Read Full Transcript
Mike Howell (00:08):
The Dirt, with me Mike Howell, an eKonomics podcast where I present the Down and Dirty Agronomic Science to help grow crops and bottom lines. Inspired by eKonomics.com, farmings go to informational resource. I’m here to break down the latest crop nutrition research, news, and issues helping farmers make better business decisions through actionable insights. Let’s dig in.
(00:38):
Well hello again everyone, welcome back to The Dirt. We’re glad you’re tuning in with us today. Today we have Doctor Audrey Gamble with Auburn University with us. Doctor Gamble welcome to The Dirt.
Dr. Audrey Gamble (00:49):
Thank you so much for having me.
Mike Howell (00:50):
Doctor Gamble, before we really get started, if you will, could you introduce yourself to our listeners and tell them what you do there at Auburn?
Dr. Audrey Gamble (00:57):
Absolutely. I’m an associate professor at Auburn in the Department of Crop Soil and Environmental Sciences. And my research program really focuses on soil fertility and soil conservation. So, I do a good bit of research with kind of 4R nutrient management, but also with cover crop management in the integration of those two areas.
Mike Howell (01:18):
Okay. Well, the 4R’s is something that we have spent a lot of time talking about during the history of The Dirt, we’ve probably mentioned that on just about every episode at some point or another. But Dr Gamble, I know you’ve done a lot of work looking at these nutrients and nutrient deficiencies, and I heard that you did a training with some of our sales reps not too long ago, talking about some work you did there at the Kohler’s Rotation farm. If you would tell us a little bit about the rotation study and what you’re doing there.
Dr. Audrey Gamble (01:43):
Absolutely. So, I’m one of a long line of caretakers of the Kohler’s Rotation, which is a historic experiment on Auburn University’s campus. It was a established in 1911, and at the time it was one of over 200 on farm soil fertility trials in the state of Alabama. And these trials were used to bake… Best management recommendations to farmers throughout the state. Since 1911, we’ve kept this rotation going. It was on farm, but the university purchased the site in the 1930s. It contains about 14 different fertility treatments, so treatments like no nitrogen, no potassium, low rates of potassium, no sulfur. So, 14 total treatments. Even though and it’s a historic experiment and it’s been going for 113 years now we still learn something new from it every year. So, we’re we’re really fortunate to have it on campus. We use it a lot for training of agronomist, for training of students on how to identify nutrient deficiencies. The rotation consists of… So we essentially have three different blocks of the rotation, and those rotate through cotton, corn., wheat and soybean. And then between cotton and corn, we have winter legume cover crops that are planted in some of our treatment. It’s really exciting to be a part of and we’re really glad to have it on campus.
Mike Howell (03:13):
Well, we have talked to several people that’s talked about the history of these long term studies in other universities, and our listeners understand the importance of those. But, let’s dig in a little deeper and find out some of the findings. You mentioned nitrogen and, and some plots that have no nitrogen added to them back since 1911. And I just can’t understand how in the world we’re growing crops with no nitrogen. But, you did mention you had some legume cover crops. So, walk us through the nitrogen process and how these crops are yielding with no added nitrogen. And can we get enough nitrogen to make economically profitable yields in these systems?
Dr. Audrey Gamble (03:47):
Absolutely. We had some really good discussion about the no nitrogen treatments during that training that you mentioned in the Mississippi Delta last week. And so, as I mentioned we have really four different crops that are grown in the rotation each year. And I think it’s really interesting to contrast the yield impacts on corn versus cotton, of course, [inaudible 00:04:10] we don’t have a yield impact. But, in corn, in our no nitrogen that’s also had no winter legume ever, we average 37 bushels of corn per year over the last 10 years. And we can contrast that with our complete fertility which is at about 140 bushels. So, we’re in a somewhat low yielding environment. It’s completely dryland. We’re on a loamy sand soil so that yield varies widely depending on our rainfall.
(04:39):
But, we’re reaching about 25% of our potential with no nitrogen. Which even that is pretty amazing for having over 110 years with no nitrogen. When we add that legume in though to the rotation that’s directly prior to corn, we’re actually making 88 bushels or 60% of our potential over the last 10 years. But, when we move to cotton, we’re making 862 pounds of lint which is about 65% of our potential with no nitrogen, no legume, and then 930 pounds of lint or 70% of our potential with that legume in rotation. So, it’s pretty amazing that with no nitrogen we’re still making well over a bale of cotton after 113 years of management.
(05:30):
So, we do have a periodic summer legume with our soybean. But, I think, that when you contrast the dramatic effects on corn with the not quite as dramatic effects on cotton, it speaks to, of course, the nutrient demands of the crops, but also how breeding has improved our yields over time since 1911 when we were making two to 300 pounds of lint on some of these pieces of land. So, it’s pretty amazing what’s been accomplished just with breeding, with technology, with improved pest management in that sense.
Mike Howell (06:05):
Doctor Gamble, you mentioned nitrogen and how the results were different in corn and cotton. Is that because the corn needs so much more nitrogen, or is there something else going on there?
Dr. Audrey Gamble (06:15):
There, there is a higher demand, of course, on the corn compared to the cotton. And we can see the effect is certainly more dramatic for corn because of the higher nitrogen demand that corn has. But, even with corn, if we contrast back 1911 to current days, we can still see an overall yield increase, as opposed to a decrease, with no nitrogen ever added to the system, except for what’s naturally contributed from rainfall or organic matter. And again, as a result of improved breeding efforts and improved technology.
Mike Howell (06:48):
Doctor Gamble, one other thing I think we ought to touch on here. You and I are both from the south, and and we understand that we have no organic matter, basically naturally in our soils. And we have a lot of listeners that may be in the Midwest where organic matter gets on up there and, and they can actually get some nitrogen contribution from that organic matter. So, just touch on o- organic matter and how little nitrogen in these systems may be getting from organic matter.
Dr. Audrey Gamble (07:12):
In the southeast coastal plain, which is where this experiment is located, it’s not unusual for us to have anywhere from 0.5% to a percent of organic matter in the top six inches of soil. That’s not unusual at all. If we look at the Kohler’s Rotation and some of our more complete fertility treatments as opposed to those with reduced fertility, we do see improved organic matter when we’ve been managing fertility well, which is interesting. So, in our complete fertility plots, it has had all the macro nutrients that are required according to soil test. It’s had a micronutrient blend added. It’s limed according to soil test every year. And those plots we get above 1.5% at this Kohler’s Rotation. And then in some of our more poor fertility treatments, we have less than a percent. So, I think, it tells the story that we know that crop residue inputs and, and conservation tillage are important for building organic matter. But soil fertility is also very important for building organic matter. Because, if we don’t have the nutrients to generate that plant material, the biomass that’s left behind, then we have trouble building that organic matter. And we know how important, especially within these really low organic matter soils, we know how important this is for really improving the yield potential of our soils, and, and making them sustainable for crop production in the future.
Mike Howell (08:40):
Doctor Gamble, another nutrient that you mentioned when you were introducing this study was sulfur. And we spent a lot of time talking about sulfur on the program over the years. And in my travels around the country I’m seeing more and more sulfur deficiencies and we’re attributing this back to the Clean Air Act and cleaning up the emissions from these coal generating plants. What does sulfur look like in your studies? Can you go back to to 1911 and see where we may be needing more sulfur than we did way back then? Or how’s that shaking out?
Dr. Audrey Gamble (09:09):
Or even the early 2000s, and comparing it to now, I think, we pretty much saw until… Somewhere between 2000 and 2010 we saw a pretty consistent yield for all of our crops in our complete fertility with and without sulfur. But, then starting around somewhere in the 2000s to 2010s, depending on the crop, we’ve really started to see some dramatic effects in some years. So, in corn in the past 10 years we’ve reached about 85% of our potential if we compare to our complete fertility. But, in the last three years, 40% of our potential. We’ve seen some really, really dramatic sulfur deficiencies on corn in the past several years. And in fact, in the first probably month to two months of growth, those corn plants in that plot actually look worse than the no nitrogen, which is really fascinating. They catch up and they eventually look better than the no nitrogen. But, it’s really interesting to look at how that changes year to year. And it’s not as dramatic necessarily in every year, but especially when we have a cool, wet spring and we don’t have any sulfur release from organic matter, Maybe we’ve had a lot of rainfall to leach what sulfur we did have in this soil below the root zone.
(10:28):
We can see that that effect is more dramatic, and even in cotton. So, we have been making in the past 10 years about 70% of our potentials. So, we’re losing 30% of our yield when there’s no sulfur. But, there have been a couple of years where that has been really dramatic. And in 2021, we actually lost two thirds of our yield when we had no sulfur out there. So. it doesn’t take a lot of sulfur to make a big difference, especially in cotton. You know, we have a recommendation of about 10 to 20 pounds per acre, depending you could maybe increase that a little bit in higher yield potential areas. But, it’s certainly becoming a bigger issue, and the Kohler’s Rotation tells that story really nicely.
Mike Howell (11:13):
So, do you agree that that most of this is because of the Clean Air Act? Or is there some other factors that are going on that, that may be adding to this as well?
Dr. Audrey Gamble (11:21):
I do think the majority of it is from the Clean Air Act, and we’re certainly glad to, (laughs) to have clean air. It’s just one of those side effects of having less sulfur in the atmosphere. So, we expected in the 1980s to get up to 20 pounds per acre deposited through atmospheric deposition of sulfur, and then current times it could be around 5 pounds per acre that we’re getting in the state of Alabama, and throughout the southeast, from atmospheric deposition.
Mike Howell (11:51):
Yeah. And I- I don’t want anybody to read anything into this wrong. I’m not saying anything negative about the Clean Air Act, it’s a great act. It’s a great act, we needed to clean these emissions up. But,, it is at a cost to the farmers, they’re having to add additional sulfur now. So-
Dr. Audrey Gamble (12:03):
It is. It’s something we got to be paying attention to.
Mike Howell (12:06):
Doctor Gamble, what about any other nutrients that may stick out? Any other nutrients you want to look at?
Dr. Audrey Gamble (12:11):
Well, one of the other interesting trends to me to look at overtime is the micronutrient. So unfortunately, you know, this trial was established in 1911. We don’t have plots with specific micronutrients that were avoided. So for example, we don’t have no zin… no boron. Instead, we have with and without micronutrients. And the micronutrients that are applied at the Kohler’s Rotation include boron, molybdenum, zinc, copper and iron. Similar to sulfur, It was only in the past 10 to 15 years that we really started seeing a lot of separation between our no micro and with micronutrient plots. And, I think, it shows we’ve been in continuous production for 100 years. We do mine some of those micronutrients out of the soil. And so, for example, in our cotton plots, we see visual symptoms of boron deficiency. We see low boron in the tissue. And that’s the effect of not adding micronutrients, specifically boron in cotton, is so important for over 100 years. So, that’s another interesting factor. In corn, We see something similar in tissue levels of zinc show up low in our no micronutrient plot.
(13:24):
Micronutrients are tough to study as a researcher, because a lot of times when we’re doing these field… short term field research, we don’t necessarily get a response to… For example, boron and cotton every time. But, it’s an important nutrient and we need to have it out as an insurance, because it can be quite damaging if we are deficient. So for example, if we just look at our no micronutrient plot in cotton, our complete fertility plots have yielded over 1,300 pounds of lint in the past 10 years. And then our no micronutrients is around 1,100. So, we’re losing over 200 pounds of lint in this particular instance. Again, we attribute this primarily to, to boron deficiency.
Mike Howell (14:06):
Dr Gamble, that brings up another question that I wanted to ask. In my travels around, especially in the southeast, back in the 80s and 90s, we used a lot of homogeneous fertilizers, and they, these are all put together and they have a lot of the micronutrients in them. And farmers were used to using those. We made a change several years ago and the retailers are blending more of these fertilizers now and putting all the ingredients in individually and putting out a blend. And I’ve, I’ve visited with with several retailers over the years, and it seems like the farmers, especially when things get kind of tight, they kind of leave out some of those higher cost micronutrients. They don’t seem to understand the benefits of those. Is the switch from the different types of fertilizer kind of playing a role in this? Are we seeing this on a broad scale, or is that something that you’re seeing that’s unique to the farm there?
Dr. Audrey Gamble (14:54):
I think it can and I think it’s really important, because depending on the soil type you have, depending on your management, whether or not you apply manures, for example, we apply a lot of chicken litter in Alabama. But, depending on your management and your soil type, you could have more risk for certain micronutrient deficiencies. And the same goes with crops, certain crops are more sensitive to certain deficiencies. And so, I think, it’s really important to look to the research in your specific area, your soil types, and know what to look out for. We have recommendations that are soil testing lives in the southeast for that warn of cotton. And so, all of those, those recommendations that are made by reputable soil testing labs and know what’s important for the soil type, the PH. There’s so many factors that influence nutrient availability and soil, so just be familiar with, with your soul type and make plans accordingly.
Mike Howell (15:45):
You’re doing a great job leading me right into my next questions. You mentioned PH, and that was gonna be the next thing I wanted to, to ask about. You know, I- I look at a lot of soil sample reports, and across the southeast, PH is something that seems to pop up all the time. And when I was working with the extension service here in Mississippi, I always had growers say, “I can’t afford lime. I can’t afford to put the lime out and get it up.” And I always told them if you can’t afford lime, you can’t afford these other nutrients. You’ve got to get your PH right. But, kind of curious what these long-term studies are showing about the PH levels. Is no fertilizer keeping the PH at a more stable level? Or how does a fertilizer affect this PH? And what can we do to keep these PH levels where we need them?
Dr. Audrey Gamble (16:28):
That’s a really interesting point. And I would word that exactly how you just worded it. If you can’t afford to put lime out, you can’t afford to put out the nutrients, because that PH is going to influence the availability of some of the fertilizers that you’re putting out. And so, i- if we’re looking at the Kohler’s Rotation specifically, we do see an interesting story. So, we have two different treatments in which we’ve never added lime. In one of those treatments, we’ve never added lime, but we’ve also never added any fertilizer. So, we call it our “No Nothing Plot.” And in those plots, we essentially make zero yield. I mean, the last several years, we’ve had no harvestable lint, no harvestable grain in any of our crops. In our no lime treatment, we have added fertilizers. It’s only the lime that we’ve skipped. And there we’ve actually driven our PH down even a little bit further. And depending on the plot, it measures somewhere between four to four and a half. So, we’ve driven that PH down even further with some of our ammonia-based fertilizers. I think it really… We don’t see this extreme of a case anywhere on on farm, right. If, if so, (laughs) we need to be in a different, a different business, because, like I said, no harvestable yield on any of these plots.
(17:41):
But, it is interesting to look at how fertilizers have affected the PH in these long term experiments as well. And another interesting thing that we’ve measured out of the Kohler’s Rotation is some of our microbial communities and how those have changed. And one way that we’ve done that is by looking at the total bacterial populations and the total fungal populations. So, in our no lime plot where our PH is below four and a half, our bacterial populations are dramatically affected. In those plots that have never had lime in the PH is below five, we actually have over three times less bacterial populations in those plots too. That’s another important reason for maintaining PH is some of those bacteria and fungi… Fungi aren’t quite as sensitive to those low PHs. But important microorganisms for nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation, phosphorus solubilization, we can actually influence the bacterial communities as well. So, PH is key. If we can’t maintain PH, we can forget about the rest.
Mike Howell (18:50):
Dr Gamble, my last question here in reference to this is about peanuts. If you don’t know, I used to be the peanut specialist in Mississippi-
Dr. Audrey Gamble (18:56):
[inaudible 00:18:58].
Mike Howell (18:57):
… and I’ve spent a lot of time traveling across Alabama and Georgia trying to learn more about peanuts. It was interesting that peanuts were not included in this study. I understand there’s space limitations and rotation limitations, but, is there any kind of similar work going on with peanuts?
Dr. Audrey Gamble (19:13):
I wish. You know, in 1911, we didn’t really grow peanuts in the state of Alabama. But, if there is one crop that I wish we had out there, it would be peanuts. Because, peanuts are a very common crop in this region, within the coastal plain. But, we don’t have these long-term studies with peanuts. But, we’re doing specialists in Alabama and Georgia, we are working on fertility, especially for calcium and boron. Those are two nutrients that we really focus on with peanuts. With our phosphorus, and potassium, and PH, if we’re maintaining those for our rotational crop, for example, cotton, we’re usually in very good shape for peanuts, because they ha… just have lower requirements or better scavengers for some of those nutrients.
(19:58):
But, calcium is one that’s super important for us, because peanuts are absorbing calcium directly into the pods instead of it being taken out by the roots, as you know well. Um, so we have to make sure our calcium levels are high, not necessarily throughout our soil profile or root profile, but in the top three to four inches specifically, because that’s where the peanut is getting its calcium. So, that’s a nutrient that we really have to watch out for. We often encourage taking pegging zone samples, which would be samples in those top three to four inches of soil just to make sure the calcium levels are adequate. And then boron as well, we can see split stems and what we call, “Hollow heart of peanut,” which is where kind of the inside of the nut is hollowed out. And if it’s really severe, it can cause black heart, so the kernel to turn black. But, those are two nutrients that I would say we’re focusing more energy on research with peanuts.
Mike Howell (20:54):
Okay. Well, Doctor Gamble, we sure appreciate you talking about our nutrient deficiencies and what you’ve learned there at the Kohler’s Rotation. Is there anything else that we may have missed? Anything you want to leave our listeners with before we move on to our next segment today?
Dr. Audrey Gamble (21:08):
I guess kind of a final statement about the Kohler’s Rotation and what I’ve learned from some of these long term experiments is that we can still find new ways to use them. Some of the lessons may seem obvious, (laughs), like no nitrogen or no potassium causes really poor yields of our crops. But, we’re always finding new ways to use them. So for example, looking at how some of these microbial populations are changing, or maybe how a specific disease is influenced by nutrients and nutrient deficiencies, those are important lessons that we can learn. So, I think, it’s really important to continue these trials, because we never know what technology will change in the future and we never know what research questions that we’ll have in the future, that they could help us to understand better.
Mike Howell (21:52):
Okay. Dr Gamble, we sure appreciate you being with us. Listeners We hope you’ve enjoyed this segment and want to invite you to, to hang around for segment two coming up in just a few moments.
(22:02):
Listeners, I hope you enjoyed the first segment of today’s show. If you did, please take a minute and give us a rating on your favorite podcast channel or app, and give us some feedback as well. We want to hear from you to help make the show even better. And don’t keep it to yourself, please share these episodes with coworkers, family, friends, anyone you think may benefit from the information we’re sharing here. Don’t forget to visit our website nutrien-eKonomics, with a “K,” .com to help find the latest crop nutrition news and research information, as well as market updates, a growing degree day calculator, a nutrient used calculator, a rainfall tracker, and much, much more. It’s all at nutrien-eKonomics, with a “K,” .com.
(22:47):
Most episodes of The Dirt are now available for CCA credits. Visit our website and click on the “Agronomics” tab to find these CCA credit opportunities. And if you have a question you can ask one of our agronomy team members. Simply ask your question and one of us will get back with you. Thanks for listening. Now segment two of The Dirt.
(23:10):
Listeners, welcome back for segment two. We’re glad you’re sticking around with us this week. And this week it just so happens that we have the same guests for segment one and segment two. Doctor Gamble, welcome back to segment two.
Dr. Audrey Gamble (23:21):
Thanks so much. Happy to be here.
Mike Howell (23:22):
Doctor Gamble, in segment one We talked a lot about some research you were doing at the Kohler’s Farm, and you mentioned that that one had been around since 1911. But, that is not the oldest research farm or the oldest rotation study that’s going on in Alabama. I understand you have the Old Farm as well. Could you tell our listeners a little bit about that farm?
Dr. Audrey Gamble (23:41):
Absolutely. So, we’re proud to have in the state of Alabama the Old Rotation, which is the oldest continuous cotton experiment in the world. And it’s actually the third oldest experiment in the United States. There’s only two experiments that are older, and they include the Morrow Plots in Illinois, in the Sanborn Field in Missouri. This experiment was established in 1896 by a professor at Auburn named J.F. Duggar. J.F. Duggar was a professor starting his career at the time. I don’t think he knew that the Old Rotation would last as long as it did. It was on a research farm, that since then everything on that research farm has really been built up and is now buildings on campus, but the Old Rotation is what remains. And at that time in the late 1800s, cotton was our dominant cash crop in Alabama as it was in many states in the southeast. And we grew close to four million acres at that time. We’re less than half a million acres now. And then corn would have been the other dominant cash crop. And it was mainly used for drafting animals, and for the humans. So, there was a little bit of a mindset at the time that we’d farm a piece of land till we wore it out and move on to the next place. And we know we would have run out of land long ago if that continued to be the attitude.
(25:01):
There was so much intensive tillage at the time that soil erosion was just really severe in the state and throughout the southeast. In fact, some farmers were required to till the soil, maybe from whoever they were renting the land from, they were required to till the soil every week or every two weeks just to keep the field clean. Doctor Duggar was quoted as saying, “Alabama agriculture will come into its own when her fields are green in the winter time.” So, he established this experiment that consists of six different rotations or- or treatments, and they include continuous cotton. So, we have plots that have been in cotton since 1896 and they’ve never been in anything else. We have continuous cotton with no nitrogen but with a winter legume. We have continuous cotton with nitrogen fertilizer but no winter legume. And then we have continuous cotton with both nitrogen fertilizer and a winter legume added.
(25:58):
We also have cotton and corn rotations that include a winter legume with and without commercial nitrogen fertilizer. And then lastly we have a three year rotation that includes cotton followed by a winter legume, followed by corn, wheat and then soybean, and then back through that three year rotation. So, it’s pretty amazing to go out to this side and look at the impact that some of these crop rotations have had on soil properties. For example, in our continuous cotton that’s never had nitrogen or a legume cover crop, these holes are extremely poor. They have less than one percent organic matter in the top six inches. But, if we contrast that with our cotton corn rotation that includes a winter legume and is fertilized with nitrogen, we have close to 3% in the top six inches.
(26:50):
This particular experiment is in the Piedmont region of Alabama, and that’s about as good as we can expect to get 3% organic matter. I know for some that may be in the Midwest that may not sound high, but that’s really excellent levels of organic matter for us. That’s really helped us to improve our yield potential on that piece of land overtime.
Mike Howell (27:10):
Doctor Gamble, these plots have been going on, what, 130 years or so now.
Dr. Audrey Gamble (27:14):
Close to it. Yeah.
Mike Howell (27:16):
O- Obviously you’ve got some pretty significant findings that you’ve pulled out of this research, would you like to share some of the findings that you’re seeing from these research plots?
Dr. Audrey Gamble (27:25):
Absolutely. So, I can talk about some of the yields, and cotton is most interesting to look at because that’s what we have in every treatment that’s out at the Old Rotation. But, I mentioned that we have continuous cotton that’s never had any nitrogen fertilizer or winter legume. In those plots we make about a bale of cotton per year, which again, it’s very impressive to me that we can even make a bale out there. That’s actually higher than when the experiment was established in 1896. But again, this speaks to the efforts of breeders and agronomists. And then, when we start adding some diversity to that rotation by adding a winter legume, still no nitrogen fertilizer, we’re getting close to three bales. So, we’re moving from one bale to three bales just by adding that legume cover crop. And one thing that I get asked sometimes is, “Okay, well why aren’t farmers just planting more legume cover crops?” (laughs).
(28:19):
This is not a full story, we have to look at the bigger picture and know that this has been in the works for 130 years, and that building of organic matter has been a slow process. It always is in in the southeast climate where we’re hot and humid, and organic matter, it breaks down pretty rapidly. The previous legume does contribute some level of nitrogen to that cotton crop. But, what’s even more important is that improved organic matter. So, if we use the common rule of thumb that for every 1% organic matter we get approximately, and of course this depends on many factors, approximately 20 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year. Then that’s contributing a significant amount more nitrogen to the plot. So, that’s pretty impressive. And then as we move on to improve diversity and we add corn into the rotation, then we add another one to 200 pounds of lint per acre. And then our highest yielding plot would be those that have cotton corn in rotation with a legume cover crop and also commercial nitro nitrogen fertilizer.
(29:24):
I should have mentioned in the beginning, we have these plots divided into irrigated and dryland parts. In our non irrigated or dryland portion, we move from about 1,600 pounds of lint with no nitrogen in that cotton corn legume rotation. And then we move to close to 1,700 when we have that nitrogen fertilizer. I think what this is is showing is that building organic matter is a really important part of building fertility. Certainly we still want to rely on soil testing and reputable research in order to fertilize. But, having good crop rotation is an important aspect to building organic matter.
(30:08):
Our continuous cotton with nitrogen fertilizer but no legume kind of shows that, because in that plot we make about 1,400 pounds of lint per acre, which is a little bit less than when we have our cotton corn rotation with a legume and no nitrogen. I feel like it gets kind of repetitive saying these names, so I hope everyone’s able to, to distinguish these different treatment names. (laughs).
Mike Howell (30:29):
No, you’re doing a great job pointing out these differences and some stuff that we really need to pay attention to. Doctor Gamble you mentioned several things and you actually gave me an idea for another podcast of down the road. You mentioned the history of cotton and how a lot of these growers were farming cotton after cotton until the ground wore out. And I know we’ve got some sites here in Mississippi you can still go back and see the soil erosion and the death of some towns because the, the soil was just totally washed away from the intensive tillage and constant cotton. And I know, I know there’s a lot more history about cotton, and even in Alabama there’s actually a statue to the Boll Weevil, so-
Dr. Audrey Gamble (31:03):
Mm-hmm.
Mike Howell (31:03):
listeners stay tuned, I think we may come back and do another section about that in the future and talk about the history of cotton and, and how that’s changed over the years. Some great information. Doctor Gamble, we’ve been talking about a lot of research farms across the United States this year, and one thing that I’m asking everybody is, we all understand that the technology around agriculture is changing every day. We understand there’s a lot of challenges associated with the ag industry these days. And these research farms are gonna have to adapt to keep up with the change in the environment in this agriculture landscape. What are you gonna have to do there at the research farms we’ve talked about today to keep up with the pace of agriculture?
Dr. Audrey Gamble (31:42):
Well, on on these farms they’re somewhat isolated from some of our bigger research farms associated with Auburn University. But, some of the ways that we try to keep up to date out there, we change varieties for our crops every year just depending on variety trials on farm and official variety trials within the region. We’re not planting the same varieties that we, we planted in 1896. We moved to conservation tillage in these plots in 1996. Prior to that we were under conventional tillage. So, one big change was moving to conservation tillage, which if you look at, at least the state of Alabama, most producers are using either no till or some form of strip tillage in their crop production systems. I also think adding more precision technology on our farms is obviously really important as well, and that goes for, for these historic rotations as well as our experiment stations in general.
(32:38):
We do manage most of our planning and chemical applications with precision technology. Some stuff we still do by hand though. (laughs). You know, we, we, (laughs), do some fertilizer application by hand, especially at the Kohler’s Rotation, because we, um, we have so many different types of fertilizer that goes out, out there. But, I think, adapting a lot of this precision technology is just going to be important in general on our research farms as newer and newer technology comes out. I know we have quite a bit of research at Auburn on using drones for different chemical applications. And so, anyway.
Mike Howell (33:16):
Okay. Well, Doctor Gamble, we sure appreciate you taking time to visit with us today. I think our listeners are going to get a lot out of these two segments. Listeners, we appreciate you tuning in today. If you have any questions about anything we’ve talked about today, you can always visit our website, that’s nutrien-eKonomics, with a “K,” .com. And until next time, this has been Mike Howell with The Dirt.
