It has been exactly one year since Dr. Dave Franzen first sarcastically discouraged politely questioned the adoption of 360 Yield Center's Y-Drop technology. In an issue of the North Dakota State University Crop & Pest Report, Dr. Franzen asserted that the "Y-Tubes" (the trademarked name is actually 360 Y-Drop) were designed in the "central corn belt." While he doesn't explicitly define where this is, he does explain that he used to work in central IL and that the climates are quite different between central IL (where 360 Yield Center is based) and North Dakota. He goes on to imply that the climatological differences between these regions make North Dakota less well suited for Y-Drop application. As an alternative, in the June 18, 2015 NDSU Crop & Pest Report, he recommends side dressing anhydrous ammonia or UAN.
Unfortunately, Dr. Franzen's argument leaves a bit to be desired.
First, the Y-Drops were not designed in central Illinois as he asserts. Yes, they are currently being improved upon and built by 360 Yield Center, which is located in Morton, IL.
However, the original concept was started by Dan Muff in Garner, Iowa. As such, they were originally conceived, built, and used, almost as close to Dr. Franzen as they are to Gregg Sauder.
Secondly, his assertion that in North Dakota "many mornings there is hardly any dew at all," may need a bit of clarification. I'm not sure what constitutes "many mornings," but I do know this:
Scott Wettstein, who is a client and a good friend of mine who farms near Lidgerwood, ND sent me this picture to the right. He shared with me that in the month of July, 2015, there was something like 27 days that he went out into his fields and saw stem water. What you see in the picture is his nitrogen placement with the Y-Drop (he had the hoses set a little in from the row instead of right on top of the row), right next to the stem water.
Now, as for Dr. Franzen's assertion that without dew, streaming nitrogen in the mid-row is just as good, I'm not sure I follow his logic. If we are to believe the International Plant Nutrition Institute and their "4R" approach to nutrient stewardship, then we must acknowledge that placement matters and we must concede that the possibility at least exists that if we concentrate our nitrogen in a band right at the base of the plant, there is potential for greater NUE (i.e., nitrogen use efficiency). Oh, and then there's the simple fact that there's University data that says stuff like this:
Finally, while I do understand that university system is for some reason enamored with anhydrous ammonia, what I do NOT understand is WHY. Yes, it's s relatively more stable form of nitrogen than UAN, but it comes with quite a lot of baggage. (Just so you know, I'll update this blog post with a link to my YouTube video called "6 Reasons to Avoid Anhydrous Ammonia" once I get it re-recorded.) Additionally, few if any of the top producers in the U.S. Use anhydrous ammonia as a nitrogen source at all. Admittedly, many of them DO sidedress UAN, but I think you'll see a movement towards Y-Drop more and more and more as producers realize what a valuable asset that tool really is.
However, the most concerning issue of all with Dr, Franzen's article is his staunch promotion of the status quo. No, not every new idea is a good one. However, with current nitrogen use efficiency hovering somewhere around 33% (Raun, et al., 2002, p. 815), AND with the problems associated with hypoxia and eutrophication, AND with the government breathing down our necks about reducing nutrient loss, I really wish that our prominent university professors were more inclined toward improving the conditions of our fields, our soils, our water quality, our environment, and the economic situation for our farm families and a little less inclined toward promoting the status quo.
Oh, and one final thing: Here's some yield data from Lucca, ND, which is just about an hour west of Fargo. You know... that place where the "Y-tubes" allegedly won't work.
To quote Dr. Franzen: "Just saying."
Unfortunately, Dr. Franzen's argument leaves a bit to be desired.
First, the Y-Drops were not designed in central Illinois as he asserts. Yes, they are currently being improved upon and built by 360 Yield Center, which is located in Morton, IL.
However, the original concept was started by Dan Muff in Garner, Iowa. As such, they were originally conceived, built, and used, almost as close to Dr. Franzen as they are to Gregg Sauder.
Secondly, his assertion that in North Dakota "many mornings there is hardly any dew at all," may need a bit of clarification. I'm not sure what constitutes "many mornings," but I do know this:
Scott Wettstein, who is a client and a good friend of mine who farms near Lidgerwood, ND sent me this picture to the right. He shared with me that in the month of July, 2015, there was something like 27 days that he went out into his fields and saw stem water. What you see in the picture is his nitrogen placement with the Y-Drop (he had the hoses set a little in from the row instead of right on top of the row), right next to the stem water.Now, as for Dr. Franzen's assertion that without dew, streaming nitrogen in the mid-row is just as good, I'm not sure I follow his logic. If we are to believe the International Plant Nutrition Institute and their "4R" approach to nutrient stewardship, then we must acknowledge that placement matters and we must concede that the possibility at least exists that if we concentrate our nitrogen in a band right at the base of the plant, there is potential for greater NUE (i.e., nitrogen use efficiency). Oh, and then there's the simple fact that there's University data that says stuff like this:
- "Row-by-row precision applications [of Nitrogen] seem to be an appropriate management tool" (Ghaffarzadeh et al, 1998, p. 762).
- "Row by row differences were observed, indicating that lateral movement of N is variable from year to year and from row to row, suggesting the need for application of N by individual row to obtain optimum yields" (Edmonds, 2006, p. 1)
And for my personal favorite:
- "These findings indicate the target plant [i.e., corn] acquired a majority (63%) of its in-season N supply from a horizontal radius of less than 7 inches [i.e., 18 cm]" (Hodgen, et al., 2009, p. 104).
Finally, while I do understand that university system is for some reason enamored with anhydrous ammonia, what I do NOT understand is WHY. Yes, it's s relatively more stable form of nitrogen than UAN, but it comes with quite a lot of baggage. (Just so you know, I'll update this blog post with a link to my YouTube video called "6 Reasons to Avoid Anhydrous Ammonia" once I get it re-recorded.) Additionally, few if any of the top producers in the U.S. Use anhydrous ammonia as a nitrogen source at all. Admittedly, many of them DO sidedress UAN, but I think you'll see a movement towards Y-Drop more and more and more as producers realize what a valuable asset that tool really is.
However, the most concerning issue of all with Dr, Franzen's article is his staunch promotion of the status quo. No, not every new idea is a good one. However, with current nitrogen use efficiency hovering somewhere around 33% (Raun, et al., 2002, p. 815), AND with the problems associated with hypoxia and eutrophication, AND with the government breathing down our necks about reducing nutrient loss, I really wish that our prominent university professors were more inclined toward improving the conditions of our fields, our soils, our water quality, our environment, and the economic situation for our farm families and a little less inclined toward promoting the status quo.
Oh, and one final thing: Here's some yield data from Lucca, ND, which is just about an hour west of Fargo. You know... that place where the "Y-tubes" allegedly won't work.
To quote Dr. Franzen: "Just saying."
Comments
Post a Comment