakota Zero Tillage Farmers Association (ManDak) is very well known and this year celebrates its 20th Workshop. The lesser known group, MZTRA, was formed 10 years later than Mandak. Although the names are similar the main difference between them is that MZTRA has an ongoing research program. ManDak's purpose is more general in nature. The organization facilitates the exchange of ideas; encourages zero tillage research; and disseminates zero tillage information. MZTRA's mission is to operate a first class, producer-directed zero tillage research program, with all research results made available directly to its members. It is no secret that many of the members of the MZTRA were originally members of ManDak, but it was these same members who chose to create an association which would do direct research on behalf of their interests.

A collaborative agreement with Ducks Unlimited allowed the association to purchase one quarter of land and rent two more to begin the program. The first year (1993) that the association operated the zero tillage farm, the land was divided into two areas with wheat and canola sown by zero tillage management. Daryl Domitruk, the original farm manager, established the 6 rotational paddock locations in the spring of 1994 and most of them remain intact to this day. A paddock usually consists of four fields which follow a specific rotational pattern.

The farm's research program has always tried to incorporate a "systems approach" which includes crop sanitation, crop competition, crop rotation, environmental interactions, and crop nutrition (SCREN). This has been expanded to SCREEN (addition: economics) for 1997 and the future. Initially, a research committee was formed to suggest research ideas for the farm. Today a committee exists to monitor the annual program in cooperation with the farm manager. This group meets at specific times throughout the year to evaluate data and experiments, examine crops, organize tours, and respond to surveys from members. In consultation with the farm manager they create the program for the spring of each year.

The following details the systems approach used on the farm.

Crop sanitation (weed control) has been and continues to be a challenge on the research farm as on any farm. Although quackgrass is under control, thistles and wild oats exist in abundance as do many types of broadleaf weeds. Pre-harvest Roundup has been and will continue to be used in cereal and pea crops to control perennial weeds, but other possibilities will be investigated. To stave off resistance, use of various herbicide groups is practiced; for example, the use of pre-emergent herbicides which are not incorporated.

Forages and other competitive crops are being investigated as other methods to control weeds.

A competitive crop will choke out existing weeds and out compete late emerging ones. In the past work has been done on seed rates and crop varieties. This work will continue to determine which varieties emerge early and quickly close canopy. This is important for all crops grown. For crops which produce large amounts of residue and are very competitive, baling of straw is an option.

Rotations on the farm vary from the standard canola-wheat-pea-wheat used by many growers, to variations on this standard substituting winter wheat, rye or barley for spring wheat; beans for peas; and flax for canola. More diverse rotations established the past two years include cereal-cereal-C4-pulse/oilseed and cereal-cereal-forage-forage. Many members have requested more research on short term forage stands of clover, alfalfa and grasses which allow them to move in and out of rotations depending on their herd size and feed availability.

Environmental interactions include monitoring changes in soil quality, nitrate variability, and earthworm populations; preventing soil and wind erosion; providing cover for nesting birds; reducing fertilizer usage by rotating with forages and pulses, evaluating precision farming in the hopes of using fertilizer and pesticides more efficiently; evaluating rotational grazing with cattle; and giving tours to non-farming groups to explain the importance of agriculture and the benefits of zero tillage to agriculture.

Economics is a major concern; for any system to survive, it must be economical. Agronomically a crop, rotation or treatment may produce well, but if the grower can not make a profit it will not be adopted. This is a new area of investigation in our research, as important as the other five factors. It takes into account the cost of inputs, the cost of selling (freight, handling, etc.), and insurance/taxes. This will provide a financial guide to producers who would like to compare conventional crops or practices to newer, more diverse systems.

Crop nutrition is important for any crop. Consideration must be given to both the macro-nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur and to the micro-nutrients like copper, zinc, boron, and iron. All need to be checked on a regular basis to ensure deficiencies do not occur. Each of the fields on the research farm is sampled in the fall or spring to determine nutrient availability for the subsequent crop. Occasionally tissue testing is done to track nutrient movement during the growing season. Yield increases relate directly to the depletion of nutrients; they must be replaced to ensure good future yields. However, the expense of fertilizers is high so over application is undesirable. Precision farming methods may offer more efficient use of fertilizers in the future. Nutrition will continue to be a large part of the research program.

The northwest quarter of the farm was originally managed like the rest of the farm, but in 1993 was converted into native and domesticated grasses and forages by Ducks Unlimited. Currently it has 6 fenced/enclosed rotational grazing sites with a central watering system. Part of the quarter consists of the Prairie and Parkland Conservation Site. This includes a 1 km long nature trail; a number of small plots illustrating the various types of native and domesticated grasses and forages; stretches of virgin prairie; and a panoramic view of the zero tillage farm. This site was complemented this past summer with signage and picnic tables. Several tours were given in 1997 and more are planned for the future; it is hoped this will be recognized as a tourist spot and become a favorite touring stop for schools in the area.

Ducks Unlimited is an important contributor to the farm research, but they are not the only cooperative partner. Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, the Manitoba Department of Agriculture, and the University of Manitoba all conduct research on the farm. These cooperative projects are also conducted under zero tillage and range in size from small plot research to field scale projects similar to what the farm itself conducts. They include short and long term studies and help to increase knowledge about zero tillage management.

Tours during the growing season comprise an important aspect of the research farm. These tours allow us to showcase the farm and the zero tillage approach that the farm espouses. This past year tours were provided for groups from the United States, Australia, Africa, western Canada and local visitors. The annual tour in July attracted over 165 members, media people, researchers, and corporate sponsors. In past years the tour ran for just the afternoon, but a full day tour is being considered for 1998.

One of the main objectives of the MZTRA is to provide an invaluable outlet for communication between producers and researchers. In the past, newsletters, annual reports, and presentations at meetings such as the Manitoba-North Dakota Zero Tillage Farmers Association permitted information exchange. This past year supper meetings were implemented to pass on information in an informal setting and allow the farm manager to become familiar with the membership and vice versa. These proved to be popular for both the presenter and the members and will continue this coming winter.

At the same time it is believed important to promote the association at functions where the audience are not solely producers. Being present at these functions will strengthen our approach to agriculture now and in the future in the minds of other groups and individuals, members of the scientific community in public office, and the general public. Hopefully it will also help to distinguish us from the ManDak group.

Winter wheat appears to be making a comeback. Yields have increased the past 2 or 3 years due in part to new, higher yielding varieties such as Kestrel and Clair which respond very well to nitrogen fertilizer. One problem these varieties may have is low protein

content which corresponds to low grades. To address this problem an experiment was set up to apply nitrogen at later stages during the growing season in the hopes of increasing protein content while not inhibiting yield. Another study looked at several fertilizer options in the spring to achieve good yields. Finally, drill type was researched to determine if there was an effect on yield by comparing a disc opener drill and a hoe opener drill

A study with three replicates and 6 treatments was implemented in one of the winter wheat fields in spring. The treatments consisted of the following: trt 1 = 100 lbs/ac N as Ammonium nitrate broadcast; trt 2 = 80 lbs/ac N + 20 lbs/ac applied as liquid N (UAN) at boot stage of the wheat; trt 3 = 80 lbs/ac N + 20 lbs/ac after anthesis (post flowering) as liquid N; trt 4 = 120 lbs/ac N; trt 5 = 80 lbs/ac N + 20 at Boot + 20 after anthesis; trt 6 = 100 lbs/ac N + 20 after anthesis. Treatments 1-3 added a total of 100 lbs/ac to the winter wheat, while treatments 4-6 added 120 lbs/ac. Treatment 1 and 4 acted as checks to the other treatments. If protein was not enhanced by additional N, all the nitrogen should be applied immediately in spring. Application at two different timings may be important to protein, but could also damage the crop due to trampling. Treatment 5 was included to determine if two later additions of N would enhance protein. At harvest, yields were obtained and samples kept separate to test for protein. Results can be seen in Table 1. Increasing the nitrogen rate from 100 lbs/ac to 120 lbs/ac increased protein and yield by 2.0% and 4.8% respectively. Fertilizing with only 80 lbs/ac in spring and later applying 20 lbs/ac at boot stage resulted in a decrease of 1% protein and yield increase of 9.6%. An increase of 1.5% protein and 6. 1% Yield was achieved with the late addition of nitrogen after flowering.

Similar results were observed with the additional nitrogen after the initial 100 lbs/ac treatments as well (trts 5 & 6). Applying the nitrogen at the boot stage seems to enhance yield, but not protein. At this stage, little of the extra N appears to be going to the head, but rather to general plant growth and eventual yield. Overall the protein levels were high in 1997 and the yields were low due to minimal rainfall in May and June. This experiment may prove to be more revealing in a year when yields are high and protein levels drop accordingly.

Table I showing the effect of additional nitrogen on protein and yield in Kestrel winter wheat.

* A = ammonium nitrate (34-0-0)

AB = applied at boot stage of wheat

'F = applied after anthesis (post flowering) of wheat.

Many producers broadcast ammonium nitrate (34-0-0) on their winter wheat in the spring to supply the nitrogen requirements for that crop. This source of nitrogen is effective, but also expensive when compared with urea (46-0-0) or liquid nitrogen (UAN - 28-0-0). The problem with urea and UAN is that some or all of it may volatilize to the atmosphere before it can leach to the rooting zone where the plant can make efficient use of it. A new product called Agrotain (by IMC AGRICO) inhibits the urease enzyme from hydrolysing urea. By prolonging the hydrolysis process, the urea can leach into the soil where it is no longer volatile and in time becomes available to the plant. Since UAN is made up of urea, ammonium and nitrate, Agrotain should help reduce volatility with this form of nitrogen just as with urea.

To test the effectiveness of Agrotain, a trial was set up to compare ammonium nitrate (treatment 1) to UAN with and without Agrotain (trt 2 & 3), and urea. with and without Agrotain (trt 4 & 5). The trial consisted of the five treatments replicated three times with each plot measuring 30'x 440'. Protein and yield were determined and are presented in Table 2. The Agrotain appears to have worked well with both forms of nitrogen. With the UAN little difference was observed with the protein content, but adding the inhibitor increased yield by 2 bu/ac; making it equivalent to the yield of the ammonium nitrate source. The urea reacted in a similar way demonstrating no effect on protein but an increase in yield of over 3 bu/ac, compared to urea without the inhibitor present. These results could be more dramatic if overall yields were higher and protein values were lower.

Table 2 showing the effect of various forms of nitrogen on the protein content and yield of Kestrel winter wheat.

Does the type of opener make a difference on yield? This question could be answered many ways depending on if you are comparing just hoe openers or a hoe opener with a disc opener. The latter brings up questions about disturbance and seed placement which may not be relevant if you are comparing only hoe openers. In the fall of 1996 two drills were used to seed winter wheat. An Edwards hoe drill with 8" spacing was compared to a John Deere 750 disc drill with 7.5" spacing. The Kestrel winter wheat was seeded at 90 lbs/ac, with 20 lbs/ac P₂0₅ applied with the seed. Each drill seeded 6 widths per replicate and 3 replicates were completed. In the spring 90 lbs/ac of ammonium nitrate (34-0-0) was broadcast. Tilt was sprayed in July and the crop harvested in late August.

It became apparent by early June that the crops seeded by the Edwards drill were looking thicker and advancing more quickly. Seeding depth was investigated and the poorer stand from the John Deere drill was only 1/2 - 3/4 " deep. The lush stand from the Edward's drill was 1 " deep. The Yields were obtained and are present in Table 3. Yields are the final test in most studies. As you can see in the table, the Edwards drill consistently out-yielded the John Deere drill in this field over three replicates. Personally, I believe the difference lay in the seeding depth and the plant's ability to endure the cool spring better than the more shallowly rooted plants sown by the John Deere.

Table 3 showing the yields of Kestrel winter wheat grown on th Manitoba Zero Tillage Research Association Farm north of Brandon with two types of drills.

This was only a small part of the research conducted on the zero tillage farm this past season. Cooperative research projects and much more in-house research will be presented in the 1997 Annual Report. This report is free and available to all MZTRA members. If you are interested in the annual report and/or a MZTRA membership please contact Ron Gares at (204) 729-8838.

Currently the MZTRA has a single membership fee of only $200.00. This may sound like a significant amount, but this is a one time fee. Broken down over 20 years, this is only $10 per year (less than the annual fee for your plastic cards). Your membership entities you to several benefits including: input into future research on the farm; a standing invitation to the annual farm tour; first hand knowledge of the farm research data from the annual report; invitation to the annual meeting and research presentation; free subscription to the "Standing Stubble" newsletter; and the opportunity to become a board member who makes farm policy on research, communications, and finances. Make a difference for you and your neighbour; join up now and support the association. Let's leave the earth better than we found it.