Post on 20-May-2020
transcript
A soil health analysis of the Nathan Stecklein home farm
Nicole Stecklein
Field Year Crop Yield
(bu/ac)
North 2008 Corn 177
2009 Corn 214
2010 Corn 177
2011 Corn 169
2012 Corn 111
2013 Corn 178
2014 Corn 222
2015 Corn 167
South 2008 Soybeans 46
2009 Corn 231
2010 Corn 156
2011 Corn 161
2012 Corn 97
2013 Corn 195
2014 Corn 221
2015 Corn 230
West 2008 Corn 175
2009 Soybeans 46
2010 Corn 161
2011 Corn 184
2012 Corn 98
2013 Corn 209
2014 Corn 217
Historical yield data for Nathan’s Home Farm
“Soil Health”“The capacity of a soil to function within ecosystem boundaries to sustain biological productivity, maintain environmental health, and
promote plant and animal health” (Soil Health, 2014)
Need for this case study
• What is a ‘good’ soil?
• What is a practical definition for soil health?
• How do we measure it?
• How do we improve it?
IndicatorsAggregate StabilitySoil StructurePorosityBulk DensityWater InfiltrationWater Holding CapacitySoil Available water
IndicatorsEarthwormsSoil MicroorganismsParticulate Organic MatterSoil RespirationSoil Enzymes
IndicatorsCation Exchange CapacityNitrogenPhosphorusPotassiumSoil pH
Soil Organic Matter
Soil Physical
Properties
Soil Biological Properties
Soil Chemical
Properties
InputsTillage
Crop RotationCover Crops
Grass WaterwaysPerennials
InputsRoot SystemCover Crops
Crop ResidueAnimal Manure
(Al-Kaisi,2015)
Chemical AnalysisSamples taken Fall 2014
2.5 acre Grids
pH
Organic matter
Potassium
Phosphorus
pH ResultsMin-6.3
Max-7.3
Avg-6.7
OM ResultsMin-2.0%
Max-2.9%
Avg-2.4%
K ResultsMin-128 ppm
Max- 666 ppm
Avg- 262 ppm
P ResultsMin-31
Max- 323 ppm
Avg- 121.7 ppm
Physical AnalysisSubmitted to Cornell University Soil Test Lab Fall 2015
Soil from North field vs.soil from adjacent pasture
Texture
Aggregate Stability
Available Water Capacity
On-farm Water Infiltration
On-farm Slake
available
client lab aggregate water
ID ID %sand %clay %silt texture stability % capacity g g-1
North Field-Tilled FN26221-1 5.6 28.7 65.7 silty clay loam 4.7 0.29
Adjacent Pasture FN26221-2 8.6 16.2 75.2 silt loam 49.1 0.24
available
client lab aggregate water
ID ID %sand %clay %silt texture stability % capacity g g-1
North Field-Tilled FN26221-1 5.6 28.7 65.7 silty clay loam 4.7 0.29
Adjacent Pasture FN26221-2 8.6 16.2 75.2 silt loam 49.1 0.24
Scoring function graph for Aggregate Stability for three textural categories. In this case, more is better. The higher the percent stability of aggregates, the higher the score of the indicator.
On-Farm Slake Test
30 hours After Submerging Colloids
30 hours After Submerging Colloids
available
client lab Aggregate water
ID ID %sand %clay %silt texture stability % capacity g g-1
North Field-Tilled FN26221-1 5.6 28.7 65.7 silty clay loam 4.7 0.29
Adjacent Pasture FN26221-2 8.6 16.2 75.2 silt loam 49.1 0.24
Scoring function graph for Available Water Capacity (AWC) for three texturalcategories. In this case, more is better. The higher the AWC (g/g), the higher the score until a maximum amount is attained. Nathan’s tilled and pasture samples varied slightly, with tilled scoring 0.29 m/m and pasture scoring 0.24 m/m.
On-farm Water Infiltration Test
Biological AnalysisSubmitted to Cornell University Soil Test Lab Fall 2015
Soil from North field vs soil from adjacent Pasture
Respiration
Active Carbon
Sample Active carbon Respiration
ID mg C/kg soil (Tot CO2 mg/gsoil)
North Field-Tilled 333.7 0.53
Adjacent Pasture 836.5 1.37
Scoring function graph for Soil Respiration for three textural categories. In this case more is better. The higher the respiration, the higher the score and indication of a larger, more active soil community. Nathan’s tilled soil had a total respiration of 0.53 mg/g and the pasture sample had 1.37 mg/g.
Sample Active carbon Respiration
ID mg C/kg soil (Tot CO2 mg/gsoil)
North Field-Tilled 333.7 0.53
Adjacent Pasture 836.5 1.37
Scoring function graphs for Active Carbon for three textural categories. In this case more is better. The higher the Active Carbon, the higher the score indicating a trend toward more Organic Matter building up in the soil through biological activity. Nathan’s tilled soils had 333.7 ppm and the pasture sample showed 836.5 ppm.
Conclusions
Moebius,2015
0
50
100
150
200
250
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Yields x Temperature and Moisture (April-September
Rainfall Inches pergrowing season
Average Growing SeasonHigh Temperature
Home Farm Avg. Yield
County Average Yield
Physical
• Short Term• Incorporate fresh organic materials
• Use shallow rooted cover/rotation crops
• Add manure, green manure, mulch
• Long Term• Reduce tillage
• Use surface mulch
• Rotate with sod crops and mycorrhizal hosts
Other Factors Affecting Structure
Ca:Mg Ratio and Implications on StructureIon Charge Hydrated
radius
(nm)
Relative
flocculating
power
Sodium +1 0.79 1.0
Potassium +1 0.53 1.7
Magnesium +2 1.08 27.0
Calcium +2 0.96 43.0Relative flocculating power and hydrated radius of soil cations. When these cations become hydrated, they
have differing flocculating effects. Calcium has a much greater ability to flocculate clay particles than
magnesium, potassium, or sodium, which may also cause dispersion of clay particles (Walworth, 2006).
Soil Loss Rate as a Function of Calcium and Magnesium Saturated Soils
Donstova,2001
Infiltration Rate as a Function of Calcium and Magnesium Saturated Soils
Biological Low Respiration
• Short Term• Maintain plant cover throughout season
• Add fresh organic materials
• Add manure/green manure
• Long Term• Reduce tillage/mechanical cultivation
• Increase rotational diversity
• Maintain plant cover throughout season
• Cover crop with symbiotic host plants
Biological Active Carbon
• Short Term• Add fresh organic materials
• Use shallow rooted cover/rotation crops
• Add manure, green manure, mulch
• Long Term• Reduce tillage/mechanical cultivation
• Rotate with sod crop
• Cover crop whenever possible
Recommendations
• Incorporation of use of multispecies cover crops• Increase microbial diversity
• Decrease impact of heavy rainfall events
• On-farm gypsum trials• Increase Ca:Mg ratio
• Improve clay particle flocculation and strength of soil structure• Currently 2.16:1
• Mg- 25% Suggested: 10-13%
• Ca- 54% Suggested: 70-80%
Questions?
REFERENCES
Albrecht, William. 2011. Albrecht on soil balancing. Acres USA, Austin.
Brady, N. C., and R. R. Weil. 2008. The nature and properties of soils. 14th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Curtin, D., H. Steppuhn, and F. Selles. 1993. Effects of magnesium on cation selectivity and structural stability in sodic soils.
Soil Society of America Journal 58:730-737.
Davidson, D. 2014. Evaluating the quality of your soil. Crops and Soils: 4-13.
Dontsova, K., and L. D. Norton. 2001. Effects of exchangeable Ca:Mg ratio on soil clay flocculation, infiltration and erosion.
In: D. E. Stott et al., editors, Sustaining the global farm. Purdue University and the USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion
Research Laboratory.
Hoeft, R. 2004. Do you need micronutrient soil tests? Extension and Outreach--Crop Science. University of Illinois.
http://extension.cropsciences.illinois.edu/fieldcrops/classics/2004/micronutrient.php (accessed 17 October 2015)
International Plant Nutrient Institute. Soil pH and the Availability of Plant Nutrients. Fall 2010.
http://www.ipni.net/ipniweb/pnt.nsf/5a4b8be72a35cd46852568d9%20001a18da/97c1b6659f3405a28525777b0046bcb9
(accessed 15 December 2015)
Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. 2013. A general guide for crop nutrient and limestone recommendations in Iowa.
http://agron-www.agron.iastate.edu/Courses/agron392/PM1688.pdf (accessed 15 January 2016)
Johnson, C. 2005. Nitrogen basics--the nitrogen cycle. Cornell University Cooperative Extension.
http://cceonondaga.org/resources/nitrogen-basics-the-nitrogen-cycle (accessed 26 May 2016).
Marschner, P. 2012. Mineral nutrition of higher plants. 3rd ed. Elsevier ,San Diego.
Moebius-Clune, B.N., D.J. Moebius-Clune, B.K. Gugino, O.J. Idowu, R.R. Schindelbeck, A.J. Ristow, H.M. van Es, J.E. Thies,
H. A. Shayler, M. B. McBride, D.W. Wolfe, and G.S. Abawi. 2016. Comprehensive assessment of soil health – The Cornell
framework manual, ed. 3.0, Cornell University, Geneva, NY.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Healthy soils are well structured. NRCS.
http://www.ydae.purdue.edu/natural_resources/Soil,Health/Activities/SlakeTest,NRCS.pdf (accessed 5 July 2014).
Rehm, G. 2003. Is there a role for gypsum in Midwest agriculture. Proceedings of the Thirty-Third North Central Extension-
Industry Soil Fertility Conference.
http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/soilfertility/info/IsThereaRoleforGypsuminMidwestAgriculture.pdf (accessed 25 March
2015).
Rosen, C., P. M. Bierman, and R. D. Eliason. 2015. Soil test interpretation and fertilizer management for lawns, turf, gardens, and
landscape plants. University of Minnesota Extension.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/horticulture/components/1731-03 (accessed 10 December 2015).
Sawyer, J. 2007. Corn nitrogen rate calculator. Iowa State University Extension. http://cnrc.agron.iastate.edu/nRate.aspx
(accessed 10 December 2015).
Penn State Extension. 2014. The agronomy guide. Penn State Extension. http://extension.psu.edu/agronomy-
guide/cm/sec1/sec11b (accessed 10 December 2015).
Soil Quality Institute. June 2001. Agricultural Management Effects on Earthworm Populations. USDA-NRCS.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_053291.pdf (accessed 10 December 2015)
Walworth, J. 2006. Using gypsum and other calcium amendments in Southwestern soils. University of Arizona Extension.
http://extension.arizona.edu/sites/extension.arizona.edu/files/pubs/az1413.pdf (accessed 10 Deccember 2015).