Chris Holzapfel, IHARF Scott Chalmers, WADO...12 Alternate-Row Intercrop 67% 13 Alternate-Row Intercrop 100% • 2011-12 trials at Indian Head & Melita aimed to optimize N fertility

Chris Holzapfel, IHARF

Scott Chalmers, WADO

21-11-2018

• In response to interest from both IHARF Directors & an appreciable number of producers, several field trials with intercropped field pea & canola were conducted from 2010 through 2012

Objectives:

1. To gain experience with intercropping canola & (yellow) pea while demonstrating the potential agronomic and economic merits of this practice under local field conditions

2. To compare the performance of alternating versus mixed rows

3. To optimize N fertilizer management in pea-canola intercrops and assess whether optimal levels are affected by row-crop configuration

21-11-2018

21-11-2018

• Indian Head plots seeded with Conserva-Pak plot drill with 14 openers (12” spacing)

• Products delivered through 4 independent Valmar boxes and metering system

• Only modification required was fabrication of special inserts which were placed between the rollers and venturis to direct all product to either odd or even rows for alternating row configuration (no modifications required for mixed row intercrops)

• Both field peas and canola were seeded at the same depth of approximately 1” for the purposes of these trials

21-11-2018

Indian Head Clay 2010


Oxbow Loam2011


1) Canola (monocrop) X X X X

2) Field pea (monocrop) X X X X

3) Mixed-Rows (intercrop) X X

4) Alternate-Rows (intercrop) X X X X

• From 2010-12, basic trials at Indian Head compared intercropped (yellow) peas and (Clearfield) canola to monocultures of the same two crops

• Intercrop seed rates were 67% of the rates used in the respective monocrops

• P, K and S rates constant across treatments, total N fertilizer rate in the intercrop was 50% of that used in the canola monocrop (97-107 lb N/ac)

• All treatments replicated a minimum of 4 times with some variation in the specific treatments from trial to trial

21-11-2018

• Market prices & seed costs taken from SK 2018 Crop Planning Guide & only take into consideration variable expenses that differed between treatments (seed & N costs)

• N fertilizer price of $0.50/lb N assumed

• Values do not represent absolute returns (i.e. not all expenses accounted for) nor do they include cost of separating crops

21-11-2018

Treatment Revenue Seed* Nitrogen*

$/bu $/ac $/ac

Can-Mono 11.36 62.60 52.50

Can-Inter 11.36 41.94 26.25

Pea-Mono 7.00 35.55 0

Pea-Inter 7.00 23.82 0

*67% seed rates & 50% of monocrop canola N rate in intercropped treatments

21-11-2018

74.6

55.3

76.5

47.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Canola Pea Alternating

Pla

nt

De

nsi

ty (

pla

nts

/m2)

Cropping System

Indian Head 2010 (clay)

Canola Field Pea

102.7

21-11-2018

64.9

39.4

69.3

45.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Pla

nt

De

nsi

ty (

pla

nts

/m2)

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea

84.4

21-11-2018

68.950.4 53.5

90.6

46.850.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Canola Pea Alternating Mixed

Pla

nt

De

nsi

ty (

pla

nts

/m2)

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea

103.597.2

21-11-2018

74.9

36.1

55.2

77.4

46.8

56.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Pla

nt

De

nsi

ty (

pla

nts

/m2)

Cropping System

Indian Head 2011 (loam)

Canola Field Pea111.5

82.9

21-11-2018

45.2

19.8

58.2

34.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Yie

ld (

bu

/ac)

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea

53.8

21-11-2018

1.00

0.44

1.00

0.59

0.0

0.3

0.5

0.8

1.0

1.3

1.5

1.8


Lan

d E

qu

ival

en

t R

atio

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea

1.03

21-11-2018

$398.37

$156.74

$371.85

$214.18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


Mar

gin

al P

rofi

t ($

/ac)

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea

* Does not include all variable or any fixed expenses

$370.92

21-11-2018

46.6

27.3

46.3

26.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Yie

ld (

bu

/ac)

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea

53.6

21-11-2018

1.00

0.59

1.00

0.57

0.0

0.3

0.5

0.8

1.0

1.3

1.5

1.8


Lan

d E

qu

ival

en

t R

atio

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea

1.16

21-11-2018

$414.28

$241.94$288.55

$160.28

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


Mar

gin

al P

rofi

t ($

/ac)

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea


$402.3

21-11-2018

24.516.8

12.3

33.1

15.0 23.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Yie

ld (

bu

/ac)

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea

31.735.8

21-11-2018

1.00

0.680.50

1.00

0.450.71

0.0

0.3

0.5

0.8

1.0

1.3

1.5

1.8


Lan

d E

qu

ival

en

t R

atio

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea

1.21

1.14

21-11-2018

$163.22$122.66

$71.54

$196.15

$81.18$140.68

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


Mar

gin

al P

rofi

t ($

/ac)

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea


$212.21$203.84

21-11-2018

30.5

11.0 9.7

20.9

22.4 26.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Yie

ld (

bu

/ac)

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea

33.436.4

21-11-2018

1.00

0.36 0.32

1.00

1.071.28

0.0

0.3

0.5

0.8

1.0

1.3

1.5

1.8


Lan

d E

qu

ival

en

t R

atio

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea1.60

1.43

21-11-2018

$231.38

$56.77 $42.00$110.75

$132.98 $163.08

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


Mar

gin

al P

rofi

t ($

/ac)

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea


$205.08$189.75

21-11-2018

# Crop/Row Orientation N Fertility

1 Canola Monocrop 0% (4 lb N/ac)




5 Field pea Monocrop 0%

6 Mixed-Row Intercrop 0%




10 Alternate-Row Intercrop 0%




• 2011-12 trials at Indian Head & Melitaaimed to optimize N fertility for alternating vs mixed row pea-canola intercrops

• Intercrop seed rates were 67% of the rates used in the respective monocrops

• P, K and S rates constant across treatments, total N fertilizer rates varied as per protocol

• All urea was directed to canola rows (side-banded) in alternate-row treatments – thus these bands were twice as concentrated at any given rate compared to the monocrop or mixed row treatments

21-11-2018

69.0 63.7 63.2 60.546.1

37.644.3 41.6 38.9 38.1 39.3 36.9

76.1

53.8

52.751.5

46.044.3 46.5 45.7 47.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Pla

nt

De

nsi

ty (

pla

nts

/m2)

Cropping System

3 Site-Year Average

Canola Field Pea100

90 96 88 83 85 85 85

21-11-2018

16.9

28.5 32.1

42.4

11.116.6 19.2

22.8

10.9

21.627.1 23.5

44.5

32.528.0

32.232.9

26.5

21.7

23.924.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

See

d Y

ield

bu

/ac)

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea

43.644.6

51.455.7

37.4

43.3

51.047.5

21-11-2018

0.40

0.67 0.76

1.00

0.260.39 0.45

0.54

0.26

0.510.64 0.56

1.00

0.730.63

0.720.74

0.60

0.49

0.540.54

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

See

d Y

ield

bu

/ac)

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea

0.99 1.02

1.181.28

0.85

1.00

1.171.09

21-11-2018

$129

$243 $266

$365

$84$129 $140

$164

$82

$186$229

$172

$276

$204

$172$202

$207

$162

$128

$143

$144

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Mar

gin

al P

rofi

ts (

$/a

c)

Cropping System

Indian Head Clay (2011)

Canola Field Pea

$288$302

$342$370

$243

$314

$372

$316

21-11-2018

15.419.9 21.4

27.8

7.5 8.8 9.514.0

11.114.3

17.0 18.6

30.3

25.4 23.4 21.517.4

19.4 15.112.7

14.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

See

d Y

ield

bu

/ac)

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea

32.9 32.2 31.0 31.4 30.529.4 29.7

32.7

21-11-2018

0.550.72 0.77

1.00

0.27 0.32 0.340.50

0.400.51

0.61 0.67

1.00

0.84 0.77 0.710.58

0.64 0.500.42

0.47

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

See

d Y

ield

bu

/ac)

Cropping System


Canola Field Pea

1.11 1.09 1.05 1.08 1.04 1.01 1.031.14

21-11-2018

$112

$146 $145

$199

$43 $41 $30

$64$84

$103 $115$116

$176

$154$140

$127

$98

$112 $82$65 $75

0

50

100

150

200

250

Mar

gin

al P

rofi

ts (

$/a

c)

Cropping System

Indian Head Clay (2012)

Canola Field Pea

$197$181

$157 $162

$196$184 $180

$191

21-11-2018

16.218.8

22.9 21.2

10.9 11.0 11.314.2

5.811.0 11.0 11.0

22.7

19.5 21.0 21.120.7

5.8

8.9 7.3 7.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

See

d Y

ield

bu

/ac)

Cropping System

Melita 2011

Canola Field Pea

30.432.0 32.4

34.9

12.2

19.918.3 18.7

21-11-2018

0.760.89

1.08 1.00

0.51 0.52 0.530.67

0.27

0.52 0.52 0.52

1.00

0.86 0.920.93

0.91

0.26

0.39 0.32 0.34

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

See

d Y

ield

bu

/ac)

Cropping System

Melita 2011

Canola Field Pea

1.37 1.45 1.461.59

0.53

0.910.84 0.86

21-11-2018

$121 $134$161

$125

$82$66

$51$66

$24

$66$47

$29

$123

$113$123

$124$121

$17

$39

$27

$30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Mar

gin

al P

rofi

ts (

$/a

c)

Cropping System

Melita (2011)

Canola Field Pea

$194 $189$174

$188

$41

$104

$74$59

21-11-2018

16.122.1

25.130.2

9.6 11.813.0

16.7

9.415.5

18.2 17.8

32.3

25.824.1

24.623.1

17.5

15.214.4 15.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

See

d Y

ield

bu

/ac)

Cropping System

3 Site-Year Average

Canola Field Pea

35.4 35.937.6

39.8

26.930.7 32.6

32.9

21-11-2018

0.530.73

0.831.00

0.32 0.390.43

0.55

0.310.51 0.60 0.59

1.00

0.800.75 0.76

0.71

0.54

0.470.45 0.47

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Lan

d E

qu

ival

en

t R

atio

Cropping System

3 Site-Year Average

Canola Field Pea

1.16 1.141.19

1.27

0.850.98

1.05 1.06

21-11-2018

$120

$171 $186

$227

$67 $75 $69$95

$65

$117 $129 $107

$190

$157 $145 $148

$138

$99

$83$77

$82

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Mar

gin

al P

rofi

ts (

$/a

c)

Cropping System

3 Site-Year Average

Canola Field Pea

$223 $219 $218$232

$164

$199 $206 $189

21-11-2018

• Yields of intercropped treatments were competitive, with LER consistently greater than 1 and as high as 1.6

• Most consistent over yielding with mixed rows where an overall average LER of 1.19 was achieved compared to 0.99 with alternating rows – results varied across sites but alternating rows never performed better than mixed when both crops considered

• Relative profitability varied but intercrops were consistently competitive with marginal profits being either intermediate between the two monocrops, comparable to the more profitable monocrop or more profitable than both monocrop treatments

• Across sites & N rates in experiment #2, marginal profits were lowest with monocrop canola ($176/ac), intermediate with alternating row intercrop ($190/ac), & highest with mixed row intercrop ($223/ac)

• As expected, increasing N fertility increased canola yields but sometimes at the expense of pea yields & profitability of intercrops relatively insensitive to N rate

• Actual results likely to vary with commodity prices and environment

21-11-2018

Source: 2014. Scott Chalmers. WADO. Intercropping pea & canola based on row orientation and nitrogen rates

21-11-2018

0.891.02 1.02

0.60 0.65

0.38 0.460.56 0.60 0.51 0.47

1.02 1.10

0.62 0.58

0.700.73

0.63 0.590.62

0.60

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Lan

d E

qu

ival

en

t R

atio

Cropping System

Melita 2011-2013

Canola Field Pea

1.22 1.231.08

1.19 1.19 1.19 1.13 1.07

Source: 2014. Scott Chalmers. WADO. Intercropping pea & canola based on row orientation and nitrogen rates

21-11-2018

Source: 2017. Scott Chalmers. WADO. Response of pea and canola intercrops to N and P applications.

# Crop lb N/ac lb P2O5/ac

1 Pea (check) 0 30

2 Canola (check) 90 30

3 Pea – Canola (mixed rows) 0 0









21-11-2018

2529 28 28 30 30

2431 33

9

12 14 1214 15

12

1517

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

See

d Y

ield

(b

u/a

c)

Fertilizer Rates (lb/ac)

Melita 2016-2017

Pea Canola Source: 2017. Scott Chalmers. WADO. Response of pea and canola intercrops to N and P applications.

34

41 42 4044 45

36

4650

21-11-2018

3226

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 45 90

no

du

les/

pla

nt

Nitrogen Rate (lb N/ac)

21

29 29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 45 90

no

du

les/

pla

nt

Phosphorus Rate (lb P2O5/ac)

A

B

CB

A A

Small plot research is useful for improving and developing agronomic recommendations for intercropping; however, field-scale evaluations likely more suitable for demonstrating the true potential merits of the practice

Soil and environmental conditions are usually uniform in small plot trials

Overall benefits of intercropping (across entire fields) are potentially more likely to be realized across more variable landscapes

Management of IHARF trials could have likely been fine-tuned for improved performance of intercropping. For example:

Deliver pea seed through fertilizer openers for deeper placement relative to canola

Resulting fertilizer placement issues potentially resolved with in-crop N application which is also less likely to inhibit nodulation than banding during seeding

Fungicide would have been beneficial for both monocrops and intercrops in some years; particularly for canola at Indian Head in 2012

Clearfield canola variety choices are limited and, despite fewer herbicide options, there may be a good fit for higher yielding, earlier maturing, shatter tolerant hybrids (i.e. L233P)

21-11-2018

Chris Holzapfel, MSc PAgPhone: 306-695-4200

Email: [email protected] Website: www.iharf.ca

Twitter: @CBHolz13, @IHARF_SK

IHARF Winter Seminar & AGMFebruary 6, Melville, SK

21

-11

-20

18

21-11-18

Documents

Chris Holzapfel, IHARF Scott Chalmers, WADO...12 Alternate-Row Intercrop 67% 13 Alternate-Row Intercrop 100% • 2011-12 trials at Indian Head & Melita aimed to optimize N fertility