EFFECT OF SELECT YIELD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ON POTATO YIELDS “NB Potato Industry Transformation...
43
EFFECT OF SELECT EFFECT OF SELECT YIELD IMPROVEMENT YIELD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ON POTATO PROJECTS ON POTATO YIELDS YIELDS “ “ NB Potato Industry Transformation NB Potato Industry Transformation Initiative” Initiative”
-
Upload
britton-phillips -
Category
Documents
-
view
224 -
download
0
Transcript of EFFECT OF SELECT YIELD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ON POTATO YIELDS “NB Potato Industry Transformation...
EFFECT OF SELECT YIELD EFFECT OF SELECT YIELD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ON POTATO YIELDSON POTATO YIELDS““NB Potato Industry Transformation Initiative”NB Potato Industry Transformation Initiative”
PRESENTATION OUTLINEPRESENTATION OUTLINE• THE BACKGROUND• THE OBJECTIVE• THE TEAM• THE PROJECTS• OVERVIEW AND RESULTS• SUMMARY• KEY LEARNINGS
THE BACKGROUNDTHE BACKGROUND
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Mar
keta
ble Y
ield
(cwt
/acr
e)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Crop Year
Fit Mean Linear Fit
New Brunswick Marketable Yield trend Russet Burbank 1998-2011
THE OBJECTIVETHE OBJECTIVE
• Improve profitability and competitiveness through mitigation of limitations to potato yield
• Increase total yield by 45 cwts/acre in 5 years
THE TEAMTHE TEAM• Potatoes New Brunswick• McCain Foods (Canada)• Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada• Ventus Geospatial• Eastern Canada Soil & Water Conservation Center• NB Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture and
Fisheries• McCain Fertilizer• Grower Cooperators
THE PROJECTSTHE PROJECTS
• Mapping Yield Variation• In-Furrow Decompaction• Nurse Crop• Compost• Deep Tillage
THE PROJECTSTHE PROJECTS
• Fall Cover Crop• Fumigation• Yield Monitor
MAPPING YIELD VARIATIONMAPPING YIELD VARIATION• Mapping done using remote sensing
imagery collected by drone• Total of 15 fields included in project in 2013• Total of 17 fields included in 2014• Imagery collected at several times
• Bare soil (variation in soil properties)• Early season (early canopy development)• Late season (canopy senescence)
MAPPING YIELD VARIATIONMAPPING YIELD VARIATION• Drone used to collect
imagery
MAPPING YIELD VARIATIONMAPPING YIELD VARIATION• Sampling locations selected in each field• Based on early season imagery• Chosen to have “good”, “intermediate” or
“poor” growth• Total and marketable tuber yield was
determined at each location
SELECTING SAMPLING LOCATIONSSELECTING SAMPLING LOCATIONSTypical Field Layout-Sampling points selected based on Brightness Index (BI)
GENERAL INFORMATIONGENERAL INFORMATION• Projects established in the fall 2013 or spring 2014• All data collected at preselected sites reflecting
potential yield variability based on aerial imagery Measurements of the developing crop Soil moisture/temperature Petiole sampling Soil compaction Soil Sampling Yield (2 x 10-ft. strips @ 6 paired locations)
YIELD IMPROVEMENT YIELD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTSPROJECTS
20142014
In-Furrow DecompactionIn-Furrow Decompaction• Reduce compaction, increase water
infiltration, reduce runoff and accumulation of water in low spots
• After Planting – 1 site, approx. 0.75 acre• Two weeks after planting• Depth of 8 inches
In-Furrow DecompactionIn-Furrow Decompaction
In-Furrow DecompactionIn-Furrow Decompaction
Effect of In-Furrow Decompaction onEffect of In-Furrow Decompaction onR. Burbank Yield at One Site, NBPITI, 2014R. Burbank Yield at One Site, NBPITI, 2014
Nurse CropNurse Crop• Improve water holding capacity, reduce
surface runoff and minimize water accumulation in low lying areas
• Seeded immediately before planting• 1 site (0.5 acre)• Winter rye @ approx. 100 #/acre
Nurse CropNurse Crop
Nurse CropNurse Crop
Effect of Nurse Crop on Shepody YieldEffect of Nurse Crop on Shepody Yieldat One Site, NBPITI, 2014at One Site, NBPITI, 2014
Compost ProjectCompost Project• Increase organic matter, improve water
retention, enhance soil health• 3 sites: 2 in Florenceville area, 1 in Grand
Falls area• Applied before planting @ 25 tons/acre
Compost ProjectCompost Project
Effect of Compost on R. Burbank YieldEffect of Compost on R. Burbank Yieldat Three Sites, NBPITI, 2014at Three Sites, NBPITI, 2014
Deep TillageDeep Tillage• Reduce compaction, improve drainage,
increase rooting depth and nutrient absorption
• Fall 2013• 2 sites @ 14 in.• 3 sites @ 14 and 20 in.
• Spring 2014• 3 sites @ 14 in.
Fall Deep TillageFall Deep Tillage
Effect of “Fall Deep Till” at 14 in. onEffect of “Fall Deep Till” at 14 in. onR. Burbank Yield at Two Sites, NBPITI, 2014R. Burbank Yield at Two Sites, NBPITI, 2014
Effect of “Fall Deep Till” at 14 and 20 in. onEffect of “Fall Deep Till” at 14 and 20 in. onR. Burbank Yield at Three Sites, NBPITI, 2014R. Burbank Yield at Three Sites, NBPITI, 2014
Effect of “Spring Deep Till” at 14 in. on Yield at Effect of “Spring Deep Till” at 14 in. on Yield at Three Sites, NBPITI, 2014Three Sites, NBPITI, 2014
RESULTSRESULTSSUMMARYSUMMARY
Effect of Soil Remediation Projects on Total Yield,Effect of Soil Remediation Projects on Total Yield,Average Gain/Loss vs. Control, All Sites, NBPITI, 2014Average Gain/Loss vs. Control, All Sites, NBPITI, 2014
Effect of Soil Remediation Projects on Total Yield,Effect of Soil Remediation Projects on Total Yield,Average Gain/Loss vs. Control, All Sites, NBPITI, 2014Average Gain/Loss vs. Control, All Sites, NBPITI, 2014
Effect of Soil Remediation Projects on Total Yield,Effect of Soil Remediation Projects on Total Yield,Average Gain/Loss vs. Control, All Sites, NBPITI, 2014Average Gain/Loss vs. Control, All Sites, NBPITI, 2014
Effect of Soil Remediation Projects on Total Yield,Effect of Soil Remediation Projects on Total Yield,Average Gain/Loss vs. Control, All Sites, NBPITI, 2014Average Gain/Loss vs. Control, All Sites, NBPITI, 2014
Effect of Soil Remediation Projects on Total Yield,Effect of Soil Remediation Projects on Total Yield,Average Gain/Loss vs. Control, All Sites, NBPITI, 2014Average Gain/Loss vs. Control, All Sites, NBPITI, 2014
Effect of Soil Remediation Projects on Total Yield,Effect of Soil Remediation Projects on Total Yield,Average Gain/Loss vs. Control, All Sites, NBPITI, 2014Average Gain/Loss vs. Control, All Sites, NBPITI, 2014
Key LearningsKey Learnings• In-Furrow Decompaction
Appeared to reduce compaction in the root zone
Key LearningsKey Learnings• In-Furrow Decompaction
Appeared to reduce compaction in the root zone
• Nurse CropReduced surface runoff, improved water infiltration
and increased soil moisture level in the hill
Key LearningsKey Learnings• In-Furrow Decompaction
Appeared to reduce compaction in the root zone
• Nurse Crop Reduced surface runoff, improved water infiltration and increased soil moisture
level in the hill
• CompostImportant site and zone response to treatmentHigher yielding fields/zones responded best to
compost application
Key LearningsKey Learnings• In-Furrow Decompaction
Appeared to reduce compaction in the root zone• Nurse Crop
Reduced surface runoff, improved water infiltration and increased soil moisture level in the hill
• Compost Important site and zone response to treatment Higher yielding fields/zones responded best to compost application
• Deep TillageBest yield response observed in heavier soil typesDifference observed between fall and spring likely
related to soil moisture level more than seasonProbably not necessary to go as deep as 20 inches
Healthy soils are critical for Healthy soils are critical for global food production, but global food production, but we are not paying enough we are not paying enough attention to this important attention to this important
“silent partner”“silent partner”
THE MESSAGE …?THE MESSAGE …?
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Mar
keta
ble Y
ield
(cwt
/acr
e)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Crop Year
Fit Mean Linear Fit
New Brunswick Marketable Yield trend Russet Burbank 1998-2011
