Renovation of raspberry fields Tom Forge, Elizabeth Kenney, Bernie Zebarth, Denise Neilsen

Pacific Agri-Food Research CentreAgassiz, BC V0M 1A0Tom.Forge@agr.gc.ca

Abbotsford aquifer workshopAbbotsford, May 2, 2012

Renovation of raspberry fields

• Stand vigour and berry yields begin declining after 4 to 7 years

– Soil-borne pathogens• Root lesion nematodes• Phytophthora rubi

– Viruses (RBDV)– Soil chemical properties, e.g. pH

• The process:– Deep tillage– Fumigated (fall)– Manure often applied (spring)

Root-lesion nematode: Pratylenchus penetrans

•Pathogen of all fruit crops in region•Widespread (~75% of RB fields)•Persistent, chronic stresses•Infested plants more prone to other stresses – disease complexes

Photo: Oregon State Univ.

Raspberry decline and replant disorders are part of a broader problem: Declining soil health and productivity

• Declining soil organic matter and soil biological activity– Lower mineralization of

nutrients– Reduced CEC and buffering– Reduced WHC– Compaction/reduced structure

(biogenic)– Loss of soil biodiversity– Increased prevalence of soil-

borne plant pathogens

Monoculture x Clean tillage x 30 yrs = degraded soil…

Sustainable alternatives to fumigation are needed

• Emerging restrictions on fumigation– Buffer zones

• Detrimental to soil health– Short term benefits vs long-term decline

• Pathogen suppressive cover crops?• Organic amendments ?

• manures and composts

...that minimize impacts of root pathogens and enhance soil health

The challenge:To use manure-based amendments to manage root diseases/enhance soil health … without increasing nitrate leaching

• ~330,000 tons poultry manure produced in FV in 2010• Regional recycling imperative• Is composted manure an option?• Need to clarify distinctions between compost and manure

Compost –vs- manure: properties

Reduced risk of fecal contamination

C/N 15 to 25

minimal NH4-N & organic acids

humic acids & thermophilic microflora

little labile C – less rapid stimulation of soil microbial biomass (immobilization)

more stable N release

greater potential to increase soil C per unit PAN

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

g N

per

kg

mat

eria

l

PMC BM LM

Organic Ammonium Nitrate

Compost –vs- manure: disease suppression

Compost• Suppression demonstrated for many

fungal pathogens• Mode of action: enhancement of

antagonistic rhizosphere microbes; SIR• Previous research limited to incorporation

into potting media or seed beds• Suppression of parasitic nematodes

under field conditions?

Manure• Suppression demonstrated for some

fungal pathogens and nematodes• Mode of action: biofumigation

• Ammonia, VFA's, etc.• Large doses required• Previous research limited to annual

crops; longer-term influences on soil health and suppression not considered

Renovation experimentsHow do fumigation, fall cover crop, manure and

compost compare with respect to?1. Pathogen suppression2. Crop establishment3. Potential for N leaching

Treatments:1. Control2. Fumigation (Dazomet)3. Fall barley cover crop4. “Low” spring manure (100 kg PAN/ha)5. “High” spring manure6. “High” spring compost

fall winter

Renovation experiment 1: setup - spring 2010

“1-inch” application~57 Mg/ha manure (2700 kg N/ha)~88 Mg/ha compost (1650 kg N/ha)

Pratylenchus population dynamics

org. amends applied

planted

Cane counts & cane diameters 2011 (end of second growing season)

a

b

abb

cc

Soil Physical Properties

Raspberry Renovation July 2010

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

TreatmentsBu

lk D

ensi

ty g

m/c

c t1 controlt2 fumigatet3 covert4 low manuret5 high manuret6 compost

See Kenney poster for more on physical properties…

Soil chemical properties

See E. Kenney poster for more…

c

b

a

b

a

cAmends

applied

planted

Similar quantities of material, different implications for nitrate leaching

What have we learned?If composted, manure can be used in the raspberry production system to improve soil conditions and crop health:•Reduce pathogen populations

•Improve soil physical and chemical properties

•Improve early raspberry growth

With reduced risk of nitrate leaching

With reduced risk of fecal bacterial contamination

Next steps…Other composts

Lower rates

Application to beds

Economics of composting/utilization

Thanks!

Chaim KemplerBrian HardingMark SweeneyTom WaltersCarol KochShaobing YuNaomi HashimotoNathalie ArmstrongBen FreyDru YatesMelissa Iverson

AAFC-SAGESAAFC-GAPSRaspberry Industry Development CouncilWashington Red Raspberry Commission

Effect of low crop vigourPre-leaching 2010

org. amends

planted

Soil nitrate:Second fall/winter

020406080

100120140160

kg N

O3-

N/h

a

Oct. 1, 2010 Nov. 7, 2010

Nitrate-N (kg N/ha)

ControlFumigateCover cropManLowManHighCompostb

a

a

----c--------b-------------

Similar quantities of material, different implications for nitrate leaching

Primocane biomass & P. penetrans, 2010

a

bb

bc

cc

Renovation experiment 2 (2010)

•7 treatments x 5 reps•fumigate+compost treatment•Canes removed & plowed Aug. 30•Rototilled & barley planted September 21•Fumigated Oct. 1, 65 g/m2•Soil sampled Oct. 1 (before fumigating)

Renovation experiment 2:P. penetrans population densities - 2011

a

b

yb

b

yc

c cx x

y

y

z

Mt. Vernon study

Clearbrook studies

Surface application of manure and compost to established crops

Can we measure benefits if surface applied at modest (N-based) ratessoil health indicators and nutrient availability

Surface application at N-based rates…

• Modest improvements in growth/yield but no clear differentiation between manure and compost

• Biodiversity & organic matter accumulation– Compost > manure > fertilizer– Mixed results re. Pratylenchus penetrans

• Variation in root biomass related to P. penetrans population densities• CDMS may reduce soil NO3-N without affecting crop N

– reduced risk of leaching• Enhanced soil food web/nutrient turnover compensates for smaller pools

of mineral N?• Need longer-term experiments

– consider P loading – effects on N use efficiency