Canola, wheat, and barley silage each make up 25% of our seeded acreage while the remaining 25% is made up of a combination of peas, flax and other specialty crops. Our farm has been continuously cropped since 1970 and direct seeded in a minimum till manner for the past seven years. Two years ago, we changed to a zero till system and currently utilize a Seed Hawk equipped with a liquid fertilizer system and a Bourgault single shoot air seeder equipped with knives and independent on-row packers. The Seed Hawk seeds all the canola and flax and as many of the cereals as possible, while applying all the fertilizer requirements in one pass. The Bourgault unit seeds only the cereals and peas and regrettably, requires the use of fall applied anhydrous ammonia. Operating both dry and liquid fertilizer systems in the spring definitely adds to the stress level. However, we are still searching for a one-pass system that leaves a smooth finish for the silage operations.
My presentation today will cover the following topics; all from the perspective of the practices on our farm so none of what you will hear is gospel but, merely my opinion:
For several years now, our goal has been to maximize canola acres purely for reasons of profitability. The advent of herbicide tolerant canola (HTC) has allowed the focus of rotational planning to switch from one of weed and disease control to simply that of disease control. We utilize two main rotational programs to achieve the goal of maximizing canola acres, namely:
Given the current economics of growing any type of cereals and therefore the need to add more canola acres, we are adding a new rotation this year, namely, cereal - peas - canola. While we are approaching this rotation on an experimental basis, several growers in the area have had good results. Of course, the major concerns with this program are greater risk of diseases, such as sclerotinia. As a result, increased monitoring for disease is anticipated and the application of a fungicide such as Benelate is in the budget. Additionally, the back to back applications of Pursuit or Odyssey complicates future rotational planning due to the residual characteristics of these chemicals. The chemical residue issue is the primary reason why the Roundup Ready products are the canolas of choice on our farm.
We have grown Roundup Ready canola for three years now - 80 acres in 1996, 160 acres in 1997, and 1500 acres in 1998. In 1999 Roundup Ready acres will be down to approximately 900 acres or 60% of total canola, solely because of the need to use the Smart technology on '97 and '98 pea ground which was sprayed with Pursuit (1997) and Odyssey (1998) both at 86% of the label rate.
In 1996 we conducted some field scale trials comparing the Roundup Ready variety Quest, Liberty Link variety Innovator, and the non-HTC variety Hyola 401. All varieties received a pre-emergent burn off with 0.5 L Roundup and post emergent label rates of Roundup, Liberty, and Muster/Select respectively. Yields, measured by a weigh wagon, were very similar for the Quest and Innovator at 31.8 and 32.1 bus. per acre respectively, while the Hyola 401 came in a distant third at 27.3 bus. per acre. The lower yield from the Hyola 401 was primarily a result of competition from weeds such as round leaf mallow, flixweed and stinkweed. The Roundup performance on volunteer cereals and wild oats was equal to that of Select but far superior to the Liberty. In the following wheat crop a difference could be seen in June weed populations with the Roundup technology easily winning the race.
In 1997, we conducted a head to head trial between Quest and the Smart variety 45A71 with very similar results in both weed control and yield.
In 1998, we did several 'farmer' type trials comparing the Roundup Ready varieties Quest, LG 3295 and 45A51 in the same fields. Yields were compared using a yield monitor so they may be somewhat suspect, however, based on the yield monitor data, there were no significant differences in yield. We found this somewhat surprising because of fairly noticeable differences in stand. The LG 3295 showed the most vigorous growth with very heavy foliage and was, therefore, most affected by the sclerotinia infestation, which occurred this year. While the 45A51 looked to be the best variety in the field, having a better stand than the Quest and less sclerotinia than the LG 3295, it did not perform any better. While the Quest usually doesn't look as good, it tended to yield better than the stand would indicate when compared to the other two varieties. We were definitely hoping to find one of these varieties to be superior to eliminate the need for continuing trials and constantly changing seed in the spring. However, no such luck! With the number of new varieties available this spring and undoubtedly more in the pipeline, it appears as though the search for that ULTIMATE variety will continue for some time to come.
Selecting a variety from the hundreds that are available is not nearly as difficult as it might seem at first glance. We utilize a process of elimination based on the following criteria:
Roundup can be applied to Roundup Ready canola several times prior to bolting. In fact, Monsanto recommends only a ten-day interval between applications. Therefore, the crop can be seeded as early as possible and successive flushes of weeds can be taken out at a reasonable cost per application.
With Roundup Ready canola, timing of the burnoff is not nearly as crucial as with non-Ready canola as Roundup can be applied any time from the cotyledon stage to the pre-bolting stage. Normally we do a pre- or post harvest application of Roundup on all fields scheduled for canola. It is also our standard practice to do the burn off application when weeds are of a sufficient population and proper staging to warrant the chemical application. As such, if winter annuals are not a significant problem, our burnoff is most often done after seeding and frequently after the canola has emerged. In several fields this year we were able to get away with just one application of Roundup in crop - the burnoff - applied at the three to four leaf stage. However, even small infestations of winter annuals can result in a very costly chemical saving of the 0.5 litre of Roundup (map not shown in proceedings).
The low yielding area in the center of this field was a result of heavy competition from flixweed. The burn off was applied too little too late as these winter annuals set the canola back by almost a week as compared to the rest of the field. While the canola in this area recovered somewhat after the second application of Roundup it yielded 5 to 6 bushels per acre less than the field average. Therefore, it is important to ensure that fields are frequently monitored following seeding and the sprayer gets there in time.
While Monsanto recommends 0.5 litre per acre, we have used from 0.4L to 0.7L per acre, depending on the size and type of the target weeds. We have seen good crop safety and excellent results with 0.7L of Roundup on hard to get weeds like cleavers, round leafed mallow, narrow- leaved hawksbeard and large flixweed. However, at 0.7L per acre, caution must be used as over lap can cause delay in maturity, increased green seed counts and loss of yield.
Since we farm very close to the Pound-Maker feedlot and spread a lot of manure, there are very few weeds we don't have. As such, a non-selective herbicide with the power of Roundup is an excellent fit. We have experienced significantly superior broad-spectrum weed control over all other chemical alternatives. However, a shortfall of Roundup, which has caused significant duress, is its inability to control cereal volunteers and wild oats when in the early one leaf stage. We have experienced almost no control of these grassy weeds when they are less than 1.25 inches tall. On plants taller than 1.25 inches, but still with one leaf, leaf burn is evident but a good percentage of the plants will not be destroyed.
With the goal of seeding anything but wheat, Roundup Ready definitely has its advantages.
AS previously mentioned, we have done a fair number of field scale comparisons on different varieties of canola. These comparisons have included varieties such as Quest, 45A51, LG 3295, 45A71, 46A72, Innovator, Invigor 2153, and 46A65. While our testing methods would no doubt be classified as inappropriate by professional researchers, they have all been field scale head to head comparisons with the same measurement techniques used on each variety. To date, we have been able to identify no clear and repetitive leader in the area of yield. However, where crops have been stressed from adverse weather conditions or inappropriate management techniques, the powerful weed control and repeat application options of Roundup have enabled the crop to come through these stress situations with amazingly good results.
Inevitably, Murphy's Law will at some point hold true on most farms. Whether it's a management error or an act of God that results in a less than satisfactory spraying job, the problem can usually be corrected at significantly less financial duress than with non-Ready varieties.
Ready canola, in my opinion, has the best fit for fall seeding of canola because of the low cost of repeat applications.
The following table depicts current pricing in our area for the three different types of HTC canola:
RR Smart Liberty Link
Quest 45A71 Independence
Burnoff @ .6L ** 5.46 5.46 5.46
Seed @ 5 lbs. 9.45 (1.89) 16.25 (3.25) 9.55 (1.91)
TUA 15.00
In-crop chemical 4.55 24.00 22.40
Sub-Total $34.46 $45.71 $37.45
Less discounts 0 (7.00) 0
Total $34.46 $38.71 $37.45
LG 3295 46A73 Invigor 2153
Cost using new
Varieties/hybrids $40.01 $39.46 $47.70*
* based on 4 lbs. Seed per acre
** based on TransOrb
We have experienced no problems in control of Roundup Ready volunteers except in cases where we forgot to take steps to control them and this applies mainly to burnoff situations. When doing a burnoff, we have simply added 4 to 5 ounces of 2,4-D to the Roundup on fields seeded to cereals. When doing a burnoff on peas, flax or other broad leafed crops, we have added a label rate of Express to the Roundup as this chemical appears to have no residual effect on the crop seedlings as a 2,4-D tank mix might. This tank mix has done a good job on the volunteer canola and has boosted control of thistle and hawksbeard seedlings over a straight application of Roundup.
In-crop control of Ready volunteers has caused no problems to date and is not expected to in the future, as any of the host of normal broad-leaved weed chemicals provide consistent control.
Obviously, the use of HTC canola requires better record keeping than if using conventional varieties to ensure that the proper chemicals are applied in all situations. This is perhaps where the Liberty Link varieties have an advantage as no special applications are necessary to control these volunteers.
Spraying of our first Roundup Ready canola crop was definitely greeted with a great deal of apprehension. In an area like ours that is 99% continuous cropped, there is no such thing as wind from the right direction. Unfortunately, no wind is most often a less desirable situation as are early mornings and late evenings, when air pressure inversions often occur. Whether by good luck or good management, or a combination thereof, we have not had any disasters from Roundup drift as yet. The rules we follow when spraying Roundup are:
While there has been much discussion in the media and coffee shops of the cross-pollination between Roundup Ready canolas, other canola varieties, and/or broad-leafed weeds, we have had no noticeable occurrences of this as yet on our farm. While this cross-pollination may or may not be occurring, I do not view this as an unwieldy threat since canola is currently the only crop in Western Canada with this gene. Since canola is normally grown in a three or four year rotation any mutant plants with the Ready gene that may occur should be readily controlled by conventional broad-leafed herbicides.
We as farmers, have been assured over and over by Monsanto that resistance to Roundup is extremely unlikely. I sincerely hope that they are right because farming without Roundup as a crop protection tool is to me, unimaginable in today's agronomic environment. Since Roundup is the only Group 9 herbicide, the likelihood of resistant strains developing is greatly reduced. However, given its widespread and repeated usage, I believe that we as farmers must also take responsibility and an active role in resistance prevention through the sound management practices of both crop and chemical rotations.
Many farmers have not used the Roundup Ready technology because of their dislike of the principle of the TUA, i.e., paying for the right to buy the products offered for sale. While we would all like to save the $15.00 per acre, we must realize that Monsanto must in some way, recoup their product research and development costs. Undoubtedly the TUA is a better means than a sizeable increase in the cost of Roundup. Even with the TUA, the Roundup Ready package is cost competitive with both conventional and other HTC programs. Hopefully, Monsanto will see fit in the near future to increase their market share and reduce the cost of the TUA.
Additionally, since the vast majority of farmers using the Roundup Ready technology are paying for the TUA, I encourage Monsanto to take a hard stance with those who are not.
In closing, while this presentation may have sounded very much like a paid Monsanto commercial, let me assure you that yes, I have paid handsomely via TUA's, Roundup products and Roundup Ready canola seed for the opportunity to speak to you today. In addition, given the fit of the Roundup Ready technology package in our zero till operations, we will continue to do so in the future.