research report - pamipami.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/research_report... · 2020. 8. 8. ·...

Project No. 21716

Date: March 9, 2017

Revised: April 19, 2017

Portage la Prairie, Manitoba

Final Report

Straight Cutting Canola in Manitoba:

Comparison of Pre-harvest Aids

For:

MAFRD, Growing Forward 2

Research Report

21716

March 9, 2017

Revised: April 19, 2017

Portage la Prairie, MB

Final Report

Research Report

Straight Cutting Canola in Manitoba:

Comparison of Pre-harvest Aids

Avery Simundsson, EIT

Project Leader

Harvey Chorney, P. Eng.

VP Manitoba Operations

Lorne Grieger, P. Eng.

Project Manager

Agricultural Research

Acknowledgement

This project was funded by the Canada and Manitoba governments through

Growing Forward 2, a federal-provincial-territorial initiative.”

PAMI would also like to recognize industry full supporting partners, BASF and

Syngenta (financial and product contributors), and other partners: Bayer,

MacDon, Manitoba Pulse and Soybean Growers, and Enns Brothers for their

equipment and product contributions, and for their commitment to improving and

optimizing canola harvest in Manitoba.

Thank you to our cooperating producer for allowing us to work with them during

their canola harvest operations. This project would not be possible without

support from our producers.

of 47

Table of Contents

Page

1. Executive Summary .........................................................................................................5

2. Introduction......................................................................................................................7

3. Background .....................................................................................................................8

3.1 Swathing ................................................................................................................8

3.2 Straight cutting .......................................................................................................9

3.3 Pre-Harvest Aids ..................................................................................................11

4. Project Description ........................................................................................................13

4.1 Set-Up .................................................................................................................13

4.2 Swathing and Spraying ........................................................................................14

4.3 Harvest ................................................................................................................16

4.4 Loss Tracking ......................................................................................................18

5. Results ..........................................................................................................................22

5.1 Yield ....................................................................................................................22

5.2 Harvest Efficiency ................................................................................................23

5.3 Losses .................................................................................................................25

5.4 Seed Characteristics ............................................................................................26

5.5 Cost .....................................................................................................................26

5.6 Operator Experience ............................................................................................27

6. Discussions and Conclusions ........................................................................................32

7. References ....................................................................................................................33

Appendix A Equipment .......................................................................................................... 32

Appendix B Harvest Weather Data ......................................................................................... 34

Appendix C Cost Assumptions and Further Detail .................................................................. 39

of 47

Appendix D BASF Heat LQ Product Recommendations ........................................................ 40

Appendix E Syngenta Reglone Product Recommendations ................................................... 42

Appendix F Plot Layout (One Replication) .............................................................................. 43

of 47

List of Figures

Figure 1. A pick-up header is used in combining canola swaths (Straight Cutting Canola, 2015)

............................................................................................................................................8

Figure 2. Straight cutting a canola crop (Straight Cutting Canola, 2015) ...................................10

Figure 3. Field layout and replications .......................................................................................14

Figure 4. John Deere W150 windrower with a 35’ John Deere 4350D header ...........................14

Figure 5. Aerial view of cutting of one treatment area (Photo credit: Vince Krochak/Dale

Hildebrand, Kenna) ............................................................................................................15

Figure 6. Visual depiction of layout for plots with chemical application ......................................16

Figure 7. MacDon 40' draper header and John Deere S690 combine .......................................17

Figure 8. Weighing the yield from one field-scale plot in a calibrated MPSG weigh wagon........18

Figure 9. Shatter and pod drop loss pans after manufacturing (left) and in the field (right) ........19

Figure 10. Manually released catch pan (bottom) and catch pan attached to the combine

underside (top) ...................................................................................................................19

Figure 11. Preparation for loss pan placement (top); loss pan layout (bottom right); chaff and

seed from straw chopper (bottom left) ................................................................................20

Figure 12. Weather information during the harvest period .........................................................21

Figure 13. Comparison of combine efficiency and engine load (%) ...........................................24

Figure 14. Comparison of ground speed, threshing losses, and combine productivity ...............26

Figure 15. Post-harvest view of a Reglone treatment ................................................................28

Figure 16. Post-harvest view of a Heat & glyphosate treatment with swathed treatment visible

on the right .........................................................................................................................29

Figure 17. Post-harvest view of a naturally ripened treatment ...................................................30

Figure 18. Post-harvest view of a swathed treatment ................................................................31

List of Tables

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of swathing as a canola harvest method (Canola

Council of Canada, 2015) ....................................................................................................9

Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of straight-cutting as a canola harvest method (Canola

Council of Canada, 2015) ..................................................................................................11

Table 3: Comparison of desiccant and glyphosate (Canola Council of Canada, 2015) ..............11

Table 4. Details of chemical application for sprayed treatments ................................................15

Table 5. Summary of treatment harvest ....................................................................................16

Table 6. Header settings used for straight cut treatments on FD75 ...........................................17

Table 7. Effect of treatment on average yield ............................................................................22

Table 8. Effect of treatment on overall fuel consumption ...........................................................23

Table 9. Effect of treatment on engine load ...............................................................................23

Table 10. Effect of treatment on combine efficiency ..................................................................24

Table 11. Effect of treatment on ground speed..........................................................................24

of 47

Table 12. Effect of treatment on productivity .............................................................................25

Table 13. Summary of threshing combine losses ......................................................................25

Table 14. Summary of seed characteristics ...............................................................................26

Table 15. Summary of costs and potential gains associated with harvest treatment..................27

Table 16. Cost associated with harvest losses ..........................................................................27

of 47

1. Executive Summary

Canola crops in Manitoba have traditionally been swathed before harvesting, but interest

in straight cutting as a harvest method has been growing. There is a general belief that

straight cutting introduces increased risk due to the possibility of shatter loss. However,

newer, shatter-tolerant varieties may reduce this risk significantly. Straight cutting also

eliminates the need for swathing, an activity that requires additional resources and

specialized equipment. The purpose of this project was to understand what benefits may

be gained from straight cutting, what risks may be incurred, and what pre-harvest

treatments may provide optimal conditions for straight cut harvest.

Four treatments were selected to be tested on Bayer Invigor® L140P (shatter-tolerant

variety): Reglone, Heat & glyphosate, natural ripening and swathing (benchmark).

Seeding of all treatments occurred simultaneously and crop production practices

throughout the season were carried out by the cooperating producer according to their

canola management plan. Treatments involving chemical applications were performed

according to the manufacturer directions at the appropriate timing.

Each treatment was harvested as maturity and weather conditions permitted. During

harvest, combine parameters (fuel usage, engine speed, engine load) were recorded

through the combine’s CANbus via a Somat eDAQ system for later analysis using

InField software and Microsoft Excel. Ground speed and GPS coordinates were also

recorded. The harvested yield from each treatment was weighed using an in-field,

calibrated weigh wagon and correlated to the length and width of the treatment to

calculate the overall yield (bu/ac) for that treatment. Seed samples were taken from all

treatments to determine any differences in green seed content, dockage, oil content, and

seed size. Chaff samples were taken from the rear of the combine during harvest to

quantify seed loss due to threshing. Shatter loss pans were placed in all straight cut

treatments to evaluate the loss potential and removed on the day of harvest.

A statistical analysis of data through Minitab showed that treatment did not have an

effect on yield, engine speed, dockage, oil content, green seed, or seed weight.

However, it did significantly affect harvest productivity (bu/hr), harvest efficiency (bu/L),

fuel consumption, engine load, harvest speed, and threshing losses.

Reglone, Heat & glyphosate, and naturally ripened treatments resulted in cost

differences of $17.17, $ 21.83, and -$4.87 per acre (respectively) when compared with

swathed treatments. These calculations include only costs of machinery operation

(custom rates, ground speed, fuel usage, etc.), and product application (SRP at

recommended rates). When using these numbers to perform an economic analysis,

producers should include the effects associated with the ability to schedule and predict

of 47

harvest timing, ease of harvest and operator experience, additional benefits outside of

harvestability, or costs associated with risk. Each of these additional factors may result

in significant changes to the economic analysis of an individual farming operation.

Harvesting conditions and local weather may also have notable effects.

This study does not necessarily show one harvest method is better than another overall.

Rather, this information should be used for producers to make the best harvest decisions

for their particular operation and management style. These results are based on one site

over one growing season. Though it is likely that trends seen here will remain similar in

further study, quantification of these effects may vary from year to year and between

operations. Further study should be undertaken to increase confidence in results under a

variety of circumstances.

of 47

2. Introduction

Canola in Western Canada is traditionally harvested through swathing, dry-down, and

the use of a pick-up header. This method offers flexibility in timing, can reduce the

potential for environmental damage, and can hasten harvest activities. However, interest

in reducing necessary machinery operations, and the potential to increase yield, quality,

oil content and seed size due to a longer maturity period have more producers

considering straight-cutting harvest.

Rapeseed is conventionally harvested through straight-cut methods in the majority of

Europe, but this harvest method is only beginning to gain interest in Western Canada.

Hesitation to adopt this method stems from a number of factors, namely the critical

timing and greater perceived risk associated with straight-cutting to avoid substantial

losses. The longer maturation period required for direct combining increases the

potential for shattering (particularly in non-shatter-tolerant varieties), and leaves a

smaller window for optimal harvest timing compared to swathing, which can be

logistically problematic on large acreages.

A number of methods have been introduced to minimize the risk associated with leaving

a standing crop to mature for direct combining. Chemical desiccants, such as Reglone or

Heat, increase uniformity in a stand and hasten ripening by drying down all vegetative

growth. Pre-harvest glyphosate acts as a harvest aid to kill annual weeds, but is not

associated with speeding dry down. Variety selection for shatter-tolerance, pod sealants,

equipment settings, and timing also play a role in reducing shatter losses.

Because of the shorter growing season in Western Canada compared to Europe, pre-

harvest aids that speed maturity and dry-down are of particular interest to producers.

Quantifying the benefit of these products and understanding how to maximize their utility

is critical in justifying the additional risk associated with straight-cutting.

The difference in shatter, standing and harvest losses, seed characteristics, combine

efficiency, and overall yield are crucial in measuring the logistical and economic

differences between harvest methods, as are the costs/savings associated with overall

harvest, required manpower and machinery use. The aim of this project is to assess the

suitability of various pre-harvest treatments marketed to improve the efficacy of straight-

cut canola harvest in Western Canada as compared to traditional swathing or straight

cutting a naturally ripened crop.

of 47

3. Background

Straight-cutting and swathing offer different benefits and one is not necessarily superior

to the other. Environmental factors may significantly favor one over the other.

Understanding of the ideal conditions for each method, as well as conditions that

increase risk, will allow producers to maximize harvest operations under different

conditions.

3.1 Swathing

Swathing involves cutting and laying the crop in windrows directly on the stubble. This

quickens drying, evens out ripening, and reduces the risk of losses from wind and hail.

Windrows are ready for combining when moisture levels approach 8-10% and green

seed is at an acceptable level. Swathing can be performed at 30% seed colour change

(SCC) but yield and quality are optimized at 60% seed colour change or higher (Canola

Council of Canada, 2015). Swathing at higher SCC increases the risk of shatter loss,

and swathing too early increases the risk of excessive seed shrinkage, higher green

seed, and lack of curing from premature dry down. The harvesting of swaths is show

below in Figure 1.

Figure 1. A pick-up header is used in combining canola swaths (Straight Cutting Canola,

2015)

Swathing may be favorable over straight-cutting in a number of instances:

Immature crop with imminent frost

Uneven crop maturity

Problems with green weed undergrowth or crop re-growth

Thin crop stand

Presence of alternaria black spot or other disease

of 47

Crop is already at risk of shattering (hail affected, etc.)

An analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of swathing are given in Table 1

(Canola Council of Canada, 2015).

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of swathing as a canola harvest method (Canola

Council of Canada, 2015)

Advantages Disadvantages

Earlier harvest Lowers potential yield and quality

Timing of harvest is less crucial May result in higher green seed levels

Better protection from frost, wind,

and hail damage

Involves additional field operations and

equipment

Swathing can be done around the

clock

Not recommended during hot, dry

weather

Cutting weeds for a cleaner sample

3.2 Straight cutting

Straight cutting removes the need for specialized equipment, such as a swather or pick-

up header, and reduces the overall time spent on field operations by reducing the

necessary machinery passes. Allowing the crop to mature while standing may improve

seed quality by increasing the potential for larger seeds, higher oil content, and reduced

green seed (Holsapfel, 2014). Timing for harvest is critical to reduce losses in non-

shatter resistant varieties, and adhering to a stringent harvest schedule may be difficult

on large acreages. Western Canadian canola producers are largely unfamiliar with

straight-cutting in canola and reported rates of shatter and loss vary for both researchers

and producers. Direct combining is depicted in Figure 2.

of 47

Figure 2. Straight cutting a canola crop (Straight Cutting Canola, 2015)

Larger seeds (approximately 5% compared to canola swathed at the optimal stage)

resulting from a longer-standing crop may compensate for losses due to shattering and

pod drop from straight cutting (Holsapfel, 2014). Pod sealants are a recent development

aimed at reducing shatter losses, but have shown inconsistent results on a field-scale.

Pre-harvest treatments are not necessary, but can improve conditions for straight-cutting

by facilitating an earlier harvest due to hastening dry down, and reducing the effects of

variable maturity in fields. The cultivar selected can also affect shattering losses, as

some varieties are more resistant to shattering than others. Green seed is often reduced

in straight cut canola, but results depend on relative timing of operations, plant density,

and weather prior to harvest.

Seed variety can affect the risk of shatter loss. B. napus varieties are more shatter-prone

than B. rapa cultivars, making B. rapa varieties the first choice if straight-cutting is

intended (Canola Council of Canada, 2015). However, new hybrids have introduced pod

shatter tolerance into napus varieties and these are very appropriate fo straight cutting

applications. Shatter losses can also be minimized by combining during cooler parts of

the day when the pods are damp from dew, at night during very hot weather, or at high

seed moisture levels when the crop is ripe if drying the seed after harvest is an option.

Direct-cutting may be favorable in a number of instances:

A well-knitted and thick stand

Disease-free

Even maturation

Severely lodged

Shatter-resistant variety grown

Sufficient weather conditions expected for later maturation and harvest

of 47

An analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of straight-cutting are given in Table 2

(Canola Council of Canada, 2015).

Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of straight-cutting as a canola harvest method

(Canola Council of Canada, 2015)

Advantages Disadvantages

Reduces manpower, fuel use, and

equipment requirement

Higher risk of loss

Longer maturation period required

May increase seed size and yield Very sensitive to timing

May increase oil content Poor results in uneven or thin crop

Potential green seed reduction

3.3 Pre-Harvest Aids

Applying pre-harvest aids may enhance the performance of direct combining under the

right set of circumstances. The most commonly used harvest aids are chemical

desiccants, glyphosate, and pod sealants. The purpose of pod sealants is to reduce

shatter losses, but these products do not affect pod drop. A comparison of desiccant and

glyphosate is shown below in Table 3.

Table 3: Comparison of desiccant and glyphosate (Canola Council of Canada, 2015)

Desiccant Glyphosate

Contact non-selective Systemic non-selective

Fast-acting (product dependent) Slow-acting (weeks)

Strong activity on dicot crops Strong activity on monocot crops

Best on senescing plants Best on actively growing plants

Burns top-growth of annual and

perennial weeds

Kills perennials, inconsistent on

annuals

Applied when majority of seed is

mature

Apply at less than 30% seed moisture

Does not affect seed germination Adversely affects seed germination

Performance affected by temperature,

day length, and light intensity

Performance affected by frost, drought,

and temperature

Relatively expensive Less expensive

3.3.1 Chemical Desiccant

Chemical desiccants can improve uniformity in a crop stand by speeding and enhancing

dry down. The leaves and pods of the plants dry rapidly after application while the green

seed is given time to mature. Application at the correct stage (product dependant) may

be essential for some products and varieties to prevent increased shatter losses (Canola

Council of Canada, 2015). If desiccated crops are harvested too late after green seed

of 47

and moisture have reached suitable levels, pod shatter and drop may significantly

increase. An application of chemical that is too early may result in a higher percentage of

green seed, and therefore higher likelihood of receiving a lower grade in the market

(Canola Watch, 2015).

3.3.2 Pod Sealants

As canola ripens, the risk of pods splitting open (shattering) increases. Pod sealants

were developed to minimize this damage during ripening. These products are relatively

new to the market and have undergone limited scientific research. Preliminary results

show little difference between treated and untreated crops, and no significant difference

has been observed overall (Canola Council of Canada, 2015).

The use of sealants may also increase the importance of timing, as they lose efficacy

with time and rainfall (Canola Council of Canada, 2015). They also slow dry down by 5-

14 days, which may be difficult to accommodate in short growing seasons. Application is

recommended when the majority of pods have changed colour from green to yellow, but

still retain the flexibility to fold over without splitting open. Excellent contact coverage of

all pods is crucial, as shatter protection is provided through a physical coating that

prevents the pods from splitting.

3.3.3 Glyphosate

Perennial weed control is the main goal of pre-harvest glyphosate application.

Glyphosate does not promote dry down or speed maturity, but rather kills the plant. It

has not been shown to have any effect on seed yields, seed weight, germination, green

seed content, or oil content if applied with the correct timing. Very cool, wet, or cloudy

conditions between application and harvest may slow the activity of the product.

Glyphosate should be applied when the majority of seeds are yellow and brown (mature)

and overall seed moisture is less than 30% (Canola Watch, 2015).

of 47

4. Project Description

4.1 Set-Up

A cooperating producer located near East Selkirk, MB provided 80 acres of canola for

this project. The variety seeded was Bayer L140P (shatter-tolerant), seeded on May 16,

2016. The trial consisted of the following plot treatments:

Reglone harvest aid & straight cut (chemical desiccant)

Heat & glyphosate harvest aid & straight cut (chemical desiccant)

Naturally ripened & straight cut (no applied treatment)

Swathed (conventional harvest)

Each straight cut treatment had a corresponding swath check treatment immediately

beside it. Check treatments were to be harvested on the same day as their respective

straight cut treatment. This would allow for a more accurate comparison between the

straight cut method and traditional swath harvesting on that particular day and under

those particular conditions, as harvest conditions (harvestability) can change with the

weather and environmental conditions.

The purpose of this field-scale trial was to detect any notable effects of pre-harvest aids

on harvestability and harvest efficiency as compared to natural ripening or swathing.

Harvestability includes combine productivity (bu/hr), combine fuel usage (L/hr) and

efficiency (bu/L), yield (bu/ac), grain sample quality (moisture, oil content, green seed,

dockage, and seed weight), yield, threshing losses, and time to harvest.

Three replications of each treatment were used, illustrated in Figure 3. Each replication

consisted of 7 treatments: Reglone, Heat & glyphosate, naturally ripened, swathed, and

three swathed checks. Treatments ran the entire length of the field and, with the

exception of the check plots, were wide enough to accommodate for two passes with the

combine. The two passes were used to assess differences in harvest speeds (regular

harvest speed and maximum capacity harvest speed). Check plots consisted of only one

pass. Treatments were spaced such that sprayer tracks would not be located in any trial

passes, and GPS and auto-steer were used to ensure accuracy during spraying and

harvest activities. Plot layout is depicted in Appendix C.

of 47

Figure 3. Field layout and replications

4.2 Swathing and Spraying

Swathing was completed on August 22 when the field was at approximately 40%-50%

seed colour change (SCC). Swathed plots were cut with a John Deere W150 windrower

with a 35’ John Deere 4350D header provided by MacDon Industries (Figure 4).

Figure 4. John Deere W150 windrower with a 35’ John Deere 4350D header

The combination of Heat & glyphosate was applied between 60-75% SCC, and Reglone

at 80-90% SCC, in accordance with manufacturer’s directions. Treatments were sprayed

of 47

with a John Deere 4930 with a 120’ boom. Straight cut treatments that involved spraying

were cut on either side of the sprayer tracks with ample room between sprayer

treatments to avoid any overlap, depicted in Figure 5 and Figure 6 and. Details of

spraying are given in Table 4. It is important to note that the recommended rate of

Reglone application is 150% that of Heat and glyphosate. This will involve additional

activity in transport of water to the field, which is not reflected in the cost estimates in the

following sections.

Table 4. Details of chemical application for sprayed treatments

Treatment Application

Date

Rate

(gal/acre)

Pressure

(psi)

Ground

Speed

(mph)

Reglone August 29 25 60 7.5-8

Heat &

Glyphosate August 24 10 45 10-11

Note: Swathing occurred on August 22

Figure 5. Aerial view of cutting of one treatment area (Photo credit: Vince Krochak/Dale

Hildebrand, Kenna)

of 47

Figure 6. Visual depiction of layout for plots with chemical application

After swathing, all treatments were visited and monitored at least once weekly to

compare any change in physical appearance of the plants between treatments. Each

replication was clearly marked with coloured, labelled flags for clear identification.

Appropriate harvest timing was dictated by producer experience, recommendations from

the Canola Council of Canada, from chemical manufacturers where applicable, and as

permitted by weather conditions.

4.3 Harvest

Harvest commenced on September 3 and concluded on September 15. Though swathed

treatments were ready September 3 (Reglone check swaths were harvested on this

day), rain on the evening of September 3 and thereafter prevented harvest of swath

treatments until later. Heat & glyphosate and naturally ripened treatments had a delayed

harvest of September 14th due to weather conditions. It is unknown how more favorable

weather may have affected harvest date. Swaths were not harvested until September

15th, as time on September 14th did not allow. Harvest dates are listed in Table 5.

Header set-up for the FD75 was done according to the manual for straight cutting heavy

canola (Table 6).

Table 5. Summary of treatment harvest

Treatment Harvest Date Days ‘til Harvest Check Swaths

Harvested?

Reglone September 3 110 Yes

Heat & Glyphosate September 14 121 No

Naturally Ripened September 14 121 No

Swathed September 15 122 N/A

of 47

Table 6. Header settings used for straight cut treatments on FD75

Draper Speed

Header Angle

Knife Speed

Reel Tine Pitch

Reel Speed Reel Position

9 Middle (B) 600 1 10% above

ground speed

4

Each treatment was harvested when maturity/dry down was considered appropriate for

that particular treatment (e.g. Reglone treatments were harvested once plants were

considered dry enough to be cut and processed by the combine). All treatments were

harvested below 10% moisture. Straight cut plots were harvested with a 40’ MacDon

draper header with a P-auger. Swathed treatments were harvested with a John Deere

pick-up header. All plots were processed with a John Deere S690, pictured in Figure 7.

Other equipment is pictured in Appendix A.

Figure 7. MacDon 40' draper header and John Deere S690 combine

Each treatment in a replication consisted of two passes down the field. One pass was

harvested at a reasonable ground speed so as not to overload harvesting equipment.

The second pass was harvested at the maximum possible ground speed without

overloading the header or combine. The purpose of this was to understand loss

difference due to pushing the combine to its speed limits, as well as understand any

changes in combine efficiency due to ground speed.

Details of harvest were tracked using a Somat eDAQ system, which was connected to

the combine’s CANbus system to acquire data directly from the combine. One PAMI

personnel remained in the combine with the operator throughout harvest to ensure the

eDAQ collected only relevant treatment data that did not include other operation or

travel. Several sections of the field were drowned out. Data was not recorded while the

of 47

combine travelled around or through these sections. The eDAQ recorded engine speed

(rpm), fuel consumption (L/hr), and engine load (%). The GPS system recorded ground

speed (mph) and coordinates, which could later be used to calculate the area of each

treatment based on distance travelled and header width. Yield from each pass was

weighed in a calibrated weigh wagon provided by the Manitoba Pulse and Soybean

Growers (Figure 8) and a representative sample from each treatment was taken for

third-party analysis (completed at Intertek) for dockage, green seed count, oil content,

and 1000K seed size.

Figure 8. Weighing the yield from one field-scale plot in a calibrated MPSG weigh wagon

4.4 Loss Tracking

At the time of swathing, custom-manufactured loss trays were placed in all remaining

standing treatments to assess any seed or pod loss resulting from a longer standing

time. Loss trays were protected with a perforated cover to prevent animal interference in

loss collection. Upon harvesting, loss pans of the respective treatment were collected

and their contents bagged and labelled for weighing and analysis. Because Reglone

treatments were harvested after optimal timing and other treatments were not, additional

loss trays were placed in remaining standing Reglone to assess losses when harvest is

delayed. Loss trays representing 2.108 ft2 of field area with covers are pictured in Figure

9.

of 47

Figure 9. Shatter and pod drop loss pans after manufacturing (left) and in the field (right)

Harvest losses from the rear of the combine were also monitored manually. Five catch

pans were used to collect chaff from the straw chopper. One 12 ft2 pan was attached to a

frame underneath the combine (Figure 10). The frame had a manual release

mechanism that allowed the pan to be dropped from the cab. At one point in the harvest

of each treatment where the stand was fairly uniform and the combine was fully loaded,

the pan was dropped and the combine passed over it.

Figure 10. Manually released catch pan (bottom) and catch pan attached to the combine

underside (top)

Where the underside loss pan was released, PAMI personnel were ready with four catch

trays, each representing 6 ft2 of field area. These trays were placed on either side of the

central drop pan (two on the right and two on the left) to form an even spread of pans to

catch a representative loss sample from the straw chopper. The contents of the pans

of 47

were collected, bagged, and labelled for transport and analysis. These samples were

cleaned and weighed to determine the average threshing losses. The process is shown

in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Preparation for loss pan placement (top); loss pan layout (bottom right); chaff

and seed from straw chopper (bottom left)

Weather information during the harvest period, taken from the Manitoba Agriculture

Selkirk weather station, is shown Figure 12. Weather from the entire growing season

can be found in Appendix B.

of 47

Figure 12. Weather information during the harvest period

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

5

10

15

20

25

Win

d S

pe

ed

(km

/h)

oC

, mm

Weather Data Aug 20 - Sept 15, 2016

Precipitation (mm) Average Temperature (°C) Max Wind Speed (km/h)

Sprayed Reglone Harvested Reglone Swathing

Sprayed H & G Harvested H & G Harvested swaths

Harvested NR

of 47

5. Results

Due to weather constraints, not all treatments were harvested at the optimal stage. Reglone

treatments were harvested 5 days after application, and Heat & glyphosate treatments 21 days

after application. Check swaths were only able to be harvested on the same day as their

treatment for the Reglone treatments. Check swaths for Heat & glyphosate, and naturally

ripened plots were harvested the day after their respective treatments. Since the majority of the

check swaths were not harvested simultaneously with their treatment, they cannot provide any

better comparison than the actual swath treatments. Therefore, data collected from the check

swaths were not used for comparison in the final analysis. Weather conditions during swathing,

product application, and harvest can be found in Appendix B.

Shatter loss pans in all standing treatments showed no significant difference in losses between

Reglone, Heat & glyphosate, and naturally ripened treatments. Patches of the Reglone

treatment were left standing with shatter loss pans after harvest to understand how losses may

be affected if optimal harvest was delayed. Losses in these pans showed no statistical

difference compared to any other treatments.

High and low speed harvest for each treatment was difficult to achieve, as the optimal ground

speed for efficient combine loading was very similar to the maximum speed achievable without

plugging the combine. Therefore, results are grouped into harvest method and treatment without

including ground speed. In this way, each treatment had six replications rather than three.

A statistical analysis shows that replication had no effect on response, indicating low variation

among replications. The following sections refer to ‘significance’ as representing a statistically

significant difference at the 95% confidence level.

5.1 Yield

There was no statistically significant difference in yield between swathing, natural

ripening, Reglone, or Heat & glyphosate treatments. Effects of treatment are

demonstrated in Table 7.

Table 7. Effect of treatment on average yield

Treatment Yield (bu/ac) Difference from Swathing

Reglone 47.0 -4.03% Heat & Glyphosate 48.3 -1.39% Natural Ripening 51.5 5.25% Swathing 48.9 -

of 47

5.2 Harvest Efficiency

Treatment had no effect on mean engine speed. However, treatments showed

statistically significant differences in fuel consumption, engine load, ground speed,

efficiency (bu/L), and productivity (bu/hr).

Reglone showed significantly greater fuel consumption than naturally ripened or swathed

treatments, but no difference from Heat & glyphosate treatments. Heat & glyphosate

treatments consumed more than swathed treatments, but was no different from naturally

ripened treatments. Swathed treatments had a significantly lower fuel use than all other

treatments. Results are shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Effect of treatment on overall fuel consumption

Treatment Overall Fuel Consumption (L/hr) Difference from Swathing

Reglone 82.6 28.04%

Heat & Glyphosate 79.3 22.94%

Natural Ripening 75.2 16.58%

Swathing 64.7 -

Reglone showed significantly greater engine load than naturally ripened or swathed

treatments, but no difference from Heat & glyphosate treatments. Heat & glyphosate

treatments showed higher load than swathed treatments, but were no different from

naturally ripened treatments. Swathed treatments had a significantly lower engine load

than all other treatments. Results are shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Effect of treatment on engine load

Treatment Engine Load (%) Difference from Swathing

Reglone 79.8 25.71%



Swathing 63.5 -

Heat & glyphosate treatments showed significantly greater combine efficiency (bu/L)

than swathed treatments. There was no statistical difference between any other

treatments. Results are shown in Table 10.

of 47

Table 10. Effect of treatment on combine efficiency

Treatment Combine Efficiency

(bu/L) Difference from Swathing

Reglone 9.8 1.41%


Naturally Ripened 10.2 5.69%

Swathing 9.7 -

The relationship between combine efficiency and engine load are shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Comparison of combine efficiency and engine load (%)

Reglone harvest speeds were significantly faster than swathed or naturally ripened, but

Reglone showed no difference compared to Heat & glyphosate. There was no statistical

difference between heat, swathed, and naturally ripened treatments. Results are shown

in Table 11. Data was only recorded for ground speed during harvest and does not

include any time spent stationary, and is not representative of delays due to plugging.

Table 11. Effect of treatment on ground speed

Treatment GPS Ground Speed (mph) Difference from Swathing

Reglone 3.7 17.63%



Swathing 3.1 -

Swathed treatments resulted in significantly lower productivity (bu/hr) than all other

treatments. There was no statistical difference between any straight cut treatments.

9.2

9.4

9.6

9.8

10

10.2

10.4

10.6

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

Reglone Heat & glyphosate NR Swath

bu

/L

Engi

ne

Load

(%

)

Treatment

Combine Efficiency (bu/L) Engine Load (%)

of 47

Results are shown in Table 12.

Table 12. Effect of treatment on productivity

Treatment Productivity (bu/hr) Difference from Swathing

Reglone 810.1 29.75%



Swathing 624.3 -

5.3 Losses

Treatment had a statistically significant impact on losses from the rear of the combine

(P=0.005). Heat & glyphosate treatments showed statistically higher losses (2.81 bu/ac)

than either natural ripening or swathed treatments. There was no statistical difference

between Heat & glyphosate and Reglone treatments, and no statistical difference

between naturally ripened, swathing, and Reglone treatments.

Shatter losses while standing showed no statistical differences between treatments,

averaging 0.12 g/ pan (~0.106 bu/ac).

Results are shown in Table 13.

Table 13. Summary of threshing combine losses

Treatment Threshing

Losses (bu/ac) Difference

from Swathing Shatter

Losses (g)

Reglone 1.9 72.48% 0.05

Heat & Glyphosate 2.8 157.80% 0.12

Naturally Ripened 1.5 35.78% 0.14

Swathing 1.1 - -

Post-harvest Reglone - - 0.04

The relationship between ground speed, threshing losses, and combine productivity are

shown in Figure 14.

of 47

Figure 14. Comparison of ground speed, threshing losses, and combine productivity

5.4 Seed Characteristics

Dockage, green seed content, oil content, and 1000K seed size were analyzed at a third

party lab (Intertek) and are summarized in Table 14. Treatment had no effect on

dockage, oil content or 1000K seed weight. There was no significant difference among

treatments in terms of green seed. However, there is a possibility of a trend with

naturally ripened canola having a slightly higher green seed content (P= 0.095). There is

not enough evidence to declare this statistically significant.

Table 14. Summary of seed characteristics

Treatment Dockage (%) Green Seed (%) Oil Content (%) 1000K Seed Weight

Reglone 1.5 0.6 46.9 3.4

Heat & Glyphosate 1.4 0.4 46.4 3.4

Naturally Ripened 1.4 0.9 47.0 3.4

Swath 1.5 0.4 46.9 3.3

5.5 Cost

Costs that differ between treatments are given in Table 15 (other costs of production

common to each treatment are not included). Details of the cost calculations, including

calculation of custom machinery, chemical costs, and assumed costs, can be found in

Appendix C. Treatments are compared based on the additional cost of production over

the conventional swathing operation.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

Reglone Heat NR Swath

mp

h, b

u/a

c

bu

/hr

Treatment

Combine Productivity (bu/hr) Ground Speed (mph) Losses (bu/ac)

of 47

Table 15. Summary of costs and potential gains associated with harvest treatment

Cost/ acre

Reglone H&G

Naturally Ripened

Swathed

Chemical costs1 $17.00 $22.00 $0 $0

Swath2/spray costs3 $8.80 $8.00 $0 $7.92

Harvest machinery cost4 $24.74 $25.20 $28.50 $25.45

Total costs5 $50.54 $55.20 $28.50 $33.37

Additional cost compared to swathing

$17.17 $21.83 -$4.87 - 1Based on manufacturers maximum recommended rate of application

2From the PAMI Farm Machinery Custom and Rental Rate Calculator (assumes productivity of 21 ac/hr, and

fuel consumption of 36 L/hr) 3Based on local custom, high-clearance spray rates and ground speed during application. Does not include

additional time spent filling and mixing due to higher or lower spray volumes. 4From the PAMI Farm Machinery Custom and Rental Rate Calculator (based on recorded average fuel

consumption, L/hr, and productivity, ac/hr, for each treatment) 5Not including fixed costs and other costs common to all treatments

The cost of harvest losses was also calculated. Table 16 shows harvest loss

calculations, assuming a canola price of $11/bu. These costs are not included in any of

the final calculations for overall cost of each treatment, as it is likely to relate more to the

amount of material being processed by the combine and less likely that it is related to

the treatment.

Table 16. Cost associated with harvest losses

5.6 Operator Experience

There are a number of intangible effects based on harvest method that may play a factor

in economic assessment, depending on the farming operation. The value of these

factors must be taken into account when assessing the financial gain of a particular

harvest method. This field in particular suffered from excess moisture and certain areas

contained high weed populations and variable maturity. Though not optimal for

production, this allowed the operator to understand how each harvest method would

perform under sub-optimal conditions.

Treatment Losses (bu/ac) $/ac

Reglone 1.9 $20.68

Heat & Glyphosate 2.8 $30.91

Naturally Ripened 1.5 $16.28

Swathing 1.1 $11.99

of 47

5.6.1 Reglone

The ability to control the timing of harvest with Reglone was a large benefit of this

treatment. The farm experienced optimal weather (warm and sunny) between spraying

and harvest, which likely had a role to play in the rapid dry down. The ability of the

combine to thresh was the limiting factor in ground speed, as the header was able to cut

and gather the crop smoothly and consistently at a fairly constant speed. Ground speed

recorded for this treatment was statistically faster than swathed or naturally ripened

treatments. There was minimal green in the plant stand (Figure 15). The operator

experience during harvest was positive with a high likelihood of repetition based on the

experience. Crop in this treatment appeared to be less susceptible to lodging and left

greater stubble integrity for seeding into than other straight cut treatments.

Figure 15. Post-harvest view of a Reglone treatment

5.6.2 Heat & Glyphosate

The time to harvest from product application to harvest was three weeks, though

conditions between spraying and harvest were not optimal as the field received

approximately 15.6 mm of rain during this period. It is unknown how much earlier the

field could have been cut under optimal weather conditions.

The operating experience was similar to harvest of the Reglone trials with smooth and

consistent feeding at a fairly constant speed. The limiting factor was the ability of the

combine to process the material, and the header had no cutting issues. Of particular

note was the lack of green undergrowth after cutting, indicating that the glyphosate was

effective in controlling weeds (Figure 16), particularly compared to the swathed

treatment seen in the right of the photo. The operator experience during harvest was

positive with a high likelihood of repetition based on the experience.

This treatment appeared to leave little plant matter integrity, which resulted in finer chaff

of 47

exiting the combine. This caused more dust and product to go through the tailings

elevator, sometimes requiring ground speed to be decreased until sufficient tailings had

been emptied. Combine settings may be altered to allow for increased capacity in this

respect. Crop in this treatment appeared to be more susceptible to lodging than other

straight cut treatments.

Figure 16. Post-harvest view of a Heat & glyphosate treatment with swathed treatment

visible on the right

5.6.3 Natural Ripening

The naturally ripened trials were ready for harvest at the same time as the Heat &

glyphosate treatments and may have been ready earlier under optimal weather

conditions. This treatment required the least maintenance with no additional spraying

costs, and therefore provided a significant cost savings compared to other straight cut

treatments. However, the harvest operation was difficult due the high amount of green

matter in the plant stand. Low, wet areas with higher weed populations were of particular

difficulty and plugging occurred sufficiently to warrant frustration on the part of the

operator. Ground speed was statisically slower than harvest of Reglone treatments, and

overall time was likely slower as ground speed data collected in this trial does not

consider time spent stationary or delays due to plugging. There were also some delays

due to overfilling of the tailings elevator in these treatments.

A high amount of green undergrowth was visible after harvest, seen in Figure 17.

of 47

Figure 17. Post-harvest view of a naturally ripened treatment

5.6.4 Swathing

Swathed treatments were ready to harvest on the same day as the Reglone treatments

(September 1), but were delayed for two week due to precipitation. Swathing is a

comfortable harvest practice, as Manitoba producers are generally familiar with it and

timing between swathing and harvest is fairly consistent.

Harvest of swathed treatments was similar to that of naturally ripened treatments and

statistically slower than Reglone treatments. However, data used to determine average

ground speed was collected only during combine operation and does not include time

spent stationary or delays due to plugging. Harvest speed was more inconsistent due to

field variability, requiring greater operator attention. Several episodes of plugging

occurred, slowing operations. The overall harvest was also extended over a longer

period based on the fact that smaller widths were harvest with every pass. Remaining

undergrowth after the combine pass was minimal (Figure 18), but a significant number

of canola seedlings were visible under the swath bed.

of 47

‘

Figure 18. Post-harvest view of a swathed treatment

of 47

6. Discussions and Conclusions

This project compared the efficacy of straight-cutting canola practices (Reglone, Heat &

glyphosate application, natural ripening) with traditional swathing to understand

differences in harvest efficiencies, seed characteristics, and overall economic benefit.

The following calculations are presented based on measured operational parameters

measured, and do not include the cost of harvest losses. Production costs of Reglone

and Heat & glyphosate treatments on a per acre bases was found to cost $17.17 and

$21.83 more than swathing (respectively), while natural ripening was found to cost $4.87

less. These numbers do not take into account threshing losses, or losses due to shatter

while standing. Other potential factors that may play into cost include ability to control

harvest timing and dry down, and ease of harvest.

Threshing losses followed increases and decreases in combine productivity (bu/hr),

indicating that they are likely not inherent to the treatment but related to the amount of

material passing through the combine. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that

threshing losses are proportional to combine throughput and that there is likely no

difference in threshing losses due to harvest method chosen. This being said, the

harvest method that offers maximum productivity likely carries with it the greatest risk of

threshing losses.

It is interesting that there was no difference between seed characteristics of straight cut

and swathed treatments. Larger seed size and greater oil content is generally thought to

be one of the benefits of straight cutting as opposed to swathing. However, this did not

hold true in this study.

Statistical analysis reveals low variation between replications, indicating replication had

no significant effect on any of the measured parameters. Maximum or moderate speed

also appeared to have no result, indicating that a greater difference between maximum

speed and moderate speed may be necessary to understand the effects of ground

speed on the measured parameters.

Results from this project show that there are significant gains to be had if different

harvest methods are employed. Straight cut treatments with harvest aids had a higher

cost of production, but the benefits of timeliness, or ease of harvest may provide

sufficient benefit to warrant this cost for certain operations. Similarly, situations where

control of timing is less of a concern, swathing or natural ripening harvest may prove to

be the most economical.

of 47

7. References

Canola Council of Canada. (2015, September 1). Harvest Management. (Canola Council of

Canada) Retrieved May 30, 2016, from Canola Encyclopedia:

http://www.canolacouncil.org/canola-encyclopedia/managing-harvest/harvest-

management/#chemical-desiccation-and-pod-sealants

Canola Watch. (2015). Does Straight Cut Canola Require a Dry Down Product. (Canola Watch)

Retrieved May 30, 2016, from http://www.canolawatch.org/2011/08/04/harvest-aids-for-

uneven-crops/

Holsapfel, C. (2014). Straight-Combining Canola- What do we know, what's missing?

Kindersley, Saskatchewan, Canada: Indian Head Agricultral Research Foundation.

Retrieved May 30, 2016, from

http://www.saskcanola.com/quadrant/media/news/pdfs/2014/Holzapfel_March_7.pdf

John Deere. (n.d.). New W 155 Windrower. Retrieved from Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a86kmZypehA

Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute. (2013, September 13). Farm Machinery Custom and

Rental Rate Guide. (Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute) Retrieved November 18,

2016, from http://pami.ca/2013/09/farm-machinery-custom-and-rental-rate-guide/

Straight Cutting Canola. (2015). BASF. Retrieved May 30, 2016, from

https://agro.basf.ca/weedmanagement/heatlq/files/2015_Heat_LQ_Straight_Cutting_Can

ola_Best_Practices.pdf

of 47

Appendix A

Equipment

Figure A- 1. MacDon 40' draper header and John Deere S690 combine

Figure A- 2. John Deere W150 windrower with a 35’ John Deere 4350D header (John Deere)

of 47

Figure A- 3. Macdon 40' draper header P- auger

of 47

Appendix B

Harvest Weather Data

Table B- 1. Harvest Weather Data

Date

WSmax (km/h)

WSavg

(km/h) Tavg

(oC)

TMax

(oC)

TMin

(oC)

PPT (mm)

GDD

1-

May 25.9 5.3 9.2 20 -1.6 0 4.2

2-

May 40.2 9.6 13.6 21.7 5.4 0 12.8

3-

May 57.9 21.5 9.1 13.2 4.9 0 16.9

4-

May 31.2 9.7 10.4 20.4 0.3 0 22.3

5-

May 41.0 15.8 22.4 34.7 10 0 39.7

6-

May 54.2 19.1 13.2 21.2 5.1 0 47.9

7-

May 52.3 12.4 11.1 19.9 2.3 0 54

8-

May 34.5 13.2 17.2 25.9 8.4 0 66.2

9-

May 46.6 18.4 17.8 26.1 9.5 0 79

10-

May 30.9 12.3 13.7 17.1 10.2 4.3 87.7

11-

May 35.4 14.8 11.9 14 9.8 1.6 94.6

12-

May 43.1 18.1 6.4 10.6 2.1 0 96

13-

May 54.4 24.3 0.9 2.8 -1.1 0 96

14-

May 53.1 15.1 4 10.8 -2.9 0 96

15-

May 31.6 10.8 7 12 1.9 0.9 98

16-

May 37.2 11.3 7.1 15.4 -1.2 0 100.1

17-

May 37.0 7.3 11.3 22.6 -0.1 0 106.4

18-

May 48.2 20.7 16 25.3 6.7 0 117.4

19-

May 53.4 22.3 19.4 27.6 11.2 0 131.8

20-

May 40.1 12.7 19.2 27.4 11 0 146

21-

May 48.0 14.4 17.7 28.3 7 0 158.7

22-

May 61.9 24.1 20.6 26.8 14.3 0 174.3

23-

May 62.7 11.4 20.1 25.9 14.3 31.4 189.4

24-

May 30.6 7.9 16.1 22.1 10 0.2 200.5

25-

May 43.6 11.5 17 25.9 8.1 8.4 212.5

26-

May 45.3 12.5 14.5 16 12.9 13.2 222

27-

May 38.0 11.5 16.5 19.8 13.1 1.1 233.5

28-

May 32.5 14.4 15.2 17.6 12.7 0.5 243.7

29-

May 21.2 8.5 14.9 19.2 10.6 0 253.6

30-

May 29.6 9.3 15.7 24.7 6.7 0 264.3

31-

May 47.3 21.2 13.3 15.9 10.7 15.5 272.6

1-

Jun 40.3 16.6 10.7 11.6 9.8 15.6 278.3

2-

Jun 22.0 8.2 13.4 19.6 7.1 0 286.7

3-

Jun 26.6 12.3 14.1 17.7 10.5 1.2 295.8

4-

Jun 37.8 9.0 16.9 21 12.8 1.6 307.7

5-

Jun 59.7 18.9 16.6 22.5 10.6 0 319.3

of 47

6-

Jun 47.5 21.5 14.4 18.1 10.6 0 328.7

7-

Jun 32.4 10.3 11.4 17.3 5.4 0 335.1

8-

Jun 31.3 14.4 15.9 22.8 9 0.6 346

9-

Jun 43.4 15.6 20.9 29.6 12.2 37 361.9

10-

Jun 42.4 17.2 23 29.3 16.7 4 379.9

11-

Jun 44.2 17.8 14.1 18.1 10.1 0 389

12-

Jun 55.5 13.3 14.5 17 11.9 9.2 398.5

13-

Jun 29.5 8.1 19.3 28.1 10.5 0 412.8

14-

Jun 33.8 10.4 18.9 25 12.8 0 426.7

15-

Jun 27.1 10.3 19 23.7 14.3 0 440.7

16-

Jun 40.9 13.0 18.2 24.5 11.8 0 453.9

17-

Jun 36.6 9.4 21.9 25.7 18 9.3 470.8

18-

Jun 28.4 9.9 19.1 25.9 12.3 0 484.9

19-

Jun 73.6 18.3 21.1 26.4 15.8 27.7 501

20-

Jun 50.9 19.2 16.5 21.4 11.5 0 512.5

21-

Jun 35.3 10.6 15.5 20.2 10.7 0 523

22-

Jun 15.9 5.7 16.1 22.1 10.1 0 534.1

23-

Jun 34.0 10.7 19.3 26.5 12.1 0 548.4

24-

Jun 34.9 13.3 20.7 27.8 13.5 0.2 564.1

25-

Jun 43.8 19.7 20.9 26 15.8 44.6 580

26-

Jun 51.9 22.4 14.9 18.4 11.3 5.6 589.9

27-

Jun 37.0 9.8 15.5 21.6 9.4 0 600.4

28-

Jun 32.4 11.7 17.6 24.9 10.3 0 613

29-

Jun 36.4 13.6 20 24.1 15.8 1.9 628

30-

Jun 37.9 14.8 13.9 18.3 9.5 0 636.9

1-

Jul 21.2 4.9 14.5 24 5 0.1 646.4

2-

Jul 22.1 6.6 17.9 26 9.8 0 659.3

3-

Jul 27.3 10.0 18.8 23.9 13.7 4 673.1

4-

Jul 49.5 12.1 22.7 29.5 15.8 24.8 690.8

5-

Jul 36.9 7.4 18.5 24.3 12.7 6.8 704.3

6-

Jul 27.9 9.0 17.2 21.8 12.5 0.5 716.5

7-

Jul 21.3 7.7 16.4 21.6 11.2 0 727.9

8-

Jul 26.7 8.3 18.8 24.3 13.2 0 741.7

9-

Jul 22.7 7.6 18.5 25.4 11.6 3 755.2

10-

Jul 28.9 10.0 22.2 27.9 16.4 0 772.4

11-

Jul 43.2 11.2 22.4 26 18.7 0 789.8

12-

Jul 55.0 20.3 19.6 22.9 16.3 12.9 804.4

13-

Jul 51.1 21.2 18.1 21.6 14.6 20.2 817.5

14-

Jul 38.1 15.4 17.1 21.7 12.4 0.5 829.6

15-

Jul 17.7 4.6 16.6 24.5 8.6 0 841.2

16-

Jul 40.0 9.2 18.1 26.2 10 0.3 854.3

17-

Jul 36.7 10.1 16.8 22.8 10.8 2.4 866.1

18-

Jul 19.3 5.4 16.6 25.1 8.1 0 877.7

19-

Jul 39.2 11.2 20.9 28.6 13.1 0 893.6

of 47

20-

Jul 115.0 14.2 25.9 33.2 18.5 29.5 914.5

21-

Jul 39.2 14.4 22.3 28.4 16.1 0 931.8

22-

Jul 33.4 10.7 20.8 27.1 14.5 0 947.6

23-

Jul 37.5 11.5 19.4 24.1 14.6 5.6 962

24-

Jul 52.7 15.3 19.2 23.3 15.1 4.7 976.2

25-

Jul 27.6 8.4 20.7 27.9 13.4 0 991.9

26-

Jul 29.8 9.4 19.8 25.2 14.4 0.3

1006.7

27-

Jul 33.1 11.8 16.4 21.7 11 0

1018.1

28-

Jul 17.4 3.1 16.2 24.9 7.4 0.2

1029.3

29-

Jul 24.3 7.0 18.5 26.9 10.1 0

1042.8

30-

Jul 40.1 12.5 20.3 28.6 11.9 0.2

1058.1

31-

Jul 43.7 18.3 24 30 18 0

1077.1

1-

Aug 38.2 13.5 21.7 26.1 17.3 28

1093.8

2-

Aug 40.4 14.0 21.1 27.4 14.7 0

1109.9

3-

Aug 54.9 11.6 21.4 30 12.8 3.6

1126.3

4-

Aug 52.8 18.1 18.7 21.4 15.9 0.2 1140

5-

Aug 43.9 11.0 17.8 22.9 12.6 0.8

1152.8

6-

Aug 20.9 5.4 18.2 25.5 10.9 0 1166

7-

Aug 20.4 6.0 18.6 27.3 9.8 0.1

1179.6

8-

Aug 55.7 20.3 22.2 28 16.3 0

1196.8

9-

Aug 42.4 17.2 16.9 22.7 11 0

1208.7

10-

Aug 29.3 9.9 17.7 26.4 8.9 0

1221.4

11-

Aug 38.7 9.7 22.2 29.4 14.9 0

1238.6

12-

Aug 36.8 8.2 18.5 23.8 13.1 1.1

1252.1

13-

Aug 32.6 10.8 18.4 23.5 13.2 0

1265.5

14-

Aug 27.9 7.9 19.1 29.1 9 0

1279.6

15-

Aug 40.1 7.2 21.8 29 14.6 2.8

1296.4

16-

Aug 34.6 6.9 20.6 28.2 13 12.3 1312

17-

Aug 63.0 7.5 21.7 30.6 12.7 27.2

1328.7

18-

Aug 48.1 12.0 20.5 26.1 14.8 2.9

1344.2

19-

Aug 33.5 9.8 16.7 22.2 11.2 4.1

1355.9

20-

Aug 38.1 11.6 14.9 19.5 10.2 4.6

1365.8

21-

Aug 28.2 9.6 14.9 22.6 7.1 0.7

1375.7

22-

Aug 32.9 14.7 22.9 31.1 14.7 0

1393.6

23-

Aug 35.2 11.8 22.3 27.2 17.4 0.4

1410.9

24-

Aug 32.1 12.1 19.5 24.1 14.8 0

1425.4

25-

Aug 33.3 11.6 15.7 20.8 10.5 2.5

1436.1

26-

Aug 37.5 11.2 17.1 26 8.1 0

1448.2

27-

Aug 40.6 16.8 17.2 23.4 11 0

1460.4

28-

Aug 45.4 14.7 20.5 29.7 11.2 0

1475.9

29-

Aug 34.4 11.6 16.4 22.3 10.5 2.1

1487.3

30-

Aug 28.9 7.2 15.5 23.7 7.3 0

1497.8

31-

Aug 25.2 7.3 14.9 19.2 10.5 0

1507.7

1-

Sep 41.9 16.6 17.8 26.2 9.4 0

1520.5

of 47

2-

Sep 57.6 27.2 21.3 27.1 15.5 0

1536.8

3-

Sep 46.9 22.0 22.8 27.1 18.4 3.9

1554.6

4-

Sep 17.1 5.6 16.7 18.9 14.5 7.7

1566.3

5-

Sep 32.9 11.2 16.8 19.8 13.7 0

1578.1

6-

Sep 27.8 7.6 13.6 18.4 8.7 0

1586.7

7-

Sep 24.7 7.3 13.8 20.6 6.9 3.7

1595.5

8-

Sep 43.1 14.4 17.4 23.1 11.7 0

1607.9

9-

Sep 30.3 9.5 13.4 19.2 7.5 0

1616.3

10-

Sep 32.7 8.1 12.6 20 5.1 0

1623.9

11-

Sep 31.5 13.5 18.1 23.4 12.7 0.3 1637

12-

Sep 35.3 14.5 11.3 15 7.6 0

1643.3

13-

Sep 25.0 10.2 8.1 12.9 3.3 0

1646.4

14-

Sep 37.3 16.5 11.1 20.5 1.7 0

1652.5

15-

Sep 28.9 11.8 15.8 23.5 8.1 0

1663.3

16-

Sep 38.1 13.3 14.5 17.7 11.2 2.9

1672.8

17-

Sep 25.1 8.6 14.1 21.6 6.6 0

1681.9

18-

Sep 55.7 17.9 18 23.1 12.9 0.4

1694.9

19-

Sep 61.6 23.4 15.3 20.6 9.9 0.4

1705.2

20-

Sep 38.8 11.3 13.7 20.8 6.5 0

1713.9

21-

Sep 17.7 5.0 11 15.5 6.5 0

1719.9

22-

Sep 30.0 7.5 10.1 18.4 1.8 0 1725

23-

Sep 37.2 15.0 12.2 19.7 4.6 0

1732.2

24-

Sep 35.7 18.9 15.7 18.7 12.6 13.3

1742.9

25-

Sep 50.2 20.7 14.8 18.6 11 7.9

1752.7

26-

Sep 59.1 26.5 11.3 13.8 8.7 0 1759

27-

Sep 44.2 16.2 8.1 11.3 4.9 0

1762.1

28-

Sep 15.0 3.5 9.3 17.5 1 0

1766.4

29-

Sep 32.9 11.1 11.1 19 3.1 0

1772.5

30-

Sep 38.7 15.4 13.6 20.6 6.6 0

1781.1

Source: Manitoba Agriculture Weather

Conditions and Reports, Selkirk MB

(http://tgs.gov.mb.ca/climate/DailyReport.aspx)

of 47

Figure B- 1. Weather data for 2016 growing season

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

GD

D

oC

, mm

Weather Data, May 1-Sept 30

GDD Average Temperature (°C) Precipitation (mm) Max Wind Speed (km/h) Avg Wind Speed (km/h)

of 47

Appendix C

Cost Assumptions and Further Detail

Table C- 1. Custom Equipment Rates (Taken from PAMI Online Calculator) (Prairie Agricultural Machinery

Institute, 2013)

Custom Equipment Rates (Taken from PAMI Online Calculator) $/ac

Class 9 (462+ hp) ) rotary custom combine 82.61 L/hr, 17.79 ac/hr (Reglone) $24.74

Class 9 (462+ hp) ) rotary custom combine 79.43 L/hr, 17.31 ac/hr (H & G) $25.20

Class 9 (462+ hp) ) rotary custom combine 75.21 L/hr, 15.13 ac/hr (Naturally Ripened) $28.50

Class 9 (462+ hp) rotary custom combine 64.56 L/hr, 15.13 ac/hr (swathed) $25.45

35-40' Self-propelled swather (5mph) $7.92

Table C- 2. Assumed fixed costs

Parameter Cost Units

Fuel $1.05 /L

Labour Rate $20.00 /h

Canola Price $11.00 /bu

Table C- 3. Chemical application cost based on manufacturer’s recommendations

Suggested retail price (per case)

Volume per jug

(L)

Application rate (low,

L/ha)

Application Rate (high,

L/ha)

Application rate (low,

L/ac)

Application Rate (high,

L/ac)

$/ac (low)

$/ac (high)

Reglone $248 10 1.25 1.7 0.506 0.688 $12.55 $17

Heat LQ $446 1.73 0.106 0.146 0.043 0.059 $11.06 $15

Glyphosate $69 10 2.5 2.5 1.012 1.012 $6.98 $7

Heat & Glyphosate $18 $22

Note: Heat and glyphosate rates are based on BASF recommendations for dual use in canola desiccation

of 47

Appendix D

BASF Heat LQ Product Recommendations

of 47

Appendix E

Syngenta Reglone Product Recommendations

of 47

Appendix F

Plot Layout

Figure F- 1. Layout of one field replication

of 47

Figure F- 2. Aerial view of one treatment layout (Heat & glyphosate).

Photo credit: Vince Krochak/Dale Hildebrand, Kenna

Saskatchewan Operations Manitoba Operations Corporate Services Box 1150 Box 1060 Box 1150 2215 – 8

th Avenue 390 River Road 2215 – 8

th Avenue

Humboldt, SK S0K 2A0 Portage la Prairie, MB R1N 3C5 Humboldt, SK S0K 2A0 1-800-567-7264 1-800-561-8378 1-800-567-7264

For further information with regards to this report, please contact: Avery Simundsson ([email protected])

research report - pamipami.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/research_report... · 2020. 8. 8. ·...

Documents