1. No-Till Wheat and Grain Sorghum Production
Presented by Gary Strickland
Extension Educator, Agriculture
Jackson County

2. Why Residue Management is Important in Dryland Crop Production - Agronomically
Soil Erosion Prevention
Increased Soil Water Storage Capacity
Increased Water Infiltration Rates
Decreased Soil Evaporation Rates
Increase of In-Season Precipitation Use Efficiency
Increased Organic Matter Pool
Increased Cation Exchange Complex (CEC)
Increased Anion Exchange Complex (AEC)
Decrease in Soil Compaction in the Long Term

3. Review of Previous Work in No-Till Systems

4. Factors Related to Dryland Grain Sorghum Yield Increases: 1939-1997
Factors Related to Dryland Grain Sorghum Yield Increases: (Unger and Baumhardt, 1999)
Crop residues increased in season precipitation use efficiency
After 1970’s, soil water at planting showed an increase in No-Till fields
Over a 58 year time period, yield increases were related 46% to improved hybrids and 93% to improved soil water at planting
Soil water content at planting improved with the implementation of soil conservation practices

5. Feasibility of Four-Year Crop Rotations in the Central High Plains (Schlegel et al., 2002)
This study showed that Grain Sorghum and Wheat Yields were greater in rotation sequences than in mono-crop situations
However, another study: “Deep Tillage and Crop Rotation Effects on Cotton, Soybean, and Grain Sorghum on Clayey Soils”, (Wesley, et al., 2001), showed yields were increased but not net returns due to the low value of the grain sorghum component

6. Dryland Winter Wheat as Affected by Previous Crops, (Norwood, 2000)
Soil water at planting was increased with corn and grain sorghum rotations but not with sunflower or soybean.
Wheat grain fill and number of heads were better with corn and grain sorghum rotations.
These rotations were conducted across CT, RT, and NT tillage systems

7. Nitrogen Management in No-Tillage Grain Sorghum Production, (Khosla et al., 2000)
Study showed that high mineral N in the one inch seed zone area indicated that starter-band or side-dress applications were not necessary for optimum economic return to N fertilization.
Low mineral N in the same seed zone area indicated a response to the starter-band in conjunction with the side-dress application.

8. Interaction of Tillage and Soil Texture, (Needelman et al., 1999)
Soil organic matter increased by 35% in the 0-5 cm range in the NT system when compared to the CT system
Potentially mineralizable N increased in this same soil depth range by 54% in the NT system
However when looking at the 0-15 cm soil depth range there were no tillage differences

9. Managing Soils to Achieve Greater Water Use Efficiency – A Review, (Hatfield et al., 2001)
Increase SOM was reported to increase water holding capacity
Studies indicate that the above factor may positively affect WUE due to improved soil water dynamics and related improved nutrient uptake
One report showed Grain Sorghum yields higher in the NT system
Another study (done in El Reno) looking at wheat cultivars showed the NT system had the greatest response in growth and yield under unfavorable conditions

10. Current Work in Jackson County
Tillage and Cropping Systems Study to Increase Dryland Crop Production
Tillage Systems: (NT) No Tillage; (CT) Conventional Tillage
Cropping Systems: (C-W-GS) Cotton-Wheat-Grain Sorghum; (C-W) Cotton-Wheat; (C-GS) Cotton-Grain Sorghum; (W-DCGS-C) Wheat-Double Crop Grain Sorghum-Cotton; (C) Cotton; (W) Wheat; (GS) Grain Sorghum

11. Soil Organic Matter Results

12. C-GS Cropping System - % OM
Tillage System
S-03
S-04
S-05
S-06 NT
1.91
1.82
1.64(2)
1.77(6)
1.89(2)
1.85(6) CT
1.90
1.78
1.55(2)
1.44(6)
1.67(2)
1.60(6)

13. W-DCGS-C System - %OM Tillage System F-02 S-03 S-04 F-05 NT 1.9 1.77
1.73
2.15(2)
1.59(6) CT
2.08
1.78(2)
1.61(6)

14. W Only System - %OM Tillage System F-02 F-03 F-04 F-05 NT 1.84 1.6
1.84(2)
1.46(6)
1.95(2)
1.58(6) CT
1.7
1.77(2)
1.78(2)
1.61(6)

15. GS Only System - %OM Tillage System S-03 S-04 S-05 S-06 NT 1.96 1.95
1.88(2)
1.45(6)
2.52(2)
1.89(6) CT
1.80
1.86
1.55(2)
1.48(6)
1.89(2)
1.69(6)

16. No Till Grain Sorghum Production - Some Practical Points
Plant Management
Fertilizer
Herbicides

17. Plant Management
Plant Populations (Desired Population Per Acre/(germination% * emergence%))
Soil Temperatures
Maturity Groups and Planting Dates and Times
Planting Dates and Times
Varieties – TR 434, DK 44, KS 585, NC+6B50, Garst 5515
Soil to Seed Contact in No-Till Systems

18. Bed or Row Hugger
Double Disc Opener with
Seed firmer
25 wave Coulter with
Residue manager
Spaded Closing
Wheels

19. Fertilizer and Placement
Types of Fertilizer: Urea ((NH2)2CO, Ammonium Nitrate (NH4NO3), UAN, Ammonium Sulfate ((NH4)2SO4), etc
Broadcast
2 x 2 band or 3 x 2 band
With Seed (Be Careful!)
Be aware of potential loss avenues of N (volatilization, denitrification, immobilization, leaching, higher N consumption for crop production)
Phosphorus, Potassium, Micro-nutrients, and pH

20. Herbicides Know the weed species you are trying to control
Know the herbicide application window
Be sure and have as close to the right plant and environmental conditions as possible for optimal plant uptake of the chemical
Be familiar with the label requirements for both application and tank mix additives
Higher GPA required in high residue
Your sprayer is replacing most of your tillage equipment in the No-Till System, so take care of it
Calculate the economics

21. Some Herbicide Options
Bicep (Dual + Atrazine, pre, heavier soils only)
Aim (postemergence)
Phenoxy Herb. (2,4-D or Banvel)
Buctril (postemergence)
Peak (postemergence)
Roundup (preplant or preemergence)
Dual Magnum (pre-emergence app., safened seed only)
Lasso (pre-emergence, safened seed only)
Atrazine (post-emergence app., crop rotation concerns with cotton and wheat)

22. Current Work in Jackson County No Till Grain Sorghum

23. 2003 Grain Sorghum Production Economics
Treatments
Yield – Lbs./A
Returns - $/A
W-DCGS-C(NT)
1023
$1.05
GS(NT)
Lost Crop
$-32.03
W-DCGS-C(CT)
1092
$3.73
GS(CT)
$-39.63

24. 2004 Grain Sorghum Production Economics
Treatments
Yield – Lbs./A
Returns - $/A
C-GS(NT)
3108
$37.76
GS(NT)
2955
$31.84
C-GS(CT)
3774
$46.78
GS(CT)
2627
$5.46

25. 2005 Grain Sorghum Production Economics
Treatments
Yield – Lbs./A
Returns - $/A
GS(NT)
4963
$60.10
GS(CT)
4827
$51.82

26. Preliminary Data – 2006 Grain Sorghum
Tillage System
Yield Lbs./A
Return – Dollars/A
C-W-GS(NT)
C-W-GS(CT)
2274
$24.28
$-65.37
C-GS(NT)
C-GS(CT)
3709
$74.48
GS(NT)
GS(CT)
2864
$44.93

27. NO-TILL WHEAT PRODUCTION
Some Practical Points

28. Wheat Conservation Tillage Systems
Wheat after Wheat
Wheat-Fallow
Wheat in Rotations (Cotton, Grain Sorghum, and Canola(?))

29. Variety Recommendations
Utilizing Local Variety Trial Results (Olustee and Frederick)
No known distinctions in variety selection when considering reduced tillage
Potential for disease issues should probably (?) be considered
Top Varieties: (Olustee Trial) Jagger, Jagalene, Cutter, Endurance, Overley, Deliver, OK Bullet)

30. Planting Rates
The primary point to remember here is, in general, recommendations are to increase seeding rates by 10-20%.
This is related to planter unit utilized and soil to seed contact

31. Fertility Recommendations
Types of Fertilizer: Urea ((NH2)2CO, Ammonium Nitrate (NH4NO3), UAN, Ammonium Sulfate (NH4SO3), etc
New technology is available for N rate recommendations but in no-till would probably stay with 2 Lbs./N per bushel of yield goal for now
Increased Nitrogen needed for Conservation Tillage Systems initially
Broadcast applications are ok
Placement of fertilizer can be important for P, K, and micronutrients depending on soil pH
With Seed (Watch the salt index!)
Be aware of potential loss avenues of N (denitrification, immobilization, leaching, higher N consumption for crop production)
Phosphorus, Potassium, Micro-nutrients, and pH

32. Weed Control Know the weed species you are trying to control
Know the herbicide application window
Be sure and have as close to the right plant and environmental conditions as possible for optimal chemical uptake by the plant
Be familiar with label requirements for both application and tank mix additives
Increased coverage needed in no-till situations
Rotational crop concerns, very important
Calculate the economics

33. Grass Herbicides (In Season)
Bromegrass Control
Maverick
Olympus
Olympus Flex
Finesse G&B
Wild Oat Control
Puma
Osprey
Olympus Flex
Hoelon
Finesse G&B
Beyond (Clearfield Wheat Only)

34. Broadleaf Weed Herb. (In Season)
Glean
Finesse
Maverick
Peak
Ally
Amber
Harmony Extra
MCPA and 2,4-D
Banvel
Beyond (Clearfield Wheat Only)
Area Broadleaf Weeds
Henbit
Pepperweed
Cutleaf Evening Primrose
Field Pennycress
Sheperdspurse
Tansey Mustard
Flixweed
Prickley Lettuce

35. Equipment Notes
Sprayer and Planter two most important pieces of equipment in a conservations tillage system
Need good soil to seed contact
Coulters most likely required
Enough weight or ability to place more weight by pressure or actuality needed
Good press wheel seed furrow closure important
Unit must be able to handle both initial system compaction and eventual heavy stubble

37. Current Work in Jackson County – No Till Wheat

38. 2002/2003 Wheat Production Economics
Trts.
Gr. Yield-Bu./A
Returns - $/A
For. Yield – Lbs./A
Beef Gain - $/A
W-DCGS-C(NT) 15
$-4.97
N/A
W(NT) 23
$19.00
W-DCGS-C(CT_ 20
$-9.76
1060
$90.60
W(CT) 22
$-4.32
1221
$103.79

39. 2003/2004 Wheat Production Economics
Treatments
Grain Yield – Bu./A
Returns - $/A
W(NT) 68
$164.00
W(CT) 57
$115.00

40. 2004/2005 Wheat Production Economics
Trts.
Gr. Yield-Bu./A
Returns-$/A
For.Yield-Lbs./A
Beef Gain $/A
CWGS (NT)
73.6
$159.20
1553
$155.30
CW (NT)
61.3
$119.40
1979
$197.90
W (NT)
51.1
$86.30
1265
$126.50
CWGS (CT)
64.2
$124.60
2073
$207.30
CW (CT)
68.2
$137.60
1624
$162.40
W (CT)
55.5
$96.15
849
$84.86

41. Tillage and Cropping Systems Production Economics Summary Table

42. Summary of Production Economics

43. Conclusions – To Present
Study showing a trending of the NT System treatments to have slightly higher yields or higher returns above prod. Inputs
The wheat NT treatments are performing as good as the CT treatments.
Finally, with only a few exceptions the crop rotations have indicated a trend for higher yields and dollar return than the mono-crop systems, regardless of tillage.