It’s always blamed on excessive nitrogen causing excessive growth. Many growers in such wet seasons try various growth regulators, often with little or no effect, hoping to prevent crop lodging.

Let’s get to the real reason why wheat lodges in wet or rainy seasons.

Soils most prone to wheat lodging in wet seasons are:

• sandy,
• sandy/loam,
• sandy/high organic matter,
• heavy in cattle manure applications, and/or
• silt soils along old river courses.

What do these soils have in common? They’re usually very low in available copper in the top six to eight inches, often of the order of 0.2 to 0.5 parts per million (ppm).

Testing, treating for soil copper

Potato growers favour sandy, silty soils. They’re the best soil types for clean, mud-free potato production.

What do potato growers do when they rent such sandy fields from neighbouring grain growers? They perform extensive soil tests — not only for macronutrients, but for micronutrients as well. They may add several pounds of manganese, zinc, copper and boron if necessary per acre. If copper levels are low (below one ppm) in sandy soils, potato growers will add three pounds of copper (12 pounds of bluestone) per acre to bring the copper level up to two ppm.

What happens when farmers plant a wheat crop following potatoes in the rotation? They usually brag about the big jump in wheat yield. They ascribe the yield increase to leftover nitrogen or phosphate from the potato crop. I do not agree.

I live in an area of many potato growers and lots of sandy cropland. I am pretty convinced the jump in the wheat yield following a potato crop is due to copper. To further prove my point, I will show what happened to two adjacent wheat quarters I followed in 2025 on the east and west side of Range Road 272 to the west of Edmonton.

I selected two fields sown to wheat. Both were sandy loam soil types seeded in late April. Both fields looked good in June and were headed out in early July. During late June, July and early August, the wheat field areas got around one inch of rain almost once a week, to a total of eight or more inches. All crops in the area looked good. In sandy soil, an inch of rain may move eight to 10 inches down, but not much deeper.

The field to the west had grown potatoes the year previously. The field to the east, to my knowledge, had never grown potatoes. By late August, the west field looked to be in excellent shape. I estimated an 80-plus bushel crop of possibly No. 1 or No. 2 wheat.

The field to the east, meanwhile, was very badly lodged and the crop itself was perhaps 10 days to two weeks behind in maturity. My simple diagnosis is that the field to the west had adequate soil copper reserves, whereas the soil to the east was copper-starved or deficient.

Copper’s function in production

There’s also the matter of disease. In the same wet weather, lodging can be accompanied by significant ergot infection of the grain heads, particularly in wheat and sometimes in barley.

Copper is essential for pollen fertility and for ergot prevention.

Two — yes, two — copper-based enzymes are needed for lignin biosynthesis that results in stem strength. Lignin is the “rod” that holds up the wheat stem, according to Horst Marschner’s book, Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants.

Farmers have been removing crops from Prairie cropland for 100 to 150 years or more. As they deplete macronutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphate, potash and sulphur, they have soil tested and replaced them. What about the micronutrients every crop or cow also removes? Production draws down on micronutrient reserves. Can farmers accept that, in many soil types, their copper or perhaps zinc or manganese is critically low?

Minnesota potato grower recommendations state that for soils not in vegetable production within two years or where micronutrients are known to be low, farmers should put down five pounds an acre of manganese, three of zinc, four of iron, three of copper and 1.5 of boron.

“Use soil testing to monitor micronutrient status every two years to avoid micronutrient toxicity, because some micronutrients can build up in the soil,” the resource warns.

Now that you know you have been draining on-soil micronutrient reserves in grams per year as you harvest your crops, you must replace these missing reserves.

Most unfarmed sandy soils have one to two pounds of copper available in the top six inches of soil per acre and about two to three pounds of zinc. A 60-bushel crop of wheat will remove up to half an ounce of copper. How many cereal crops can you take off your cropland before you deplete your micronutrient reserves in your topsoil?

Livestock’s leavings and lodging

A common way to lodge a cereal crop is to place 15 to 25 tons of cattle manure onto sandy soil in particular. What usually happens, and I have heard it repeated many times, is that the cereal crop — especially wheat — has taken up too much nitrogen. I disagree.

The carbon:nitrogen ratio of such manure is about 30:1. Wheat straw is about 80:1. Thus, when manure is applied to cropland, it has a severe deficiency of nitrogen.

What really happens is that cropland soil per gram or ounce has billions of microorganisms such as fungi and bacteria. These microorganisms seize on the limited nitrogen, as well as other nutrients in the soil (potassium, phosphorus and sulphur) and including micronutrients such as boron, copper, zinc and manganese. The real cause of the lodging is the fact that the micronutrients take up the limited soil copper, depriving the wheat plants. Copper enzymes being essential for wheat stem strength, the result is crop lodging.

If you manure sandy soil, in particular, and your soil copper level is below 0.5 ppm, you must add copper to prevent lodging at around five lb. an acre (20 pounds of bluestone) and up your nitrogen (depending on existing soil nitrogen) by 60 to 100 pounds per acre.

I examined a sandy field of wheat in the Camrose, Alta., area that went 20 bushels an acre after a very heavy application of manure. The next year, the farmer applied, with a Valmar spreader, about four pounds of copper per acre (16 pounds of bluestone), drilled in some 60 pounds of nitrogen and seeded again to wheat. With the added copper and nitrogen, the field went 70 bushels an acre of No. 2 wheat.

Cereal growers must think like potato growers. Give the crop the optimum macro- and micronutrients in order to get an optimum target yield for your area.

The post Cereal lodging isn’t just a nitrogen problem appeared first on Grainews.

However, in recent years, new products have claimed to provide micronutrients and are being marketed to producers who want a boost.

These products and claims were the motivation for a SaskOilseeds-funded project investigating micronutrients, looking specifically at boron, copper and zinc within canola crops.

Kaeley Kindrachuk, a canola extension specialist with SaskOilseeds presented the ongoing trial at the Northeast Agriculture Reseach Foundation (NARF) field day in mid-July in Melfort, Sask.

“We wanted to look at whether or not micronutrients increase yield,” said Kindrachuk.

WHY IT MATTERS: Micronutrients have gained more attention as research hones in on their role in plant development and new technology makes analysis more applicable and accessible for farmers.

“But we really wanted to demonstrate the yield and quality response of canola to in-furrow and foliar applications of different micronutrients in different parts of the province.”

NARF is one of five trial sites across Saskatchewan, with others at research farms near Scott, Swift Current, Redvers and Indian Head.

The researchers hope the variety of locations will help them compare results in different soil conditions becauses micronutrients could be deficient in sandy soils, high organic matter soils and soils with high pH.

Boron is important for plant metabolism and pollen production, and has been the most researched micronutrient in canola.

Copper has also been well researched, and it’s suggested that if soil has low copper, polyps will form on the roots. It’s also been noted that copper can have a positive effect on yield, but only when the soil was showing deficiency and if there was manganese present in the soil.

However, when it comes to zinc, very little research has been done.

Kindrachuk said that while it’s uncommon to see a zinc deficiency in canola, if a soil’s pH is high and there have been high rates of phosphorous applied over the years, these two factors could inhibt zinc “translocation.”

The Melfort site is low in boron, while Indian Head is low in zinc and Swift Current is low in zinc and boron.

The study uses seven treatments: a control plot, in-furrow application of each micronutrient and a foliar application of each.

Kindrachuk said the plot had filled in well and was looking good following the rain that the area had recently received.

Key results of the first year will be analyzed in late winter or early spring.

The post Micronutrient applications compared in canola appeared first on Grainews.

Early on in the 1970s with Alberta Agriculture, my colleagues and I were very surprised with the answers to the soil testing questions we asked. A large random number of growers replied to our questions and only around 10 per cent actually had their cropland tested for soil nutrients. In those early days it seems nitrogen (N) was really considered, phosphate (P) was sometimes looked at, and both sulphur (S) and potash (K) were essentially considered plentiful and ignored. A couple of scientists in Alberta sounded the alarm on sulphur, pointing out soil deficiencies of this nutrient in both Alberta and Saskatchewan. 

In my canola crop surveys, especially on sandy or sandy loam soils, we found lots of sulphur-deficient canola crops. I was told by several soil scientists they had never recommended sulphur. They seemed to assume the sulphur pollution in Eastern Canada, Ontario in particular, applied to the west. The real answer was that in previous years in the 1960s on the Prairies, the usual nitrogen source was ammonium sulphate or ammonium phosphate, both with high S contents at 24 and 14 per cent respectively. In the early ’70s, these products were replaced by urea and ammonia as nitrogen sources, with no thought of the S requirements of all field crops, particularly canola. In Ontario in the ’70s, it was not unusual to have 30 to 50 lbs. of S fall per acre in the industrial south, whereas on the Prairies less than two pounds per acre could be expected from aerial pollution annually. Pretty soon sulphur became a key nutrient Prairie-wide. 

A similar situation occurred with potash, especially in hay production. It was pointed out to producers that a four-ton crop of alfalfa could remove 175 lbs. of K per acre. In addition, the sale of baled cereal straw would remove 60-70 lbs. of potash per acre. 

Soon it became obvious crop production on the originally fertile Prairies was removing major crop nutrients at an alarming rate. 

In recent years (2022), according to Fertilizer Canada’s use survey, over 40 per cent of Prairie farmers sampled each canola and wheat field. The Canola Council of Canada states 40 per cent of its survey respondents test each field each year. Just over 50 per cent of high-yield growers test for nitrogen every year. 

As crop yields were expected to go higher and higher, the need for crop nutrient replacement became critical. Soils 150 years ago, from Manitoba to the B.C. Peace region, were losing their nutrient-rich organic matter. Soils which, around 1900, were two, five or 10 per cent organic matter were now down to one, two or five per cent organic reserves. Remember: a one per cent soil organic matter per acre, in its top six inches (15 cm), contains 10,000 lbs. of carbon, 1,000 lbs. of nitrogen, 100 lbs. of phosphate, 100 lbs. of sulphur and one per cent or less of boron. Soil organic matter slowly releases its nutrients — that is, its “black matter,” not to be confused with crop residues. A 10 per cent soil organic matter would release 70 to 90 lbs. of nitrogen under normal Prairie growing conditions when cultivated annually, along with P, S and boron. A one per cent soil organic matter, on the other hand, would only release seven to 10 lbs. of nitrogen, along with very small amounts of P, S and boron. 

In other words, if you do not replace these nutrients with the recommended amounts of N, P, K and S after an appropriate soil test, you cannot set a target yield. One pound of N is one pound of N, whether it’s applied as urea or some expensive N product. 

All of the fertilizer chemicals we apply are usually in the form of concentrated plant nutrients. They are not “synthetic” — they are just concentrated from nature for convenience. Organic N, P, K and S are factually the same as “chemical” N, P, K and S. So, if your target yield for wheat is 60 bu./ac. and you need 100 lbs. of additional N following a soil test, it doesn’t matter whether the N is in chemical or an organic form (poultry manure), it has to have 100 lbs. of available N per acre. 

To clarify this, read the fact sheet “Minerals for plant, animals and man” to understand soil testing and crop nutrients needed for target yields from alfalfa to wheat. 

Micronutrients 

Now that I’ve dealt with those four macronutrients, N, P, K and S, let’s also include calcium (Ca) or magnesium (Mg) on that list, since they are rarely if ever a nutrient problem. The exceptions for Ca and Mg are when soils are very acidic — that is, pH below 5. I will deal with both at a later time, since alfalfa should not be grown on soils below pH 6, and wheat, to optimize yield, should be grown on soils above 5.5. 

Now take a long look at the plant and animal importance of micronutrients on the Alberta fact sheet I referred to earlier, which for a while was the most requested publication in Western Canada. 

Copper and zinc 

There seems to be an attitude, among more than a few agronomists, that talking about micronutrients is “unmacho” and those are unimportant in Prairie agriculture. How wrong can they be? You can have all of the N, P, K and S for a target yield, but if a micronutrient is missing or deficient, your expected yield could crash, resulting in low-yielding sample grain. This is well documented for copper (Cu) or zinc (Zn) deficiency, especially in wet growing seasons. Zinc deficiency may occur on beans but is much more common on corn. For example, a 100-bushel crop of corn will remove around 1 ½ ounces of zinc. A 60-bushel crop of wheat will remove almost half an ounce of copper. Every crop grown will remove both these micronutrients, so after 100 years of crop production, you will have removed perhaps 100 ounces of zinc (six pounds) and 50 ounces of copper (three pounds actual copper). The lighter sandy Prairie soils likely only had five to six pounds of zinc and maybe three to four pounds of copper in the top six inches of soil. Do the math. 

There may be more zinc and copper deeper down, but that may be unavailable in wet growing years due to shallow crop rooting. Heavier clay and clay loam soils may contain higher levels of both Zn and Cu, but still the amount left in the soil can become crop-limiting. 

Iron and manganese 

Iron (Fe) is seldom limiting due to its abundance in most soils, but at very high pH levels (pH around 8) it may become unavailable to crops such as soybeans or corn. 

Manganese (Mn) is very similar in behaviour to iron at high soil pH and especially under dry soil conditions. In southwestern Alberta in dry springs, it’s not uncommon to see manganese deficiency in both wheat and barley that may be corrected after a few inches of rainfall or a foliar application of manganese. 

Molybdenum 

Molybdenum (Mo) is only needed at a few grams an acre but is totally important for the nitrogen metabolism of all crop plants. This micronutrient becomes less available to unavailable at a pH below 5. 

The late Phil Thomas and I solved a canola growing problem for the University of Idaho many years ago. The canola crop refused to grow past the rosette stage in one of its research fields. After very many questions and discussions, we concluded the field with a pH of 7 was devoid of available molybdenum. We were correct: a couple of ounces per acre solved the problem. Researchers in Idaho were able to show up to 25 per cent of the state was low or totally deficient in molybdenum. This could be the case on the Canadian Prairies, but no one has done the work. Crops, especially legumes (peas, alfalfa), will grow very poorly when soil levels of molybdenum are low. 

In alkaline and saline soils, molybdenum levels in hay or forages grazed on such cropland may be high. Such feedstock for cattle can result in molybdenum-induced copper deficiency on molybdosis. Check with an animal nutritionist if you suspect a problem. 

For producers growing crops, especially canola on acidic soils around pH 5, it would be wise to apply a few ounces of molybdenum to the cropland along with the bulk fertilizer or add to the crop seed for very little extra cost, a practice followed by several successful Prairie crop consultants. 

Boron 

We now know very low levels of soil-available boron (B) at around 0.1 part per million (p.p.m.) can result in ergot infection in barley and wheat due to pollen tube failure and very reduced yields. Recommended levels of boron should be in the region of 0.5 to one p.p.m.; that’s one to two pounds of actual boron per acre. Under dry soil conditions, boron is not very mobile, and it is suspected that flowering canola crops may not pick up sufficient boron. As a result of boron deficiency, many canola flowers fail to pollinate properly due to pollen tube failure, resulting in depressed yield. 

Just think: when you harvest any crop, you are removing not only N, P, K and S but all the micronutrients, Mg, Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn and B, on an annual basis. You are depleting your soil reserves and any micronutrient that falls below recommended levels will lower your target yield moderately or severely, depending on any given crop and its nutrient needs.

The post Soil fertility, revisited  appeared first on Grainews.

First of all, if you read my previous articles in Grainews, you will come to the factual opinion that wheat, barley and oats undergo closed pollination — that is, pollination takes place in the unopened flowers. If the flowers of wheat, barley and oats have sufficient copper micronutrients, they will stay closed and will self-fertilize before opening.

The only significant exception is if these closed-pollinated cereals are very deficient in boron. Boron deficiency, usually at less than 0.2 parts per million (p.p.m.) in the topsoil, causes pollen uptake failure and the unpollinated flowers will open. Severe boron deficiency is only known to occur in Eastern Canada, whereas copper deficiency is very common nationally in sandy and organic soils and, in particular, in the Prairies.

Along with rye and triticale, wild and cultivated grasses are open-pollinated and all are susceptible to ergot infection. So what’s the solution? Could we develop closed-pollinated rye? Perhaps in the future.

Meanwhile, what’s the solution to keeping rye free of ergot contamination? At present, some 50 per cent of rye grown in Prairie Canada is from newer hybrids first grown in 2014. The hybrids are said to yield some 20-40 per cent better than the non-hybrid types and are said to be less susceptible to ergot infection. This is due to the shorter pollination time for the open flowers of the hybrids over conventional rye. Once rye flowers are pollinated, they become immune to ergot infection.

Now let’s begin with information I was told some 50 years ago in Ontario and later on in Alberta: rye should be grown on sandy soils or soils high in organic (peat) matter. It was stated that rye did much better on these soils than all other cereals. I did some investigating over the years and found rye had what researchers in Scotland said are copper efficiency genes. In other words, rye was able to grow on soils that were low or deficient in copper and yield much better than wheat.

When you grow wheat and barley in particular on these sandy or organic soils, the deficiency of copper can cause yield losses of 10 to even 100 per cent. This is very true of wet springs and summers that result in shallow rooting where the copper levels are most deficient. Such copper-deficient soils occupy some 30 per cent in Alberta, 10 per cent in Saskatchewan and 15 per cent perhaps in Manitoba. Think: you have grown crops on these fields for 100 years or more, and every crop removes a few grams of copper per acre. You are exhausting the sandy soils in particular, which had low levels of available copper to begin with.

Please, please read “Copper Deficiency: Diagnosis and Correction” (Agdex 532 – 3, Alberta Agriculture Agri-Facts). You’ll get a proper understanding.

So, if you grow rye on these sandy or organic soils because it yields better than other grains, you are growing it in cropland that’s most likely harbouring ergots from previously-grown wheat and barley crops. In other words, these wheat and barley crops infest the soil annually with ergots — then you plant rye.

You are a rye-growing farmer, so what can you do?

• Check your harvested wheat and barley crops for ergot. This means you have some degree of copper deficiency.
• Avoid seeding rye in these fields that have ergots in your wheat, barley or even oats.
• Apply early-boot foliar copper to your wheat, barley and perhaps oat crops to reduce or eliminate copper deficiency and the consequent ergots.
• Remember, when wheat and barley heads are infected with ergots, most of these ergots often fall to the ground before harvest.
• If you have any doubts about the absolute correlation between ergots in wheat and barley and copper deficiency, apply three to five pounds of copper as copper sulphate to about 10-20 acres of cropland. That amount of copper sulphate, 12 – 20 lbs., will be good for 20 years or more if you have copper deficient cropland. (Copper sulphate is 25 per cent copper by weight.)

I get so frustrated with these armchair scientists who pay little or no attention to crop micronutrient needs in Canada. In Ontario they recommend growing winter or spring rye on the now-available sandy cropland that grew tobacco. Were they to add copper to this soil, they could grow wheat, barley or any other cereal crop. In the B.C. Peace region, on the other hand, where they have large acreages of sandy soil, they now pay particular attention to soil copper levels with excellent crop yield results.

Additional factors for ergot-free rye

Most soils on the Canadian Prairies still have fair to good soil copper levels, with six million to seven million acres of copper-deficient cropland.

Obviously, then, one of the answers to get ergot-free rye is to grow the crop in soils with adequate levels of 1.5 to five p.p.m. of available copper in the top six inches (15 cm). Then there will be no ergots on your wheat, barley or oats.

Mow all grasses on crop headlands where you plan to grow a rye crop at least >a year< in advance to eliminate ergot formation on the wild grasses.

Ensure all of your cropland is adequately fertilized with copper. Yes, it’s expensive, but so is yield loss. Copper sulphate is around US$2,400 per tonne or more at present. Connect the dots — at 12 to 20 lbs. per acre, that’s US$12-$20 an acre, or Cdn$18-$30. Expensive. Then compare 40 bushels of sample wheat that could have been 70 bushels of No. 2, then you are talking 30 x $10/bu., or Cdn$300 per acre just for year one. The copper at that rate applied is good for 20 years or so, since it does not leach. It stays in the soil until it’s used up. So, can you do a 10- or 20-acre strip if you have an ergot problem? Go for it.

Ergots in grain for feed should not be more than 0.1 per cent, or one ergot per 1,000 wheat grains — put another way, two to three p.p.m., weight wise. In hog feed, there’s zero tolerance for ergot.

Follow-up facts

I got a call from a B.C. cattleman who lost seven head of cattle due to ergot in cattle feed screening in 2024.

To reiterate: ergot infestation is not due to prolonged flowering and wet soil conditions. It’s due to the shallow rooting of the wheat, barley and oat grains in the most copper-deficient parts of the soil. This leads to pollen sterility due to a lack of copper and open flowering resulting in either a) missing grains, b) cross-pollination from another nearby wheat (or barley or oat) field, or c) an ergot infection.

Get this clearly in your mind, if you as a grower, 1) remove any source of ergot infection due to copper deficiency in wheat, barley or oat, or 2) prevent any headland grasses from heading out, including any on nearby grass pasture, then you have no ergot inoculum (source) near your rye crop.

Copper has no role in ergot infection in rye or triticale, but it’s the key to the primary source. The absolute role that it plays — by its absence — in ergot infection is in closed-pollinated wheat, barley and oat.

This role that this micronutrient has in the world’s cereal crops is slowly sinking in. Yes, you can grow ergot-free rye, or triticale for that matter.

Back in 1999 a colleague and I checked out a field of wheat near Moosomin, Sask. in early August. The field was 90 per cent wheat and about 10 per cent rye. The rye could have been mixed deliberately or volunteer plants from the previous year. I offered a bet of $10 for the first wheat plant with an ergot — none was found after around 40 minutes. At the same time, virtually every rye plant had one to 10 ergots. We did find the odd rye that was ergot-free. Why? The soil likely had good copper levels and all of the wheat heads were able to “closed-pollinate” without a single wheat plant showing any ergot infection.

Until next time: A fact is information without emotion.

A reasoned opinion is information plus experience.

Ignorance is an opinion lacking information.

Stupidity is an opinion that ignores fact.

The post Ergot-free rye production appeared first on Grainews.

For some reason there are agricultural specialists on the Canadian Prairies and in some states who cannot face actual facts. When you have specialists who refer to wheat as a self-pollinated crop and then follow it up with a statement such as “When you have periods of prolonged rainfall that causes the blooms to stay open for longer” — what do they mean? Self-pollinated crops such as wheat, barley and oats, under any normal circumstances, never open their florets prior to seed set.

Rye, on the other hand, has open cross-pollination of the florets, is highly susceptible to ergot infection and can be cross-pollinated by any rye crop that may be growing even up to a mile or more away.

My colleagues and I at Alberta Agriculture solved the problem of ergot in wheat, barley and oats some 30 years ago. It’s a result of copper, copper, copper deficiency. A lack, or deficiency, of copper results in pollen sterility in these three cereals. Wheat is the most susceptible crop, followed by barley and oats. Rye, to repeat, is always open-flowered and susceptible to ergot infection.

Copper is an essential plant and animal nutrient and in higher plants its primary roles are to provide pollen fertility and stem or branch strength. In wheat, barley and oats, as indicated, copper is responsible for pollen fertility and stem strength in the formation of lignin, the wood-like product that gives cereal straw its rigidity and strength.

A deficiency of copper in a growing crop of wheat, barley or oats results in pollen sterility and lignin formation failure, causing crop lodging. Please read this sentence again.

As a consequence of pollen failure, due to copper absence or deficiency, the normally closed flowers of wheat, barley and oats will not stay closed. The pollen sterility or failure causes the normally closed flower to open up.

Four major results occur, especially in wheat:

• The open flowers can become ergot-infected.
• The open flowers can be cross pollinated by stray wheat, barley or oat pollen from nearby cropland.
• The flowers become blanks — that is, no seed or ergot formation.
• Cereal crops lodge badly because there are no copper enzymes to form lignin — that is, the product that gives the straw strength.

Farmers in Alberta who used to look at low yields, ergot infestations and lodged crops, particularly for wheat and barley, benefitted immensely from my colleagues and I solving this copper deficiency problem over 30 years ago.

Yields of wheat in particular that were often lodged, ergot-infested and given sample grades at 30 bushels an acre went 70-80 bushels of No. 2 or No. 1 annually with an absence of any significant lodging and an absence of ergot. Many cereal growers in the Brandon, MacGregor and Swan River areas of Manitoba followed up on the copper research and reported major yield and quality improvements to my colleagues and myself.

In recent years I have known of significant research funding that has been provided to look for ergot resistance in wheat, lodging in wheat and even a recent five-year trial in North Dakota applying fungicides to ergot-prone wheat fields. The results were a total failure in attempting to control the ergot infections.

I keep hearing of provincial funding for the use of products for the control of lodging in wheat, barley and oats. In these trials, presumably on lodge-prone cropland, there is never a mention of soil copper amendments. That blue powder, copper sulphate at 25 per cent copper, at a rate of around 20-40 lbs. of product (five to 10 lbs. actual copper), could well put an end to crop lodging, ergot infection, low-quality wheat and very depressed yields.

Another factor we identified in Alberta was that certain weed control products, in wheat in particular, would induce severe lodging. We attributed this to, and ultimately identified it as, a herbicide-induced copper deficiency.

I published some 14 papers and fact sheets on this copper issue and many more were published by colleagues. Could it be a case of ‘Don’t confuse me with the actual facts since I have my own opinions’? Together with a couple of colleagues I published a chapter entitled Copper and Plant Disease, in the best-selling book ever by the American Phytopathological Society, Mineral Nutrition and Plant Disease.

The only other known factor causing ergot in both barley and wheat was reported and published by a P. Simojoki in Finland in 1981, when he showed severe boron deficiency caused pollen tube failure in barley, resulting in heavy yield loss and ergot infection. This research was confirmed by Dennis Pageau in Quebec in 1990 in barley growing in soil with less than 0.1 p.p.m. of boron. Prairie soils are rarely, if ever, that deficient in boron.

A footnote

I did write a rebuttal letter to the ergot article that appeared in the Aug. 22, 2024 edition of the Producer. In all my very many years working with cereals I did find a few ergot anomalies.

Very hot dry conditions on oats killed the pollen in the unopened grain. A few days of rain and we had oats with ergots on the opened-out flowers.

A late May frost in Ontario damaged some winter wheat just before the boot stage. The frost killed the pollen cells but not the stigmas. The pollen-free wheat with open flowers now got some ergot infection.

If you are an agronomist involved in agriculture or horticulture in Canada, I would strongly advise you to buy a copy of Horst Marschner’s revised 2022 fourth edition of Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. Dr. Ismail Cakmak, a frequent speaker at agronomy meetings in Western Canada, was a major contributor to this revised text.

Japanese wisdom: If it’s not yours, don’t take it. If it’s not right, don’t do it. If it’s not true, don’t say it. If you don’t know, shut up.

Misinformation can hit you hard in the pocketbook.

ALSO: Required reading

To dispel the copper naysayers who inadvertently may be responsible for millions of dollars annually in grain losses, ergot infestations and crop quality, I will list the following references:

• Graham, R.D., 1975. Male sterility in wheat plants deficient in copper. Nature 254: 514-515. This work, done in Australia, showed in cross-pollination experiments the non-viability of copper-deficient pollen and it also showed the continued viability of the ovule. No seed was set from copper-deficient pollen.
• Mantle, P.G. and Swan, D.J., 1995. Effect of male sterility on ergot disease spread in wheat. Plant Pathol. 44: 392-395. Cytoplasmic male-sterile winter wheat grown in England with a limited supply of pollen set over 80 per cent less seed than fertile wheat. Sclerotial mass (ergots) in poorly pollinated male-sterile wheat comprised more that 20 per cent of the threshed grain yield.
• Azourou, Z. and Souvre, A. 1993. Effects of copper deficiency on pollen fertility and nucleic acids in the durum wheat anther. Sex. Plant Reprod. 6: 199-204. This work, done in France, stated that “copper deficiency induced a nearly complete sterility of the pollen formed and inhibited all grain production. In wheat copper deficiency is at the origin of pollen sterility, which results in decreased yields. Boron or molybdenum deficiencies also decrease pollen fertility.”
• Evans, I.R., Huber, D.M. and Solberg, E.D., 2000. Deficiency diseases, pages 295-302 in Encyclopedia of Plant Pathology, Vol. 1. O.C. Meloy and T. D. Murray, eds. Jon Wiley and Sons, New York.
• Copper Deficiency Diagnosis and Correction. 2000, Agdex 532 – 3. Alberta Agriculture website.
• Evans, I.R., Solberg, E.D. and Huber, D.M. Copper and Plant Disease, pages 177-188 in Mineral Nutrition and Plant Disease. Lawrence E. Datnoff, Wade H. Elmer and Don M. Huber, eds. The American Phytopathological Society, second printing, 2009.
• Horst Marschner, 1998. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, Academic Press Inc., San Diego. A92101. The ultimate guru says “Impaired lignification of the cell walls is the most typical change induced by copper deficiency” and “two copper-based enzymes are needed for lignin biosynthesis for stem strength.” The “highest copper content in plants is in the flowers” with “inhibition of pollen release caused by copper deficiency.” “High nitrogen availability can accentuate copper deficiency…” and “foliar application of copper [is needed] for correction of deficiency.”

CORRECTION, Jan. 28, 2025: The print version of this article (Jan. 14, 2025, pgs. 20-21) incorrectly described Dr. Ismail Cakmak as deceased. We regret the error.

The post Let’s close the circuit on what leads to ergot appeared first on Grainews.

Stoller also said peat soils in Alberta, particularly neutral-pH soils prevalent in the Westlock and Barrhead regions, could be farmed if we applied micronutrients, copper in particular.

Following his initiative, an Alberta Agriculture district agriculturalist applied a few ounces of copper sulphate to a fixed footage of a barley crop sown on a flat, fairly dry section of neutral pH peatland. The results in 1981 were dramatic.

I took a photograph that can be seen on page 3 of the fact sheet “Copper deficiency: diagnosis and correction” (Alberta Agriculture, Agdex 532 – 3). Later work on copper nutrition in cereal crops, particularly wheat, was then done on peat soils and sandy/loam soils at Lacombe by Lu Peining and at Edmonton by Alberta Agriculture’s crop protection group. We all got amazing results with copper fertility, particularly on wheat and barley, and we also had to cope with mountains of skepticism, primarily from soil scientists.

Peatlands in Canada cover 12 to 13 per cent of the country’s total land area. This amounts to some 320 million acres. Much of this acreage is wet, shallow or acidic and it accumulates annually at some 60 times the rate that it’s harvested for compost. Despite this, many in the general public seem to think it is a limited resource.

Of those 320 million acres, only about one million are used for agriculture in Prairie Canada and less than a million for grassland. Elsewhere in North America, these black agricultural peat soils are referred to as fenlands, such as the 200,000 acres in Florida’s Everglades and the black peatlands of Ontario’s Bradford (Holland) Marsh.

On the Bradford Marsh, some 7,000 acres are used for horticultural crops — and believe it or not, on page 35 of Ontario’s Agronomy Guide for Field Crops, it states that when these organic soils are brought into production, they must be treated with 12.5 pounds per acre of copper per year for three years.

That means 50 lbs. of bluestone per acre for three years, which is 25 per cent copper. Copper is 25 per cent by weight of copper sulphate. About 230,000 acres of peat soils are cultivated in the Everglades for horticultural crops and sugarcane. These peat or fenland soils are heavily fertilized with copper sulphate on a regular basis.

Here in these tables we see the factual data from a Manitoba Agriculture fact sheet published in March 1990 and written as part of a master’s degree by Ray Dowbenko. It was provided to the Manitoba Peat Growers Association but otherwise hardly saw the light of day.

Across Western Canada there seemed to be a consensus among soil scientists that micronutrient requirements in field crops were fictional. Dowbenko listed wheat, flax and canary seed as the most sensitive field crops to copper deficiency, barley and alfalfa as medium-high, oats and corn as medium and peas, clovers, canola, rye and forage grasses as low.

He found that producers who burned their peat fields in the past could grow good cereal crops. That practice is now forbidden in our Prairie-wide dry cycle. In fact, in Alberta there are dozens of smouldering peat bogs that inevitably fire up in windy dry summers — forest fires in the waiting. That’s a good reason to harvest dry peat bogs.

When Dowbenko did his research in the 1980s, there were three copper fertilizer products available: copper sulphate; EDTA copper chelate; and sequestered copper chelate. Today there are far more copper-based products. Both chelates are liquids and, when mixed with water, can be applied with a herbicide sprayer.

Copper sulphate is somewhat corrosive and should only be applied with a Valmar spreader or similar equipment and incorporated after broadcast. Rates of 10 kg/ha (nine pounds per acre) of actual copper (copper sulphate is 25 per cent copper by weight), translates to 40 kg/ha or 36 lb./ac. of copper sulphate and may be effective for six to eight years.

Table 1 above is taken directly from the Manitoba fact sheet. Note the huge yield differences. Even with the high price of copper, do the math and figure out your cereal yields over eight years.

Table 2 shows the effect of the three kinds of copper, taken as a mean of two barley sites. The foliar application was the least effective at 27 and 39 bushels of barley with either EDTA chelate or sequestered chelate. Soil incorporation was by far the best of all three products.

Table 3 gives the 1989 prices of copper so you will have to substitute those with 2024 prices. Both barley and wheat have risen considerably in price as well.

In 2010, I persuaded a Swan River farmer to apply 25 lbs. of bluestone to a quarter section, at a cost of about $150 an acre. This quarter usually produced around 40 bu./ac. of sample wheat. Following the fall copper application on this 10 per cent organic soil, there was a 70-bushel yield of No. 2 wheat. The cost of the copper application was covered by the increased wheat yield in one season. I estimated the copper application on this quarter was good for at least 10 years.

The original fact sheet is unavailable, but a few years ago I obtained an original copy from Dowbenko. I have since given away hundreds of copies.

The post Peatland farming, the Prairies’ best-kept secret appeared first on Grainews.

Pretty soon, in the ’70s and ’80s, I was involved in controlling sclerotinia disease of canola, blackleg of canola, sulphur deficiency in canola and, later on, fusarium head blight (FHB) in cereals. In conjunction with the late Phil Thomas, the canola specialist, we at Alberta Agriculture ran a number of highly successful disease control programs. The crop protection branch at Alberta Agriculture published fact sheets on these diseases which are still available on the net, essentially fully relevant and currently almost abandoned by Alberta Agriculture.

This story started in the early ’80s, when we had outbreaks of a browning destructive disease of wheat. This distinct browning and a much-reduced yield were initially blamed on a bacterial disease, pseudomonas. This browning disease was most common on Park wheat, especially in wet summers. Dr. Lu Piening, a cereal research scientist at the Lacombe, Alta. federal research station, had a number of discussions with me on his views about this problem. He had previously done research on wheat diseases in the Aberdare mountains of west-central Kenya. In areas where wheat grew poorly, he said, they were treated with Bordeaux mixture — a mix of copper sulphate and slaked lime. This mixture, applied on the wheat seed, gave much better wheat yields than the untreated checks.

In a sandy soil area near Lacombe, Dr. Piening set out plots of wheat, barley and oats on cropland that returned low yields and quality of these cereals, particularly wheat. The plots treated with copper chelate more than doubled the yield of all the wheats, and the browning of the wheat heads and lodging were absent. Some of the barleys and oats also responded very positively.

As a consequence of Dr. Piening’s work Alberta Agriculture’s Edmonton crop science and soil science units actively initiated work on copper deficiency in the Edmonton area on cropland that produced unexpectedly low yields of wheat and barley.

In the meantime, we found that a Dr. Robin Graham and colleagues in Australia had published a full review of copper deficiency in Australia and its occurrence worldwide in 1981. Despite Dr. Graham’s research, Canadian soil scientists, as well as those in the U.S., were for the most part very skeptical of any soil copper deficiency influencing cereal yields. On sandy, peaty and peat soils in general in Alberta, we found huge yield responses to soil or foliar copper amendments, particularly for wheat. Research in Manitoba on peat soils at five separate locations, published in 1990 by agronomist Ray Dowbenko, showed yield increases of 13 bushels of barley to 80 bushels, and at another location from three to 83 bushels per acre. By the late ’90s, Alberta Agriculture published a fact sheet, “Copper Deficiency: Diagnosis and Correction,” and it is fully relevant today.

Farmers who crop land all across the Prairies and south of the border have had incredible yield and quality increase when they have identified copper deficiencies. Unfortunately, we still have many influential skeptics who refuse to even understand this problem.

How does ergot fit into the story?

When we ran field plot trials in the Stony Plain area of Alberta, one of our technologists, Lloyd Davidson, told us that while the check wheat samples in the yield trials had lots of ergots, they were few or absent from the copper-amended wheat plots. We checked all of the harvested grain samples from the copper-treated and equivalent check plots, and sure enough, there were few or no ergots in those wheat trial samples.

Ergot infection as a consequence of copper deficiency was something that the world had missed. Australian, British and French researchers had previously shown copper deficiency caused pollen sterility, but they failed to equate it with ergot infection.

Agriculture Canada and the Western Grains Research Foundation had spent millions of dollars looking for resistance in wheat to ergot. The answer was simply pollen sterility in wheat, barley and oats, brought about by copper deficiency that caused unpollinated female flowers to open and become infected with ergot or, alternatively, stray grain pollen. Ergot in a field of wheat is sure sign of cross-pollination as well, since the flowers are also open to stray viable pollen that can travel for miles.

In Quebec and in Finland (1981), it has been shown that severe boron deficiency can also result in ergot infection in barley and wheat, due to pollen tube failure from a severe lack of boron. Soil boron levels in Quebec were 0.1 parts per million.

As an epilogue, there were no bells and whistles when we proved conclusively the relationship between copper deficiency and ergot infection in wheat, barley and oats. Identifying copper deficiency as a cause of ergot infection had worldwide implications. Just remember the incredible answer came from the Canadian Prairies and the accolades were non-existent.

Consequences of copper deficiency

In spite of a few prominent soil scientist skeptics out there, several of whom have retired recently, copper nutrition plays a major role in Prairie agriculture. Back some 70 to 100 years ago, wheat yields were 25 bushels per acre, and barley perhaps 40 bushels per acre. A soil level of copper at 0.5 p.p.m. (parts per million) in the top six inches (15 cm), equivalent to one pound per acre of copper, could well have been adequate. Every crop removed for grain or hayland would remove perhaps a half ounce (15 grams) of available copper or less. Sandy, sandy loam or sandy silt soils may have had less than one to two lbs. of available copper in the top six inches. They would over the years become copper-depleted. Peat soils or peaty loam soils also tie up or sequester available copper, making it unavailable to the crop, resulting in lodged, low-yielding, low-quality cereal crops.

With expectations of 70- to 100-bushel yields of wheat or 120 bushels of barley, soil copper levels should be at least 1.5 to 2.5 p.p.m. Such levels would be good for many years since copper does not leach in cropland. It has been recently estimated copper-deficient soils may be as much as 30 per cent of the acreage in Alberta, 10 per cent in Saskatchewan and 15 per cent in Manitoba.

Copper for cattle

In many areas of Prairie Canada, we have had significant problems with copper deficiency in cattle. Animal nutritionists and veterinarians are now fully recognizing the role of this vital element in the animal’s life cycle.

A few points:

• The blood of slugs and snails, as well as of oysters, octopus and squid, is copper-based. They live and breathe copper.
• Copper is not a heavy metal such as gold or lead, but rather a ferrous bio-essential mineral. Look at the list on your multivitamin bottle.
• Rye and wild grasses, and to some extent triticale, are open-pollinated and invariably end up with some degree of ergot infection — and it’s not copper-related.
• If you come across any individual who states that ergot in wheat and barley is caused by wet weather and prolonged flowering, I hope you ask for the source and proof.
• At Bradford Marsh — black peatland, north of Toronto — horticultural growers apply 150 lbs. of bluestone (copper sulphate) at 25 per cent actual copper per acre to bring the land into full production.

My final message to all Prairie farmers who grow cereals, particularly wheat: the appearance of ergot in your harvested crop is like the proverbial canary in the coal mine. It indicates you have a minor or perhaps major problem with copper deficiency that could result in very significant crop losses in both yield and quality.

Please let this statement stick in your mind. Copper sufficiency completely — yes, completely — eliminates ergot in wheat, barley and oats. Don’t let the naysayers confuse you with their opinions; just stick to facts.

Copper in crops: Talking points

• Copper deficiency, in wheat and barley, results in minor to major ergot infection.
• Sterile pollen, in both wheat and barley, results in blanks and loss of yields.
• Ergot in seed wheat or barley is a sure sign that cross-pollination will have taken place, affecting grain quality or purity.
• Ergots must be cleared out of infected grains.
• Severe lodging is a consequence of copper deficiency since copper-based enzymes are responsible for stem strength — that is, stem lignification — in all cereals.
• Low copper soil levels result in delayed crop maturity of up to 10-15 days.
• Grass quality in copper-deficient soils makes for inferior cattle grades.
• Yield losses in copper-deficient wheat fields in Alberta can be as much as 50-60 per cent of expected yield or more, and the grain will be of inferior quality.
• Heavy manuring, especially on light or sandy soils low in copper, can create a major copper deficiency since the soil microflora have first dibs on the low copper levels, resulting in copper deficiency and very poor crop stem strength and severe crop lodging. Some say it’s an excess of nitrogen; that’s just nonsense.
• Peatland will not produce a crop of wheat or barley until it’s treated with a “heavy” copper application.
• Certain Group 1 wild oat herbicides can severely affect uptake of copper on copper-deficient soils. Have you seen spray wheel lines in wheat fields? Can you figure this out?
• In very wet summers, cereals will have very shallow rooting in the top six inches (15 cm). This copper-deficient zone can result in severe crop lodging. In dry summers, little or no lodging results, since the cereal roots can move two to four feet into the subsoil where there is adequate copper. So, a wheat field may lodge one year, but not the next, depending on rainfall. That confuses soil scientists.

The post How a worldwide destructive cereal disease problem was solved in Alberta appeared first on Grainews.

Dwayne farms around 4,500 acres of red spring wheat, canola and malt barley near DeBolt, Alta. He gave me a call late last June because of a recurring problem in one of his barley fields.

When visiting the field, I found some barley plants located in a concentrated area — around five acres — had severe pigtailing of the leaf tips. This symptom is often associated with a copper deficiency. The rest of the plants in the field were asymptomatic and not showing signs of nutrient deficiency.

Both Dwayne and I knew that pigtailing in barley plants is a symptom of copper deficiency. What we didn’t understand was why the plants in this five-acre area were the only ones exhibiting symptoms.

We took tissue samples from symptomatic and asymptomatic plants as well as soil samples from the affected and unaffected areas of the field to investigate why the pigtailing was limited to such a small area.

Dwayne was implementing a balanced macronutrient fertility program. We also checked his herbicide application records to confirm no residual products had been used on this field, eliminating the possibility that we were dealing with carryover issues.

The plants in Dwayne’s field looked very sick. Lab results from the tissue test were several days away and Dwayne felt confident enough in the diagnosis to make a decision to act to save the unhealthy crop without a confirmed copper deficiency test.

Dwayne sprayed the entire field with a very low rate of foliar copper to help the plants along as the crop was at the flag leaf stage and the head was about to emerge. However, this did not solve the bigger riddle: why were the severe symptoms isolated to those five acres?

The lab results from the affected and unaffected areas of the field were very interesting. Soil samples from both areas indicated a copper deficiency. The results of tissue samples taken from the symptomatic barley plants indicated an extreme deficiency and the tissue samples from asymptomatic plants revealed copper levels were very low to deficient.

However, it was the soil’s organic matter and iron content numbers that stood out. This data was the final piece of the pigtailing puzzle.

Crop Advisor’s Solution: Soil organic matter and iron concentration affect copper

The test results of the soil and tissue samples indicated a copper deficiency across the entire field. The results of tissue samples taken from the symptomatic barley plants indicated an extreme deficiency while tissue samples from asymptomatic plants revealed copper levels were very low to deficient. In the end, it was the organic matter and iron content in the soil samples that provided insight to the variability across the field.

Organic matter holds and stores nutrients that are later released to plants. The soil organic matter of the area of the field in which the plants were exhibiting symptoms was 11 per cent. The soil organic matter of the area of the field in which the plants were asymptomatic was 7.5 per cent.

The plants in the affected area were likely unable to take in enough copper due to the low concentration of the positively charged copper in the soil and the strength of the bond to the negatively charged organic matter.

The soil sample results also indicated a high iron concentration in the area where the plants were showing visible signs of deficiency when compared with the area where plants were asymptomatic.

Like copper, iron is positively charged and competes in the soil for exchange sites and the ability to enter plant roots. In this scenario, a combination of the low copper concentration in the soil, the interaction between copper and iron after a rain event and the high organic matter content inhibited the plants from extracting enough copper from the soil.

Copper deficiencies in barley can severely impact yield. Moving forward, Dwayne will take more consideration of micronutrients in his fertility program and will proactively soil test and apply soil applied micronutrients when required.

Sara Stagg, BSc, works at Richardson Pioneer Ltd. in Lavoy, Alta.

The post Crop advisor casebook: Pigtailing barley presents a problem appeared first on Grainews.

A. There are many benefits to planting a cover crop (sometimes referred to as a companion or nurse crop) for forage establishment. Cover crops commonly planted alongside perennial forages include oats, barley and wheat.

Before a forage stand becomes well established, bare soil can be left exposed. A cover crop can provide ground cover more quickly than a newly planted forage, reducing evaporative water loss, soil erosion and weed competition. However, cover crops compete for water and nutrients and can shade the forage crop from sunlight. This takes resources away from the forage crop and often results in slower establishment. Forage stands established under a cover crop are typically less productive than those planted without a cover crop in the year of planting, and sometimes several years after. The biomass produced by the cover crop offsets this difference, but forage productivity is reduced.

A cover crop can be a practical solution in high-risk scenarios in terms of soil erosion, soil crusting, weed pressure, or when it is imperative that silage or greenfeed be harvested in the year of planting. When planting a cover crop, choose a less competitive species and seed at less than half of a normal rate. Be mindful of nutrient levels as well; high nitrogen rates encourage vegetative growth in the cover crop, which can lead to lodging and excessive shading of the forage crop. Harvesting the cover crop as silage or greenfeed is advisable because competition is alleviated early in the season. Allowing the cover crop to mature to be harvested as grain is not recommended.

Choosing to plant a cover crop can be highly beneficial, but there are also potential drawbacks. Assess your individual risks and priorities to determine if a cover crop is the right fit for your operation.

Stacie Yaremko, BSc, CCA, is a manager of agronomic services with Nutrien Ag Solutions in northern Alberta.

The post Can a cover crop help establish forages? appeared first on Grainews.

A: Copper is the micronutrient most often found deficient in Western Canada.

In a nutshell, copper deficiency is most often found in deep sandy soils and peat soils, and wheat is the most sensitive crop. Soil tests are a good tool to predict potential copper deficiency. Crops yields are often reduced if soil copper is less than 0.4 to 0.6 parts per million. Copper plays a role in flower fertility, so yields may quickly decline if deficiency occurs.

There are several fertilizer products that can help alleviate copper deficiency. Remember: copper is a micronutrient — a good crop of wheat will remove less than 10 grams of copper per acre. The key is to apply enough copper in an available form so that it is available to the crop during the critical flowering period. Liquid copper at 0.1 to 0.2 pounds per acre applied to the foliage between the sixth and flag leaf of wheat has proven most effective for maximum annual yield response in truly deficient soils. In some cases, it may make sense to also try to build soil reserves of copper — this will require at least one to two pounds of actual copper applied each year. This is far more than crop removal, but high rates are needed to provide uniform distribution of the fertilizer granules, take into consideration low solubility of copper fertilizer and to account for adsorption of copper to the soil.

How do you decide if copper is required? Begin with a soil test of the soil landscape that you think will be most deficient. Then a field response trial with strips of foliar-applied copper on wheat (or other cereal crops) is the best way to confirm the size of crop response.

Lyle Cowell, P. Ag, CCA, is a manager of agronomic services with Nutrien Ag Solutions in northeast Saskatchewan.

The post Copper deficiencies can reduce wheat yields appeared first on Grainews.