Nuus/News

Hallo Almal

Oestyd is met ons. Ongelooflik. Sterkte aan almal, veral aan die

Swartlanders wat ‘n groendroogte seisoen beleef het. Ons dink aan

julle.

Groete van huis tot huis

Johann Strauss

Hello All

The time has flown by. Harvest is here. Good luck to all and especially

to the Swartlanders in this dry season. We are thinking of you.

Regards

Johann Strauss

2015

NUUSBRIEF / NEWSLETTER

30/10/2015

ISSUE 40

UITGAWE 40

GMO’s 2

Carbon 4

Cover crops 8

Kompetisie 13

Tours 14

Inside this issue: Inhoud:

Upcoming farmers’ days and events:

2016 conference prac-

tical day—2 August

2016 conference lec-

ture day—3 August

Riversdale Boeredag—

24 Augustus 2016

One month after taking office, the Juncker Commission reached an agreement with the European

Council and the European Parliament on an issue which had complicated life for both Barroso

Commissions: genetically modified (GM) crops. Under this agreement, the Commission will continue

to have the regulatory role of deciding, on scientific advice, whether a GM crop is safe to be

grown anywhere in the EU. National governments will then be allowed to choose, on non-scientific

grounds, whether to allow that crop in their country. This is a scientifically sound and politically

pragmatic agreement, which should now be implemented without further argument.

MEPs voted overwhelmingly to accept this agreement on January 12th. Donald Tusk, the

president of the European Council, had opposed GM crops when Polish prime minister, but must

now cast his own views aside and encourage the Council of Ministers to respect the agreement. It

should not waste more time on a theological dispute about genetic modification: arguments

about GM crops have been clogging up European institutions for the last 15 years.

GM technology should not be supported or opposed per se. There are good GM crops and

bad GM crops, just as there are good chemicals and bad chemicals. New agricultural technology

is necessary. As the world’s climate warms, there will be changes in rainfall patterns and more

droughts. With the global population expected increase to over 10 billion by 2100, more food will

be needed. Genetic modification can make crops more drought-resistant. It can also make crops

pest-resistant. So the technology can reduce the need for pesticides, protects wildlife and reduces

the contribution of agriculture to greenhouse gas emissions by cutting the use of chemicals. GM

can also increase crop yield per hectare, making it easier to feed a growing population without

cutting down the remaining forests. And GM can be used to breed plants which are more nutri-

tious, thus reducing disease.

On the downside, GM can also produce crops which are able to grow with more pesticide

being sprayed on them without being damaged. This trait is less desirable than pest resistance be-

cause it might lead to greater use of pesticide: farmers would not need to worry about the chemi-

cals damaging the crops. Increased pesticide use is of benefit to the agrochemical industry but not

necessarily to wider society, and certainly not to wildlife. GM crops should be treated as a series of

proposed technological changes, to be assessed and regulated on a case-by-case basis. An ex-

ample of a good GM technology is ‘Golden Rice’ – rice which provides those who eat it with addi-

tional vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency increases the risk of disease, resulting in up to 2 million deaths

a year. It also damages eyesight, causing half a million children a year to go blind every year. The

development of Golden Rice has been funded by the Rockefeller Foundation for the last two dec-

ades.

Page 2

Genetically modified crops: Time to move on from

theological dispute

Written by Stephen Tindale, 30 January 2015

Adapted

** Views expressed in that of the author**

A number of patented technologies have been used in developing Golden Rice, but the lead

company Syngenta negotiated with other involved firms (including Bayer, Monsanto and Zeneca

Mogen), to allow plant breeding institutions in developing countries to use Golden Rice free of

charge.

GM crops have been widely grown in many countries around the world for years, but in Eu-

rope only five member-states have any commercial GM agriculture. Spain has the most: about a

fifth of its maize is GM. GM crops are also grown in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Portugal and Ro-

mania. Nine countries – Austria, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg

and Poland – ban GM crops. The other member-states do not have national policies preventing

GM agriculture, but there are no GM crops grown, mainly because of public opposition. The British

government would like to have GM crops grown commercially in the UK, but public opinion has so

far won the argument against them.

Have GMOs been proven to be safe? No. That is not how science works; nothing is ever de-

finitively settled and more discoveries are always possible. Is there enough evidence that GMOs

are safe to permit their release into the environment? Yes – if the benefits of the crops are suffi-

cient to justify the inevitable risk that accompanies the release of new organisms into the environ-

ment.

The European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) published a wide-ranging as-

sessment of genetic modification in 2013. This states that: “There is no validated evidence that GM

crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology

used in plant breeding.” GM opponents argue that the risk of releasing new forms of life is so great

that it should always be avoided, and often invoke “the precautionary principle”. However, the

EU’s definition of this states that scientific evaluations of proposed new technologies should in-

clude both “a risk evaluation and an evaluation of the potential consequences of inaction”. The

EASAC report says that: “There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustaina-

ble development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy.”

So the risk of action is small; the risk of inaction is large.

December’s agreement gives the EU a sensible case-by-case approach to GM regulation.

This balances science and politics, as well as the single market and concerns over national sover-

eignty. A single market in agricultural goods requires that one member-state does not exclude

produce from another country because it contains GM.

Now it is up to national governments to agree to disagree on GM crops. The British, Czech,

Spanish and Portuguese governments should stop pressing for more countries to allow GM cultiva-

tion, and the Austrian, French and German governments should stop trying to prevent any cultiva-

tion anywhere in Europe.

For its part, the EU needs to move on from a narrow focus on GM crops, and address wider

issues of how to make agriculture more efficient and sustainable, as well as better able to with-

stand climate change and feed a growing global population.

Stephen Tindale is a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform. He spent six years

as executive director of Greenpeace UK, which opposes GM crops. However, he has al-

ways thought that GM technology should be assessed case-by-case.

Page 3

Failing a cataclysmic collision with an asteroid or a volcanic explosion of earth-shattering propor-

tions, the thin layer of weathered rock we call soil will have to feed 50% more people before this

planet gets much older. The problem has not gone unnoticed. Learned men and women have

gathered, books have been written and conferences convened. What has been discussed? How to

build new topsoil? No. Everything but.

The collective knowledge of the human species on almost every subject from subatomic par-

ticles to distant galaxies is extraordinary, yet we know so little about soil. Is it too common, this world

beneath our feet? This stuff of life that sustains us?

Failure to acknowledge/ observe/ measure/ learn how to rapidly build fertile topsoil may

emerge as one of the greatest oversights of modern civilisation. Routine assessments of agricultural

soils rarely extend beyond the top 10 to 15 centimetres and are generally limited to determining the

status of a small number of elements, notably phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N). Over-emphasis on

these nutrients has masked the myriad of microbial interactions that would normally take place in

soil; interactions that are necessary for carbon sequestration, precursor to the formation of fertile

topsoil.

Page 4

Carbon that counts

Christine Jones, PhD

Founder, Amazing Carbon

www.amazingcarbon.com

Land management and soil carbon

The RHS soil profile in Fig.1 has formed under conventional grazing, intermittent cropping and

standard practice fertiliser management. The soil profile on the LHS illustrates 50 centimetres of well

-structured, fertile, carbon-rich topsoil that have formed as a result of the activation of the

‘sequestration pathway’ through pasture cropping and grazing management practices designed

to maximise photosynthetic capacity. Superphosphate has not been applied to the LHS paddock

for over thirty years. In the last 10 years the LHS soil has sequestered 164 t/ha of CO2 (44.7 tC/ha).

The sequestration rate in the last two years (2008-2010) has been 33 tonnes of CO2 per hec-

tare per year (9 tC/ha/yr). Due to increased levels of soil carbon and the accompanying increas-

es in soil fertility, the LHS paddock now carries twice the number of livestock as the RHS paddock.

Levels of both total and available plant nutrients, minerals and trace elements have dramatically

improved in the LHS soil, due to solubilisation of the mineral fraction by microbes energised by in-

creased levels of liquid carbon. In this positive feedback loop, sequestration enhances mineralisa-

tion which in turn enhances humification. As a result, the rate of polymerisation has also increased,

resulting in 78% of the newly sequestered carbon being non-labile.

The stable, long-chain, high-molecular weight humic substances formed via the plant-

microbe sequestration pathway cannot ‘disappear in a drought’. Indeed, the humus now present

in the LHS profile was formed against the back-drop of 13 years of below-average rainfall in east-

ern Australia. A major cause of soil dysfunction, as illustrated in the RHS soil profile in Fig.1, is the re-

moval of perennial groundcover for cropping and/or a reduction in the photosynthetic capacity

of pastures due to inappropriate grazing management. In the post-war era, a range of chemical

fertilisers have been applied to soils in an attempt to mask reduced soil function, but this ap-

proach has merely accelerated the process of soil carbon loss, particularly at depth. The net ef-

fect of soil structural decline has been compromised landscape function, particularly with respect

to the storage and movement of water, losses of biodiversity, markedly reduced mineral levels in

plants and animals and an increase in the incidence of metabolic diseases. This will no longer do.

Australia is not the only country in which subsoils - and hence landscape function - have deterio-

rated as a result of inappropriate land management and fertiliser practices.

In New Zealand, a country blessed with vast tracts of inherently fertile topsoil, carbon losses

are occurring at depth under heavily fertilised pastures, due to the inhibition of the sequestration

pathway. To date, alternative management practices have been either dismissed or ignored by

establishment science in that country. It is important to note that the rapid improvements to soil

fertility and soil function recorded in the LHS soil profile in Fig.1 are dependant on the enhanced

photosynthetic capacity that accompanies regenerative forms of cropping and grazing manage-

ment.

Not just any carbon - and not just anywhere

The soil surface increment, 0-10cm, generally contains the highest levels of short-chain, labile car-

bon, indicative of rapid turnover. While this ‘active’ carbon is important for the health of the soil

food-web, the surface increment is not where one would be looking to safely ‘store’ atmospheric

CO2. The deeper in the soil profile that carbon is sequestered, and the more humified the carbon,

the better.

Over the last 10 years, the amount of long-chain, non-labile soil carbon (ie the humic frac-

tion) in the LHS profile has doubled in the 10-20cm increment, tripled in the 20-30cm increment

and quadrupled in the 30-40cm increment. In future years, it is anticipated that the most rapid se-

questration of stable soil carbon in this particular soil profile will take place in the 40-50cm incre-

ment, then later still, in the 50-60cm increment. That is, over time, fertile, carbon-rich topsoil will

Page 5

continue to build downwards into the subsoil.

Deeply sequestered carbon alleviates subsoil constraints, improves farm productivity, en-

hances hydrological function and improves mineral density in plants, animals and people.

The Kyoto Protocol, which relates only to carbon sequestered in the 0-30cm increment, com-

pletely overlooks this ‘sequestration of significance’ in the 30-60cm portion of the soil profile.

Building new topsoil

The formation of fertile topsoil can be breathtakingly rapid once the biological dots have been

joined and the sequestration/ mineralisation/ humification pathway has been activated. The posi-

tive feedback loops render the liquid carbon pathway somewhat akin to perpetual motion. You

can almost see new topsoil forming before your eyes.

The sun’s energy, captured in photosynthesis and channelled from above-ground to below-

ground as liquid carbon via plant roots, fuels the microbes that solubilise the mineral fraction. A por-

tion of the newly released minerals enable rapid humification in deep layers of soil, while the re-

maining minerals are returned to plant leaves, facilitating an elevated rate of photosynthesis and

increased levels of production of liquid carbon, which can in turn be channelled to soil, enabling

the dissolution of even more minerals.

The levels of acid-extractable minerals in the LHS soil profile are higher than those on the RHS

soil in the following proportions, calcium 177%, magnesium 38%, potassium 46%, sulphur 57%, phos-

phorus 51%, zinc 86%, iron 22%, copper 102%, boron 56%, molybdenum 51%, cobalt 79% and seleni-

um 17%. Levels of water-soluble plant nutrients have increased to a similar extent.

Where do the ‘new’ minerals come from?

A standard soil test provides very little information about the bulk soil and the minerals potentially

available to plants. Most lab reports list ‘plant-available’ nutrients (that is, nutrients not requiring mi-

crobial intermediaries for plant access) and if requested, acidextractable minerals (misleadingly

quoted as ‘totals’).

With respect to phosphorus, for example, the ‘plant-available’ levels are usually estimated

using an Olsen, Colwell, Bray 1, Bray 2, Mehlich 1, Mehlich 3 or Morgan P test. These tests provide in-

formation on the relatively small pools of inorganic soil P. Where a figure for Total P is provided, it re-

fers only to the quantity of P that is acidextractable, not the actual ‘total’ amount of P in the soil.

Other techniques, such as x-ray fluorescence (XRF) are required to determine the composi-

tion of the insoluble, acid-resistant mineral fraction, which comprises 96-98% of the soil mass and

contains far more minerals than are shown in a standard soil test. Indeed, the top one metre of soil

contains thousands of tonnes of minerals per hectare. Specific functional groups of soil microbes

have access to this mineral fraction, while others are able to fix atmospheric N, provided they re-

ceive liquid carbon from plants. The newly accessed minerals, particularly iron and aluminium, plus

the newly fixed N, (48% more Total N in the LHS soil profile), enable rapid humification of labile car-

bon.

However, the liquid carbon needed to drive the process will not be forthcoming if high

analysis N and/or P fertilisers inhibit the formation of a plant-microbe bridge. The ‘classic’ models for

soil carbon dynamics, based on data collected from set-stocked conventionally fertilised pastures

and/or soil beneath conventionally fertilised annual crops, where the plant-microbe bridge is dys-

functional, fail to include nutrient acquisition from the bulk mineral fraction and associative N-

fixation, hence cannot explain rapid topsoil formation at depth. The puzzle is that establishment sci-

ence clings to these outdated models, inferring real-life data to be inconsequential. Measurements

made outside of institutionalised science are generally branded ‘anecdotal’ and largely ignored.

Page 6

Making the world a better place

When pastures, diverse cover crops and crops sown into pastures are managed to utilise nature’s

free gifts - sunlight, air and soil microbes - to rapidly form new, fertile, carbon-rich topsoil, the pro-

cess is of immense benefit, not only to individual farmers, but to rural communities around the

globe.

Property owner, Colin Seis, has no wish to revert to former management practices, as he

can now carry twice the number of stock at a fraction of the cost. Nevertheless, if the land man-

agement were to change for some unforeseeable reason, the increased levels of humus (non-

labile carbon) now present in his soil would remain for considerably longer than the average

lifespan of carbon in trees.

In addition to reducing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the activation of the soil se-

questration pathway results in the release of plant nutrients from the theoretically insoluble mineral

fraction, which comprises by far the largest proportion (96-98%) of the soil mass. This increased

mineral availability improves the health of pastures, crops, livestock and the people consuming

agricultural produce. Everyone benefits when food is more nourishing.

Mineral availabilities are determined more by the rate of carbon flow from plants than by

the stock of carbon in the soil. The ‘key’ to mineral management is appropriate groundcover

management. When the plant-soil sequestration pathway has been activated, it is possible to

feed more people from less land.

Taking action on soil carbon

Those who persist in maintaining that soil carbon comes at a ‘cost’ and/or disappears

during a drought and/or requires applications of expensive fertiliser and/or necessitates

forgone production - had better ‘please explain’. The on-farm reality is that when the

sequestration pathway for non-labile carbon has been activated, the opposite is true.

How much longer will the farming community have to endure the myths, misconceptions

and misleading models put forward by the people currently employed to solve the

problem of declining soil carbon, dwindling soil fertility and losses in soil function?

Will policy-makers show some initiative, seek the truth and act on it?

Page 7

This is a literature review of cover crop benefits from Dabney et al. 2001 and Dabney 1996. Cover

crop benefits include: soil erosion protection, reduced nutrient leaching, carbon sequestration,

weed suppression, and integrated pest management. Cover crops protect water quality by reduc-

ing losses of nutrients, pesticides, and sediment. Only a small percentage of farmers actually plant

cover crops because most farmers believe the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. This fact

sheet attempts to highlight the physical, chemical, biological, and economic benefits of using cov-

er crops in a sustainable cropping system.

Cover Crops and Water Quality

Sediment

Sediment is agriculture’s number one pollutant. Water erosion occurs even on flat soils and is espe-

cially a problem on hilly soils. Cover crops produce more vegetative biomass than volunteer plants;

transpire water, increase water infiltration, and decrease surface runoff and runoff velocity. If the

velocity of runoff water is doubled in a stream, the carrying capacity of water or the stream compe-

tence to transport soil sediment and nutrients increases by a factor of 26 or 64 times. So 64 times

more sediment and nutrients are lost with moving water when the velocity is doubled (Walker et al.

2006). Cover crops protect soil aggregates from the impact of rain drops by reducing soil aggre-

gate breakdown. By slowing down wind speeds at ground level and decreasing the velocity of wa-

ter in runoff, cover crops greatly reduce wind and water erosion.

Nutrients

Cover crops can increase nutrient efficiency through reduced soil erosion (less soil organic matter

and soil nutrients losses in the topsoil). Cover crops are scavengers of residual nitrogen (N), convert-

ing N to proteins (enzymes, hormones, amino acids). Nitrogen uptake depends on soil N, climate,

cover crop species, seeding rate, planting and killing date. Winter grass cover crops (cereal rye, an-

nual ryegrass) accumulate N in the fall and winter due to fast root growth. After the boot stage,

there is not much additional nitrogen uptake with grasses. Legumes accumulate nitrogen longer in

the spring but with high soil N, legume N fixation decreases. Use grass or brassica species to absorb

and recycle N if excess N occurs from manure or fertilizer. Use legumes to supplement N for the next

crop if more N is needed for fertilization.

Page 8

Using Cover Crops to Improve Soil and Water Quality

James J. Hoorman

Cover Crops & Water Quality, Extension Educator

Ohio State University Extension, Lima, Ohio

Pesticide Usage

Pesticide usage can either increase or decrease with cover crops. If cover crops are difficult to

control, pesticide use may increase. In South America, 95% of some areas use cover crops with

no-till to promote weed suppression through dense plantings and competition with weeds for sun-

light, water, and nutrients. Cereal rye has been shown to have an allelopathic affect on weeds for

up to 6 weeks. Living mulches are better at suppressing weeds than dead mulches. In soybeans,

Pythium disease (damping off) decreases because the delaying planting (5 to 14 days) warms the

soil. In long-term studies, cover crops reduced the populations of some soil-borne pathogens. Soy-

bean cyst nematodes are significantly reduced by annual ryegrass and cereal rye cover crops.

Some green cover crops attract army worm, cutworms, and slugs so the cover crop needs to be

killed 3 to 4 weeks before corn planting. Cover crops can be used as a trap crop for corn ear-

worm, tarnish bug, and other insects if the cover crop is killed early. Letting cover crops grow and

mature may allow populations of beneficial insects to increase. Cover crops complement no-till

more than conventionally tilled soils because cover crops may be difficult to incorporate into the

soil. There is a need to understand insect cycles and pest interactions with cover crops.

Cover Crops and Soil Quality

Soil Carbon

Cover crops can greatly increase carbon inputs into the soil. Reduced tillage plus carbon (C) in-

puts from residues increase soil organic carbon. Both C and N are needed to form soil organic

matter. Grass cover crops may contribute N as scavengers or legumes may fix additional N. Grass-

es contributes more carbon than legumes due to a higher C:N ration. At C:N ratios less than 20, N

is released. The average C:N ratio in the soil is around 10–12:1 indicating that N is available. The soil

microbial biomass and enzymatic activity increases with cover crop usage. Cover crops increase

SOM, macroporosity, soil permeability, mean aggregate size, and aggregate stability

(macroaggregates vs. micro-aggregates). Deep rooted cover crops increase subsoil water hold-

ing capacity. A bare soil holds 1.7 inches water while a continuous living cover holds 4.2 inches of

soil water (USDA-NRCS Engineering handbook). Increased soil structure and stability may improve

the soil’s capacity to carry machines and improve field accessibility and decrease soil compac-

tion.

Nitrogen Fertility

The release of N from cover crops for the following crop at the right time is an issue. If nutrients are

tied up or immobilized from the soil, crop yields can decrease especially in no-till corn. The release

of N depends on cover crop species, growth stage, management, and climate. An early spring kill

of grasses promotes a lower C:N ratio and a faster release of N. Legumes tend to have a lower

C:N ratio but if either grasses or legumes are allowed to reach full maturity, N release is delayed.

Slower N release occurs more in dry weather than in wet years due to decreased microbial activi-

ty needed to decompose residues and release N. N volatilization of cover crops left on the soil sur-

face has been suggested but only small loses of NH3 have been shown to occur with no-till. .

Page 9

Leaching (37%) of nitrates into the soil had a bigger effect than volatilization (4–6%) losses. N uptake

of cover crops varied from 51 to 270 lbs/acre (57 to 296 kg N/ha) to the next crop. If 50% of N is recy-

cled, cover crops may supply 22 to 120 lbs/acre (25 to 132 kg N/ha) to the next crop. Late planted

cover crops may not have as much vegetative growth but may impact soil and water quality

through reduced soil erosion.

Mycorrhizal Fungus

Cover crops increase mycorrhizal fungus activity promoting a symbiotic relationship with the plants’

roots for water and nutrient uptake. Plants provide the polysaccharides and the mycorrhizal fungus

provided the protein to form a glycoprotein called glomalin which promotes soil aggregate stability

(more macro-aggregates) and improved soil structure. Mycorrhizal fungus grows better in undis-

turbed soils. No-till and actively growing roots promote this reaction to occur. The majority of soil mi-

crobes are located next to growing roots with 10,000 times more microbes located in the rhizo-

sphere next to the root than in bare soil.

Soil Water

Cover crops may benefit or hurt crop yields due to changes in soil moisture. While cover crops in-

crease water infiltration, they also transpire soil water and dry out fields, possibly affecting yields. In

Ohio, fields are wet 7 out of 10 years in the spring so transpiration from living covers may be benefi-

cial to dry out the soil. However, if a cover crop is killed late after considerable cover crop growth

and then it turns wet, the cover crop may trap soil moisture and delay planting. If an early spring

drought occurs, cover crops may hurt crop yields from reduced soil moisture. However, deep root-

ed cover crops improve corn rooting depth to attain subsoil moisture and moisture is conserved by

mulching the topsoil in a dry year. A pound of soil organic matter has the ability to absorb 18–20

pounds of water, which is beneficial in a dry year. Some of the negative soil moisture effects from

using cover crops can be negated as soil compaction decreases and soil quality improves with

time. Cover crops may be utilized to improve soil physical, chemical, and biological properties that

improve soil drainage but it takes time to make these changes if soil compaction is high and soil

quality is low.

Page 10

Mycorrhizal fungus and plant roots Glomalin surrounding soil particles

Soil Temperature

Living cover crops can significantly alter soil temperatures. Cover crops decreased the amplitude

of day and night temperatures more than average temperatures resulting in less variability. Cover

crop mulches protect the soil from cold nights and slow cooling. This may be a benefit in hot re-

gions, but may slow growth in cooler regions. Winter cover crops moderate temperatures in the

winter. Standing crops have higher soil temperatures than flat crops. Row cleaners can be used to

manage residues to improve soil temperatures in no-till fields. Temperature and rainfall are the pri-

mary climatic variables affecting cover crop selection and establishment. Broadcasting cover

crop seed is faster and cheaper but stand establishment depends on rainfall and good seed to

soil contact. Most winter cover crops need to be planted in late summer or early fall (by Septem-

ber) to survive the winter (except cereal rye which can be planted later).

Summary of Cover Crop Effects on Soil and Water

Cover crops are grown when the soil is fallow.

Increase the solar energy harvest and increase carbon in the soil.

Provide food for macro- and micro-organisms and other wildlife.

Increase evapotranspiration, increase water infiltration, and decrease soil bulk density.

Reduce sediment production, decrease impacts of raindrops, decrease runoff velocity.

Increase soil quality by improving the biological, chemical, and physical soil properties.

Increase organic carbon, cation exchange capacity, aggregate stability and water infiltration.

Page 11

Grass and brassica species are great nitrogen scavengers and increase carbon inputs.

Legumes increase soil nitrogen through nitrogen fixation.

Cover crops grow best in warm moist areas but may hurt yields in semi-arid regions.

Soil temperatures may impact yields.

Systems are needed that reduce the cost of cover crop establishment and killing.

Cover crops improve soil and water quality. May reduce nutrient and pesticide runoff by 50% or

more, decrease soil erosion by 90%, reduce sediment loading by 75%, reduce pathogen loading by

60%.

Acknowledgments

This fact sheet was produced in conjunction with the Midwest Cover Crops Council (MCCC). Out-

side reviewer: Mark Fritz, Ohio Department of Agriculture.

References

1) Dabney, S.M. 1996. Cover crop impacts on watershed hydrology. Soil and Water Conservation, 53

(3), 207–213.

2) Dabney, S.M., J.A. Delgado, and D.W. Reeves. 2001. Using winter cover crops to improve soil and

water quality. Community of Soil Science Plant Analysis, 32 (7&8), 1221–1250.

3) Tisdall, J.M., and J.M. Oades. 1982. Organic matter and water-stable aggregates in soils. Journal

of Soil Science, 33, 141–163.

4) Walker, D., D. Baumgartner, K. Fitzsimmons, and C.P. Gerber. 2006. Chapter 18: Surface Water Pol-

lution, In Environment & Pollution Science. Eds. I.L. Pepper, C.P. Gerber, and M.L. Brusseau. p. 283.

5) USDA-NRCS Engineering Field Handbook. Chapter 2, Hydrology.

Page 12

Please remember to take a selfie or have someone take a pic of you with the bumper sticker and

post it on our facebook page to be eligible to win the weekend for 2 people.

The completion closes at the end of November and the winner will be announced at the end of

January following our next management meeting. If you would like to be eligible for the prize and

do not have a sticker, contact MG at devlei@whalemail.co.za or Johann at jo-

hannst@elsenburg.com to obtain one. Tell your friends and family too. Remember that the sticker

must be attached to the bakkie, harvester or an agricultural implement to be considered and you

have to be in the photo too.

The prize is a weekend for two, bed and breakfast valued at R2500.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bewaringslandbouwk

Our twitter is: @BewaringsLWK

Page 13

The selfie competition

Page 14

Daar was ‘n paar manne wat aangedui het dat hulle belangstel om dalk SANTFA se CA

boerdedag in Februarie 2016 te gaan bywoon. Ons het met Tom geskakel en hulle is

bereid om vir die wat belangstel, akkommodasie te verskaf en ook ‘n paar besoekpunte

te organiseer na die boeredag.

As iemand belangstel om te gaan kan julle gesrus met MG Lotter skakel by

devlei@whalemail.co.za, want as daar ‘n groep is wat wil gaan kan mens altyd die vlug-

bespreking ens. as ‘n groep doen en dalk beter tariewe beding.

Moontlike toer na Suid-Australië se CA

konferensie

Moontlike toer na Amerika

2016 WINTER CONFERENCE No-Till on the Plains (Kansas)

SOIL HEALTH SOLUTIONS IS PUTTING TOGETHER A TOUR PACKAGE THAT WILL DEPART ON THE

22nd of JANUARY AND RETURN ON THE 30th OF JANUARY AND WILL INCLUDE BOTH THE

CONFERENCE AND SYMPOSIUM ON THE 28TH.

WE WILL FLY VIA LONDON TO KANSAS CITY MO, AND TRAVEL BY SUV TO SALINA, KANSAS.

WE WILL STAY IN 3 OR 4 STAR HOTEL/MOTELS.

WE CAN ACCOMODATE 10 PEOPLE AT A COST OF SA R 45 000 PER PERSON FOR THIS VISIT

WHICH INCLUDES, AIRFARES,TRAVELLING,ACCOMODATION AS WELL AS CONGRESS FEES.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT WILLIE PRETORIUS.

CELL PHONE 083 458 9854.

willie@soilhealthsolutions.com

http://notill.org/events/2016-winter-conference/sessions

http://notill.org/events/2016-winter-conference/speakers