the canola challenge
TRANSCRIPT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Canola Challenge
PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS FOR A PROFITABLE CROP
Dane Froese – Oilseed Specialist
Minnesota Canola Symposium 2018
Outline
Planted Canola Project
Maximizing Agronomics & Economics for low populations
Clubroot Management
Ongoing challenges and successes
Verticillium wilt
Benefits in intercropping
Assumptions
Farms currently using or considering adopting planted canola generally have: Newer equipment, bought planters to advance
corn/soybean production, often narrower row or split row
Access to upgraded or easy-to-upgrade equipment
Intensively managing canola acres
Assuming that… a 40% reduction in seed use can be practically achieved
Using $650/bag or $65/acre*40% = $26/acre potential savings
$485 USD or $48.50/acre*40% = $19.40/acre potential savings
Treatment Design
Intended Practice
Top Left: Kinze 3500 15/30” vacumeter planter
Above: Rosette-stage canola on 15” spacing on June
22 Left: Ideally spaced seedlings at Holland on June 5
Actual Practice
Collection of intra-row spacing to determine effects of singulation under
multiple target populations in 15” planted rows at St. Adolphe.
Clustered emergence from poor singulation in rough seedbed at Portage la Prairie.
15” Intra-row Spacing
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Pe
rce
nt
of
po
pu
lati
on
Distance Between Plants (inches)
Planted, 15" @ 220,000 plants/acre target = 1.9" spacing
Standard
Strip A
Strip B
Strip C
Strip D
Strip E
Strip F
Strip G
• Best stands had highest peak, closest to black standard line
• Allowed less crop thinning, better access to light, nutrients, and
water
22” Intra-row Spacing
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
-2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
PER
CEN
T O
F P
OP
ULA
TIO
N
DISTANCE BETWEEN PLANTS
INTRA-ROW SPACING @ PORTAGE Target 259,195 seeds/ac =
1.08" between seeds
Ideal 22.5
• Almost no discernable curve = random spacing
• Non-uniform areas of plant-crop competition
Results on 15” Row
• Note difference in final vs. initial counts
250,000
300,000
350,000 353,000
420,000
470,000
167250
209250227950 198547
199750
256672
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
3.0 lbs/acre Seed 3.6 lbs/acre seed 4.2 lbs/acre Seed 4.2 lbs/acre Seed 5.0 lbs/acre Seed 5.6 lbs/ac Seed
A Planter B Planter C Planter D Air Seeder E Air Seeder F Air Seeder
Pla
nt
Den
sity
(p
lan
ts/f
t²)
Pla
nt
Pop
ula
tio
n
Planted Canola Stand & Survivability
Ideal Initial Count Final Count Initial Plant Density Final Plant Density
Yield vs. Population
• Very similar trendlines, expected from previous work in Alberta (AAF)
• No yield result for Entry “F”, no data recorded, put yield projected
35
43
36
45 45
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3.0 lbs/acre Seed 3.6 lbs/acre seed 4.2 lbs/acre Seed 4.2 lbs/acre Seed 5.0 lbs/acre Seed 5.6 lbs/ac Seed
A Planter B Planter C Planter D Air Seeder E Air Seeder F Air Seeder
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
Yie
ld (
bu
/ac)
Pla
nt
Po
pu
lati
on
Final Count Yield Log. (Final Count) Log. (Yield)
Economics (USD)
• The smaller the gap value, the more profitable the overall scenario
• “Base” scenario of 35 bushels, therefore 0 marginal gain, assuming $11.25 CAD
($8.40 USD)/bu sale price
• Only variable cost difference is changing seed expenses
-31.32 -37.60 -43.87 -43.87 -52.22
$-
$67.14
$8.40
$83.93 $83.93
($225)
($200)
($175)
($150)
($125)
($100)
($75)
($50)
($25)
$0
$25
$50
$75
$100
$125
$150
3.0 lbs/acre Seed 3.6 lbs/acre seed 4.2 lbs/acre Seed 4.2 lbs/acre Seed 5.0 lbs/acre Seed
Planter Planter Planter Air Seeder Air Seeder
Mar
gin
al V
alu
es
(CA
D)/
Acr
e
Seed Fertilizer Herbicide Insecticide Fungicide Marginal Profit
-$128.32
-$67.44
-$132.46
-$56.92 -$65.28
Results on 22” Row
268,4502.9 lbs/acre
351,7703.8 lbs/acre
398,0504.3 lbs/acre
228,183 228,651258,733
118,880
239,683255,379
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
A - Planted B - Air Seeder (Low) C - Air Seeder (High)
Pla
nt
Den
sity
(p
lan
ts/f
t²)
Pla
nt
Pop
ula
tio
n
Planted Canola Stand & Survivability @ Portage
Ideal Expected Actual Final Plant Density
• In this scenario, planted survivability had largest decrease, and not a
uniformly emerging stand
• Seedbed conditions and early season flea beetle activity did play a big
role
• Clumping and poor singulation as a result of seedbed quality caused
more stand thinning, as would be found in a air-seeded crop at a high
rate
Comments
No clear, single-defining factor that identifies what
reduces seed survivability
Could be:
Inherent low germination (not likely, tested)
Seed coat damage through equipment
Seed depth placement
Seed-to-soil contact
Crop self-thinning
Environmental factors, animal predation
Planters may be on to something, can improve
characteristics of red items
Agronomic Considerations
No difference in disease pressure/presence• Will vary year to year, suspect no advantages in wide row for
sclerotinia
Risks & Shortcomings
Harvest management & staging issues
Planted populations much riskier for gaining
economic benefit
Successful agronomics shown
Lower overall stand leads to increased risk for insects, frost, etc.
Fertilizer placement restrictions
Long term ROI unknown
History of Clubroot in
Manitoba
Vegetable crops – reports dating back to 1925
2005: Low severity symptoms observed in field
All testing came back negative
2011: Started detecting P. brassicae DNA in soil samples
2013: First case of clubroot symptoms in field in canola in MB
Clubroot Life Cycle
SOURCE: MANITOBA AGRICULTURE, CLUBROOT OF BRASSICA CROPS.
InfectionWhole Gall Gall beginning to decay
D. FROESE, MANITOBA AGRICULTURE, 2018
Figure 1: Clubroot spore concentration (presented as spores/gram soil) and
corresponding root infection with gall symptoms.
SOURCE: MARY RUTH MCDONALD, UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH, 2018
Testing &
Reporting Example of PSI
Lab’s clubroot
report
Reports give an
indication of spore
concentration
Allows targeted
action – provides
resources for more
info
• Potential high-risk areas
for developing clubroot
• More frequent canola
crops in an area =
greater risk of clubroot
spore increase and
infection
• >40% canola acres in a
year means susceptible
crop, and lots of it
Just because an RM is not
RED on the clubroot map,
doesn’t mean you are not
at a higher risk for finding it
Border State Situation
2013: Confirmed case in Cavalier county, ND
2018: Additional confirmed cases: NSDU Extension
Spread may be due to multiple factors: Soil movement
contaminated machinery
Wind, water
Contaminated wildlife
Short rotation – selecting for pathogen locally
More resources at www.clubroot.ca
Role of pH?
Clubroot prefers warm temperatures, high soil moisture, and
neutral pH
Moisture and temperature most important
pH can play a role when other factors not as ideal or if spore
loads are reduced
pH of 7.3 “magic number” in the lab
May not play as big a role as we think in Manitoba, finding
clubroot on higher pH soils too
2018 MB Situation
18 new fields confirmed
Total now at 33 fields in 7 RMs
Higher awareness and lack of other diseases making
clubroot-affected areas easier to spot
Intensified rotation playing a role
RISK REDUCTION1. Rotation
Increase the years between canola crops (a 2-3 year break between canola crops at minimum)
2. Scout your fields regularly and pull out plants that are dying/stressed or injured to identify cause
3. Control volunteers and host weeds in non-canola years
4. Test soil at field approaches, by field water runs/low spots, in areas of prematurely dying canola
5. Grow a clubroot resistant variety
6. Reduce soil movement
7. Practice good field sanitation
Clean your own equipment when moving from field to field – remove as much soil as possible
Before used or custom equipment comes on your field, request it be cleaned
8. Keep records
Rotation
The chief concern is longevity of the clubroot pathogen in soil.
Potential to survive 10-20 years in the absence of canola
Reduce spore load build up
Clubroot is reported to have a "half-life" of four years which implies that every four years, 50% of the existing spores will be unviable.
Good news that current MB levels are low – should they increase, the rotation length will have to increase accordingly
Wheat-Canola-Wheat-Canola is not a rotation
Scouting
• Look for areas that are
stressed or prematurely
ripening
• Check field
approaches, corners,
low spots, water runs
and near yards and
shelterbelts
• Dig up (not just pull)
plants from these areas
and compare to
healthy portions of
field
• Infection is favoured
by moist, warm soils
SOURCE: MANITOBA AGRICULTURE, 2013
Above –
immature,
growing galls
Left & Right –
clubroot galls
beginning to
decompose
Peaty material
releasing millions of
spores into soil PHOTO COURTESY OF T.K. TURKINGTON, AAFC LACOMBE
D. FROESE, MANITOBA
AGRICULTURE, 2018
PHOTO COURTESY OF MARY RUTH
MACDONAL, UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH, 2018
Alternate Hosts
A susceptible host prevents having a clean break from allowing spores to re-infect
Any member of the brassica family
Rutabagas, cabbage, broccoli, kale, etc.
Volunteer canola and weeds:
Wild mustard
Stinkweed
Shepherd’s Purse
SOURCE: A. KUBINEC, 2018
R-rated Hybrids
SEED Manitoba listing of clubroot resistant hybrids,
commercially available for 2019
Mostly RR hybrids
1 Clearfield
5 Liberty-Link
Single and
stacked genes
for multiple
races
Reduce Soil Movement
Erosion will move clubroot
spores attached to soil
particles
Wind
Fine soil particles in dry
years, left unprotected
Water
Tillage
High-speed tillage will
transfer soil furthest
Hwy. 23 near St. Leon, MB in May, 2017
SOURCE: R. PICARD, MB AGRICULTURE, 2017
Sanitation & Biosecurity
Regulating entry to your fields
Requiring booties or cleaning footwear with
bleach
Creating separate field entrances & exits
Staging field operations to reduce soil transfer
Ie. Till field when drier, preventing clods sticking on equipment
Do fieldwork last on infected field, then wash equipment
Sanitation
SOURCE: CANOLA COUNCIL OF CANADA, 2017.
Manitoba’s Response
• Not listed as a regulated pest
– No penalty can be imposed through
municipal bylaws
• Affected growers received support on
an individual basis by MB Ag staff
• Growers that participate in the canola
disease survey are protected by FIPPA
– Information regarding their location and soil
survey results remain confidential
Other pathogens
Blackleg increasing across North America
- Updated resistance genes
- Rotations
Verticillium wilt (V. longisporum) detected
in MB – late season disease, often
misdiagnosed
27 confirmed samples in 2018 through Disease
Survey, PSI Lab
Intercropping
Verb: grow (a crop) among
plants of a different kind,
usually in the space between
rows
• Canola-peas are a
common and preferred
combination
Intercropping
Intercropping
Challenges:
Immediate separation of
crops at harvest
Herbicide options
Fertilizer placement
Benefits:
Improved land use efficiency
Synergies in crop production
Reduced disease pressure
Decreased environmental risk
Questions?
Dane Froese, CCA, AIT
Industry Development Specialist – Oilseeds
Primary Agriculture
Manitoba Agriculture
P.O. Box 1149 65-3rd Avenue NE
Carman MB R0G 0J0
E-mail: [email protected]
T: 204-750-2840
@dane_froese