FEBRUARY

BLWK-nuusbriefCAWC newsletter

2020

Issue/Uitgawe 80

•Antidepressant Microbes

In Soil: How Soil Makes Your Brain Happy

•Why thirsty weeds are hard to kill

•What’s the real value of your farm’s carbon? Let’s do the math.

•Is Regenerative Agriculture Profitable?

•Photos

...2

...4

...8

...10

...12

Hallo Almal

Dis al weer Februarie en die plant seisoen kom vining nader. Voor dit gebeur is daar darem nog ‘n aantal voorsaai boeredae. Geniet die Februarie nuus-brief, daar is hierdie maand ‘n paar interessantre artikels wat mens sal laat dink. Ons beloof ook in Maart terugvoer te gee oor ons toer na die noorde.

Die redakteur

Hi All

February is already here and it will be planting time soon. Before that kicks off there is a few pre-sowing farmer’s days on offer. Enjoy the February newsletter. Some of the articles might cause you to rethink some things. We promise to give some feedback on our tour to the north in the March edition.

The editor

Inhoud / Contents

BLWK - CAWC2

Antidepressant Microbes In Soil: How Soil Makes Your Brain Happyoil microbes have been found to have similar effects on the brain as prozac, without the negative side effects and potential for chemical

dependency and withdrawal.

It turns out getting in the garden and getting dirty is a natural antidepressant due to unique microbes in healthy organic soil. Working and playing in soil can actually make you happier and healthier.

What gardeners and farmers have talked about for millennia is now verifiable by science. Feeling like your garden or farm is your happy place is no coincidence!

The soil microbe mycobacterium vaccae has been found to mirror the effect on neurons in the brain that drugs like Prozac can provide, but without side effects.

The way it works is the “happy” microbes in soil cause cytokine levels to rise, which leads to the production of more serotonin.

This bacterium is found in healthy soil and when humans are exposed to it, the microbe stimulates serotonin production. Serotonin makes us feel relaxed and happier.

Conversely, lack of serotonin has been linked to depression, anxiety, OCD, and bipolar disorders.

Some studies on cancer patients have demonstrated better quality of life and less stress when patients were given mycobacterium vaccae.

Scientists also tested the microbe via injection and ingestion on rats and compared results to a control group. They found that cognitive ability, lower stress, and better concentration were notable benefits that lasted 3 weeks time.

Mycobacterium antidepressant microbes in soil are also being investigated for improving cognitive function, Crohn’s disease, and even rheumatoid arthritis.

Farmers and gardeners come in contact with this bacterium by having topical contact with it, inhaling it, and getting it into their bloodstreams when they have small cuts or other pathways for infection.

So while the physical act of gardening may reduce stress and lift moods in and of itself, it is fascinating to know there is some science to add to the happy gardener sentiment.

With no adverse health effects caused by mycobacterium vaccae and so much to gain, you might as well grow something. As a bonus you’ll produce fresh, local food, or at least something pretty to smell and look at if flowers and ornamentals are your thing. Bees and other pollinators will appreciate it too!

S

Article from https://realfarmacy.com/antidepressant-soil/

Links of the monthClick on the button to visit the website.

Please note you will need an Internet connection

BLWK - CAWC 3BLWK - CAWC

David Johnson | LSS 2019

How trees make rain

Cancel Earthworms

http://ahri.uwa.edu.au/herbicides-and-stubble-some-wash-off-some-dont/?utm_content=buffer5d0ac&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=bufferhttps://www.fginsight.com/news/research-council-invests-509m-in-rothamsted-science-strategy-20058https://www.soils.org/discover-soils/story/steering-towards-grazing-fieldshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGiJt6e_gqQ&feature=youtu.be&app=desktophttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGiJt6e_gqQ&feature=youtu.be&app=desktophttps://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/01/jumping-worms-are-taking-over-north-american-forests/605257/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharehttps://www.learningfromnature.com.au/drought-proof-increasing-rainfall/?sfns=mohttps://www.learningfromnature.com.au/drought-proof-increasing-rainfall/?sfns=mohttps://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/01/jumping-worms-are-taking-over-north-american-forests/605257/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXhCIOErTO0&feature=youtu.behttps://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/soil-fungi-serve-as-bacterial-highways-and-dating-services/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVnrha5xv64&feature=youtu.be

nfortunately, large parts of Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland are as dry as a London

newspaper! This edition of AHRI insight looks to address the issue of spraying stressed weeds.

We had to go back to 1995 to find some relevant research, but it was worth it. The GRDC funded research conducted by Dave Minkey and John Moore at DAFWA in the 90s is pure gold! They set out to determine what factors influence herbicide rate. They looked at moisture stress, relative humidity, temperature, and days since 5mm of rainfall. As you would guess all of these factors had an effect, but it appears that moisture stress had the biggest impact. The rate of glyphosate to kill moisture-stressed wheat was more than 10 times that of wheat growing with adequate moisture.

In a dry year, we’re often faced with the whole kit and caboodle – moisture stressed weeds, high temperatures, low relative humidity and long durations between rainfall events. There’s no quick fix, but by understanding the driving factors, it can help us to pick the best time to spray weeds.

This research also reminds us that we’re likely to see surviving weeds at harvest, which is why we believe that perhaps this year is the year to adopt chaff lining at harvest.

Dr Dave Minkey is now the Executive Director of the WA No-till Farmers Association (WANTFA). The Dr part of his title was achieved by completing his PhD at AHRI studying ants

and their predation of weed seeds. But once a weedie always a weedie and big thanks to Dave for his help to drag out this old research that’s still extremely relevant today. Dr Dave Minkey is now the Executive Director of the WA No-till Farmers Association (WANTFA). Over the range of conditions encountered in this research, the glyphosate 450 rate for 90% control ranged from 150mL/ha to 3L/ha.

That’s a 20-fold difference in rate to kill the same sized weed, purely as a result of seasonal conditions. In other words, if conditions are cool and wet with high relative humidity at spraying the lethal dose of glyphosate to kill wheat could be as low as 150mL/ha. But if ryegrass is being sprayed and conditions are hot and dry, that rate could be 3L/ha or even higher. This was also observed for a range of leaf uptake herbicides.

BLWK - CAWC4

U

Why thirsty weeds are hard to kill

Click here to listen to Spraying stressed weeds in dry conditions or visit online

https://soundcloud.com/ahrisnapshots/david-minkey-on-spraying-stressed-weedshttps://soundcloud.com/ahrisnapshots/david-minkey-on-spraying-stressed-weedshttps://youtu.be/cT8EK3KkLrU

5BLWK - CAWC

September 23, 2019 11:53 am Jesse Bethea

1. Moisture stress

It comes as no surprise that moisture stress has arguably the biggest impact on herbicide efficacy, but what will surprise you is the sheer size of the effect. For these trials in 1995, Dave and John sowed wheat and then used a rain out shelter to remove 50% of the rainfall from some plots. The rain from the shelter was then used to irrigate other plots and these were compared to normal

rainfall, six weeks after seeding. We must note that glyphosate 360 was used in this research, they didn’t have the fancy new glyphosates with fully loaded surfactant packages back then.Table 1: ED90 (herbicide dose to kill 90% of the population) and ED50 for wheat sprayed with glyphosate for low, medium or high soil moisture treatments (gai/ha = grams of active ingredient/hectare).

Figure 1: Log scale dose response curves of glyphosate rates for wheat at three different levels of moisture stress. RWC = Relative Water Content (%) of wheat leaves.

2. Plant species

This research also investigated the rate of glyphosate required to control different plant

species. Keep in mind that this was back in the good ol’ days, before glyphosate resistance. In simple terms, ryegrass is about twice as hard to kill with glyphosate as wheat.

BLWK - CAWC6

3. Relative humidity

Two field sites in Newdegate and Katanning were sown to wheat and experienced almost identical growth, climatic conditions and relative water content of the wheat leaves at spraying (95%).

The only measurable difference was the relative humidity at spraying. The rate of glyphosate to kill wheat at Katanning with low RH was about 60% higher than the rate needed at Newdegate with high RH.

4. Temperature

The mean degree days (average of max and min temperature) from germination to spraying was

11.9oC in 1995 and 16.2oC in 1996. This roughly doubled the rate of glyphosate required to kill 90% of the ryegrass population (ED90).

Why is it so?

When plants are moisture-stressed they…

1. Develop a thick, waxy cuticle on their leaves that is a barrier to herbicide uptake. After a rain event, the weeds freshen up as they start to grow again but the waxy cuticle remains, so even though rainfall helps, it doesn’t completely undo the harm that has been done and these weeds will remain relatively hard to kill. If conditions improve and new leaves emerge with a normal, thin cuticle, the weeds can become more susceptible to a herbicide.

2. Translocation is slow during moisture stress so translocated herbicides struggle to reach their site of action.

Low relative humidity at spraying reduces droplet survival on the leaf and reduces the amount of herbicide that the plant takes up.

What can we do?Firstly we need to be acutely aware of just how big an effect moisture stress and seasonal conditions are on herbicide efficacy.

Second, we can only do our best to choose the best possible conditions to spray weeds in a dry year. The best-case scenario is to wait for a rain event to remove moisture stress/wash the dust off the leaves and then wait even longer for new leaves to emerge that do not possess a thick waxy cuticle. This isn’t always possible, and by waiting we may once again find ourselves in a situation where moisture/heat stress returns.

7BLWK - CAWC

Spraying during high relative humidity helps, but it only helps a little compared to spraying after rain. It’s important to get your adjuvant and spray quality right. Some adjuvants/spray quality are better than others under these conditions. Consult your agronomist to get this right.

Thirdly, we can expect surviving weeds in a dry year and we should aim to do something about them. Spraying out failed crops in spring is a good option or even crop topping where possible. Harvest weed seed control is a must and we believe that perhaps the best fit (if you are not already practising HWSC) is to adopt chaff lining. It’s low cost, has high residue retention, and it’s easy to adopt. One farmer recently commented to Peter Neman that he let some wild radish set seed in the 2006 drought and he’s still battling that population now. The cheque book may be stapled shut but there are low-cost options that could make a big difference in the future.

Summary

We all hate a dry season and agronomy decisions are challenging during these times. This AHRI insight aims to help make the best decisions at the lowest cost for growers experiencing dry times. Hats off to Dave Minkey and John Moore on some excellent, timeless research. Let’s hope we don’t need to drag it out again anytime soon.

Resources

As mentioned earlier in the post, chaff lining is worth considering, particularly in dry conditions. The below video is from WeedSmart’s Diversity Era HWSC 101 online course, explaining chaff lining in detail. You can do the whole course for free here

» Case Study: WeedSmart did a case study on Michael and Marnie Fels. They have adopted chaff lining and are having good success with it. Find out more here

» You can find out more about the costs associated with harvest weed seed control from one of our previous AHRI insights here

» WeedSmart is running a series on what you can do in dry conditions. Chaff lining is a cost-effective weed management tool you might like to consider. Here’s how it works:

Article from https://ahri.uwa.edu.au/why-thirsty-weeds-are-hard-to-kill/

https://youtu.be/P7p03tLDuLwhttps://youtu.be/4hrHcGd2f5I

BLWK - CAWC8

What’s the real value of your farm’s carbon? Let’s do the math.

By Shane New and Gabe BrownUnderstanding Ag, LLC

There is a lot of talk going around rural America about paying farmers and ranchers to sequester carbon. Given the current low commodity prices,

more money flowing to rural America would be welcome. But, what is that carbon really worth? We decided to do the math.

Oil is approximately 85% carbon and it’s a commonly traded commodity, so let’s use that as a baseline to help establish value.

The average price of crude oil on 1/23/20 was $53.25.A barrel of oil weighs approximately 300 pounds.Oil is 82-87% carbon and 12-15% hydrogen.300 pounds, multiplied by 85% = 255 pounds of C in each barrel of oil.To get the cost per-pound of carbon in oil, we take $53.25 and divide that by 255 pounds, which comes to = $.209.

So, using this oil-based, carbon-value metric, one pound of carbon is worth 20.9 cents.

The question for every farmer and rancher should be, “How can I sequester carbon to capture that value?”

Plants: Your carbon-capturing partners

The atmosphere consists of approximately 0.04 percent carbon, and living plants have the ability to take that atmospheric carbon and through photosynthesis convert it to carbon-based compounds which they exude into the soil. This allows a farmer the opportunity to literally capture that carbon and bank it on their farm.

How much carbon a farmer can retain each year is based upon his/her management practices. The more plants capturing solar energy the more atmospheric carbon will be converted into soil-based carbon.

If producers are simply growing a monoculture cash crop, harvesting that crop, and then letting their land lay idle until the next crop, they are sequestering a small amount of carbon, perhaps just 300-500 pounds per acre per year.

T

9BLWK - CAWC

However, producers growing a cash crop, inter-seeded with companion cover crops that grow throughout the growing season, producers will sequester much more, perhaps 1,000 or more pounds per acre per year. Add livestock grazing into a very diverse plant community, managed in a manner which allows for optimal recovery, and the amount of carbon sequestered increases significantly—to perhaps 2,000 or more pounds per acre. The more plants, the more diversity, the more carbon.

Using these conservative numbers here is what we find when we compare management practices:

Monoculture cash crop only: 500 pounds x .209 =$104.50/a/yr.Cash crop with diverse covers: 1,000 pounds x .209 = $209/a/yr.Diverse forages grazed by livestock: 2,000 pounds x .209 = $418/a/yr.

The carbon sequestering impact these practices is not just theoretical. In our work, we are seeing producers who are using regenerative practices sequestering large amounts of carbon. Researchers on Gabe Brown’s ranch have documented 96 tons of carbon in the top four feet of topsoil on his ranch, which equates to $40,128 per acre. Talk about adding wealth to rural America.

Carbon value and beyond

Carbon is just one metric by which we can increase value through regenerative agricultural

practices. For example, many farmers/ranchers pay for rural water. What if we were paid for the water we infiltrate and store in our soils?

Soil has the capability to store approximately 20,000 gallons of water per acres, per 1% organic matter. Gabe has regenerated his ranch’s soils to an average of over 6% organic matter. That soil has the capability of storing over 120,000 gallons of water per acre, which is the equivalent of four railroad tank cars of water per acre.

In Kansas, rural water is costing some users $9.00 per 1,000 gallons. At that cost, the water stored in Gabe’s soil is worth $1,080 per acre.

Add that value to his soil’s carbon value of $40,128 and we now have ecological services worth $41,208, per acre.

Changing the conversation

It is time we change the conversation in rural America so that farmers and ranchers are paid for ALL of the services they are providing to society. But even if we aren’t paid directly, these ecological services pay YOU through lower synthetic fertilizer costs, lower pesticide costs, improved plant and animal health, improved water cycling and resiliency.

The question you need to ask yourself is “How can I position my farm/ranch to capitalize on these ecological services?” The answer: REGENERATE!

Article from https://understandingag.com/blog/what-s-the-real-value-of-your-farm-s-carbon-let-s-do-the-math

BLWK - CAWC10

Is Regenerative Agriculture Profitable?

020 will be a year of climate and environment. The World Economic Forum’s top five long-term global risks are all environment-related.

With that, regenerative agriculture is set to take center stage. For those who aren’t familiar with it, regenerative agriculture is a set of farmland management practices that go beyond sustainable farming to rebuild soil health, a key solution to combating climate change and recapturing carbon.

Here I’ll be tackling a question that is top of mind for many investors interested in farmland: Can moving from traditional cropping systems to regenerative agriculture be profitable?

I believe the answer to that question is a resounding yes. Many might point to decreases in yield, but under the right conditions, and by taking a holistic view of farmland operations and the underlying asset value, the profitability of a farm can increase, all while reducing risk and crop loss. Below, we’ll look at research that backs up that opinion and what it might mean for your investments.

Comparing Regenerative Versus Conventional Corn Systems

Accounting for approximately 30% of all gross crop value in the U.S., corn is a crop of special

significance in the U.S. agriculture market. Nearly all of that crop is grown through conventional farming practices, which include tillage and the introduction of additional fertilizer and pesticides.

Researchers from Ecdysis Foundation investigated how the move to more regenerative systems might affect yields, pests and profitability. The 20 farms in the review were ranked based on their implementation of regenerative agriculture practices. The researchers then looked at soil organic matter, pest presence, crop yield and profit.

As expected, crop yields decreased in regenerative systems, and by 29%, no less. But while yield has served as the traditional metric of interest for farmers, that decrease in yield does not tell the whole story. The study found that the farms with regenerative practices were 78% more profitable than conventional plots. This increase in profitability was the result of two main factors: input costs and end markets.

Decreasing Input Costs

Regenerative agricultural systems, over time, require less external inputs, primarily in the form of seed and fertilizer. The research team observed an increase in soil organic matter. Soil organic matter decreases the need for external fertilizer by ensuring that necessary nutrients are

POST WRITTEN BYArtem Milinchuk

2

11BLWK - CAWC

available for crops. In fact, the team found that almost a third of farmers’ gross income went into external inputs on conventional fields, compared to 12% in regenerative fields.

But the benefits go beyond fertilizer costs. Increasing soil organic matter also increased the diversity of insects found in the soil. Insect diversity has been shown to decrease harmful pest abundance in cornfields, leading to stronger crops. Now that is what I like to call a win-win.

Identifying Diversified Income Stream

So now we have a stronger crop that costs less to produce. But what about the market for regenerative products? The same study found that regenerative farmers received higher premiums for their crop through certifications, by selling their grain as seed or feed directly to consumers, and by using their fields for more than just corn.

Farmers are able to benefit from a higher-value product, even if they aren’t able to produce the same high yields in terms of bushels per acre. This trade-off is a net positive on the ground and confirms that soil organic matter might just be a more important driver of approximate farm profitability than yield.

Identifying The Possibilities

Regenerative agriculture will look different from farm to farm, and this scenario might not translate to every tomato patch, apple orchard or corn field. But the opportunity is out there, and it has the potential to change our landscape and improve our climate.

As investors research regenerative opportunities, in addition to standard investment best practices (such as researching asset management teams and diversifying), they should pay attention to the following items that are specific to the regenerative offering:

• Are the regenerative characteristics quantified and properly certified, or at least approved by reputable bodies? Indigo’s Terraton Challenge is one such program that has wide industry and startup backing. (Full disclosure: The author’s company is part of this program.)

• Does the farmer have previous experience with regenerative practices such as no-till, livestock integration, proper crop rotation and organic farming? What you are looking for here is someone who understands how to think about farming operations in a holistic 360-degree manner that enriches the farm every year. The farming practices should give, not take.

• Is the opportunity long term? Regenerative farming isn’t a get-rich-quick scheme or a fix-and-flip; it takes years to get right, but has the potential to pay off in spades if you look at it as a long-term investment.

Regenerative agriculture can work and can increase farmland’s profitability. Over time, this increased profitability can increase the value of an investor’s farmland asset. Regenerative agriculture also presents opportunities beyond asset ownership, including infrastructure investments, and financing for transitioning from conventional system, among other activities. I’m excited to see these possibilities in action.

The information provided here is not investment, tax or financial advice. You should consult with a licensed professional for advice concerning your specific situation.

Article from https://www.forbes.com/s i tes / forbesf inancecounc i l /2020/01/30/i s - r e g e n e r a t i v e - a g r i c u l t u r e -profitable/#2fba8952cdf2

4 BLWK - CAWC12

MG Lötter – devlei@whalemail.co.zaSakkie Rust – sakkie@rautenbachtransport.co.za Danie Rossouw – vryguns@new.co.zaDrikus Mouton – drikus.mouton@gmail.com Floris Steenkamp – floris@dutoit.comHume Schonfeldt – humeschonfeldt@gmail.com Leon Badenhorst – lentebaden@whalemail.co.zaAmelia Genis – agenis@landbou.comCharl van Rooyen – charlvr@elsenburg.comMichael Gregory – michaelg@overbergagri.co.za Peter Greeff – peter@orchman.comPieter Blom – pblom@ssk.co.zaPieter Swanepoel - pieterswanepoel@sun.ac.zaRens Smit - renss@elsenburg.com

BLWK Bestuurspan / CAWC Management Team Lede

Photos

Click on the email address to send a person an email

Ruan Schutte (GraanSA) - ruan@grainsa.co.zaJohann Strauss – johannst@elsenburg.comIvan Jansen van Rensburg – ijvr@barenbrugsa.co.zaZander Spamer - Zander@soill.co.za

mailto:sakkie%40rautenbachtransport.co.za?subject=BLWK%20Nuusbriefmailto:vryguns%40new.co.za?subject=mailto:drikus.mouton@gmail.commailto:floris@dutoit.commailto:humeschonfeldt%40gmail.com?subject=mailto:lentebaden@whalemail.co.zamailto:charlvr%40elsenburg.com?subject=mailto:agenis%40landbou.com%20?subject=BLWK%20Nuusbriefmailto:peter%40orchman.com?subject=BLWK%20CAWC%20Newslettermailto:pblom%40ssk.co.za?subject=BLWK%20Nuusbriefmailto:pieterswanepoel%40sun.ac.za?subject=BLWK%20/%20CAWCmailto:ruan%40grainsa.co.za?subject=mailto:%20johannst%40elsenburg.com?subject=BLWK%20Nuusbriefmailto:ijvr%40barenbrugsa.co.za?subject=mailto:Zander%40soill.co.za?subject=

Button 33: Button 34: Button 35: