- Author: Jan Rhodes
A Pretty Corny Story
Ahhhh...summer! Homegrown tomatoes, juicy watermelon and fresh corn on the cob. At least that's what comes to mind, especially in these chilly, late winter days. Many of you know the joy of backyard gardening that includes picking ripe ears of sweet corn, shucking them right there and popping them into boiling water. Along with sliced tomatoes, fresh basil and green beans from the garden, that is what I call “Summer Dinner.” Lucky as I am to have a sizeable backyard garden, I have always grown a good harvest of delicious sweet corn to enjoy in those dog days of August. Last year, however, I had a new adventure with field corn.
Last summer, my interest turned to growing corn that could be dried and ground into cornmeal or polenta, made into masa for tortillas or tamales, or even popped! A friend mentioned specialty grains and flours made by Anson Mills, and passed me a book that featured the story of how this business grew (The Third Plate by Dan Barber ). In his search for the heritage grains of his childhood, Glenn Roberts, founder of Anson Mills, re-discovered Floriani Red Flint Corn and sang its praises. So much so, that, being a good foodie, I had to order the polenta that Anson Mills makes from this corn. Of course, it was more than delicious – so much better that what can be purchased locally. And, though I enjoy cooked polenta, I adore it baked into sourdough rye bread. The Anson Mills Polenta didn't disappoint in that department, either. I decided then, and there, that I would try my hand at growing this special corn. After all, I have always maintained that gardening is just a big science experiment.
Not wanting to use my precious sweet corn space, I decided to procure a plot at the community garden. This was a great choice for a number of reasons. For one, there would be no danger of cross pollination with sweet corn, since very little is grown there. Also, there is plenty of sun there, no difficult shady spaces. Finally, it was really fun to visit the garden regularly and see what everyone else was growing and how it was doing.
I had to look around a bit to order my seeds. It seems there are not many sources for this increasingly popular variety. I finally found some at Southern Exposure Seed Exchange. I had never looked at their website before to order seeds as they are in Virginia. However, they have an impressive array of organic and heirloom vegetable, herb, and flower seeds, dedicated to “saving the past for the future.” They have several pages featuring dent, flint and flour corn. I never realized there was a difference! My Floriani Red Flint would take 100 days to grow 10 feet tall or more. The online catalog described it as a beautiful medium to deep red kernal that is slightly pointed, provides cornmeal with a pink cast, and makes polenta with a remarkably rich and complex flavor. Just what I was looking for!
After a bit of research on planting practices and care, I prepared my plot and was able to put seeds in the ground around mid-June. I planted the same way I usually do for sweet corn. Lots of amendment as corn is a heavy feeder, rows three feet apart, two seeds in a hole to fool the birds. I planted in furrows and hilled up to prevent lodging (blowing down) and provide mini-canals for irrigation. When the plants emerged, I thinned to about 12 inches. I watered almost daily at first, then every other day, and withheld water for the weeks of drying on the stalk. I also added bloodmeal when the corn was 6 inches high and 12 inches high. The amazing part was how tall the plants grew, some were probably more that 10 feet! The tricky part was deciding when to harvest. With field corn, it is necessary to allow the ears to mature and dry on the stalk. I checked weekly when it looked like the corn was nearing readiness, and finally harvested the ears in early October. I shucked the ears and let them dry a bit more in net bags in my garage. Finally, one sunny day in November, I sat on the patio and laboriously removed the kernals from the ears (that's another story).
As for my next project (you knew this was coming), I put in a cover crop of red clover, both in my backyard garden and in my community plot. The plan is to plant hard red spring wheat. I have the seeds and am reading up on harvesting, threshing and winnowing. Perfect for these long winter nights.
Resources
Floriani Red Flint Corn: The Perfect Staple Crop - Real Food ...
Floriani Red Flint Flint Corn 42 g : Southern Exposure Seed Exchange ...
How to Grow Floriani Red Flint | Home Guides | SF Gate
Learn How to Make Hominy Corn - Real Food - MOTHER EARTH NEW
About Corn | Anson Mills - Artisan Mill Goods from Organic Heirloom ...
Corn Tortillas Recipe : Alton Brown : Food Network
The Easy Way to Make Fresh Corn Tortillas at Home | Serious Eat
/h2>
- Author: Jordon Wade
- Contributor: Hannah Waterhouse
- Contributor: Martin Burger
In order to be accurate and effective, fertilizer recommendations must factor in a wide range of considerations, ranging from the site-specific to the climatic. To help guide these decisions, “the 4 R's” have been developed: Right rate, Right place, Right time, and Right form. These 4 R's can be utilized in tandem to maximize a given goal, whether that is maximum yield, maximum profitability, minimize adverse environmental effects, or perhaps a combination of factors. However, the specific recommendations will vary according to farm- or field-specific factors, such as climate, soil mineralogy, crop choice, or labor constraints. As such, it is difficult to make “best management” prescriptions across regions.
Several UC Davis researchers—Hannah Waterhouse, Martin Burger, and Will Horwath—recently investigated the 3 of the 4 R's of corn production over two years (2013-2014) on a farm near Stockton in the San Joaquin Valley. They were particularly interested in how nitrogen fertilizer rate, placement, and timing affected nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. Additionally, they were comparing emissions and yields between drip and furrow-irrigated corn.
Right Rate: For both years of this study, fertilization rates were adjusted using the preplant (or residual) nitrogen levels, which were 65 lbs/ac in 2013 and 77 lbs/ac in 2014. These rates of residual nitrogen were then subtracted from the target fertilization rates to have an equal level of available N across years. To learn more about calculating residual nitrogen rates, visit our page on residual nitrogen budgeting. Overall, emissions increased with increasing rate, although there was a high degree of variability. Yield-scaled emissions, which allow for emissions to be examined in terms of agronomic efficiency, also increased as N rates increased. Using the corn stalk nitrate test in 2014, they found that there was no N deficiency, except a marginal deficiency in the 65 lbs/ac rate. At the highest rates (227 lbs/ac and 307 lbs/ac), the corn stalk nitrate test found hugely excessive levels of plant-available N.
Right Place: They also looked at the effect of applying fertilizer in a single band or a double band. They applied fertilizer at the same rate—202 lbs/ac in 2013 and 227 lbs/ac in 2014—on either the inside (1-band) or both sides (2-band) of the corn plant line. Comparing emissions from the single band vs. the double band, they saw twice as many emissions from the single band in 2013 and 3-4 times as much emissions in the single band in 2014, without seeing any differences in yield. There was also much higher residual nitrogen in the 1-band application, resulting in a higher fertilizer use efficiency in the 2-band treatment.
Right Time: For both years of the study, the majority of the fertilizer was applied as a sidedress during V2 stage of crop growth in 2013 (202 lbs/ac) and during V4/V6 in 2014 (227 lbs/ac). The use of the nitrification inhibitor AgrotainPlus helped to maintain the fertilizer in the less mobile ammonium form for longer, to better sync nitrogen supply with crop nitrogen demand. In the first year (2013), the application of fertilizer and nitrification inhibitor at V2 was a bit too early and did not reduce emissions. In 2014, the fertilizer and nitrification inhibitor were timed better to coincide with crop N demand and reduce emissions by 60%, although no yield difference was observed. This better syncing also resulted in an “excess” reading from the stalk nitrate test, suggesting that fertilization rates could likely be decreased in subsequent years.
These results were supported in another field trial of corn by the same group of researchers in Yolo County, where the AgrotainPlus also decreased emissions by approximately 50% in the sandier, coarser soils. In this study, AgrotainPlus also decreased easily-leached residual nitrate by 10 lbs/ac.
Irrigation Method: In 2013 and 2014, irrigation types were varied in the 202 lbs/ac and 227 lbs/ac treatments, respectively. Using subsurface drip to supply fertilizer and irrigation to the corn resulted in a 50-80% reduction in nitrous oxide emissions, relative to the furrow-irrigated field. The drip also had double the grain yield of furrow-irrigated corn in 2013, but no difference in total yield when growing for silage in 2014.
While the results of this study are subject to much of the same inherent variability associated with agricultural studies, it does support much of the current body of knowledge and show that California is not an exception. The central take-home messages from this research (that are well-supported by other studies) are:
- Testing for residual nitrate prior to planting helps to adjust fertilizer recommendations to minimize environmental effects, such as nitrous oxide emissions.
- Concentrating N fertilizer (especially ammonia/ammonium) into a single applied band will greatly increase emissions and decrease your fertilizer N use efficiency.
- Nitrification inhibitors can substantially decrease nitrous oxide emissions and increase your fertilizer N efficiency. Although they might not increase yields, they have the potential to increase N cycling within the system.
- Using subsurface drip irrigation can increase your yields (especially grain yields) while cutting your N2O emissions in half.
For more on nitrogen budgeting and nitrous oxide emissions, visit our Focus Topic pages.
- Author: Ben Faber
Growers are faced with an ever-changing list of commercial “tools”, each with the promise of providing some advantage to the farmer. Frequently, these are new fertilizer mixes presented as proprietary cocktails promoted and dispensed with promises of a multitude of profitable (yet improbable) benefits to the buyer. With the large number of new products available, and the number of salespeople promoting them, it is often difficult for growers to distinguish between products likely to provide real benefit, and those that may actually reduce the profitability of the farm.
In all situations when a company approaches the University or a commodity research board with a new product or technology for sale to California growers, these institutions act as grower advocates. They are charged with sorting through the available information; asking the right questions; getting the necessary research done if the available information warrants this pursuit; disseminating accurate information on these new technologies and products, and doing all that can help maximize grower profits now and in the future. When approached with a new product or technology it is obligatory to challenge claims with the following questions:
Is there some basic established and accepted scientific foundation on which the product claims are made?
Language that invokes some proprietary ingredients or mysterious formulations, particularly in fertilizers mixes registered in the State of California, raises red flags. A wide range of completely unrelated product benefit claims (such as water savings, pesticide savings, increased earlier yield) raises more red flags. Product claims that fall well outside of any accepted scientific convention generally mean the product is truly a miracle, or these claims are borderline false to entirely fraudulent.
Has the product undergone thorough scientific testing in orchards?
Frequently, products are promoted based on testimonials of other growers. While testimonials may be given in good faith, they are most often not backed up by any real scientific testing where a good control was used to compare orchard returns with and without the product.
A “test” where a whole block was treated with a product and which has no reliable untreated control does not meet accepted standards for conducting agricultural experiments. Also, a treated orchard cannot reliably be compared to a neighboring untreated orchard; and a treated orchard cannot be compared to the same orchard that was untreated the previous crop year. Even a test with half a block of treated trees and half untreated is not considered dependable by any known scientific standard of testing.
Only a well designed, statistically replicated, multi-year trial allows for direct comparison of untreated versus treated trees with statistical confidence. Verifiable data from tests that meet acceptable standards of scientific design, along with access to raw baseline (before treatment) yield data from the same trees (preferably for the two years prior) should be used to determine the validity of test results provided.
Are the test results from a reliable source?
If the testing were not done by a neutral party, such as university scientists, agency, or a reputable contract research company using standard scientific protocols, this raises red flags. If the persons overseeing the tests have a financial interest in seeing positive results from the product, it raises red flags.
Does the product have beneficial effects on several unrelated farm practices?
A product that increases production of trees, makes fruit bigger, reduces pests, reduces water use, and reduces fertilizer costs, is more than a little suspicious. In reality, if such a product really existed, it would not need any testing at all because its benefits would be so obviously realized by the grower community that it would spread rapidly by word of mouth and embraced by the entire grower community.
Are other standard and proven farm products put down in the new product sales delivery?
If a new product vendor claims that their product is taken up 15 times faster than the one growers are currently using, or is 30 times more efficient, it probably costs 15 to 30 times more per unit of active ingredient than the standard market price. Growers should always examine the chemical product label to see what active ingredient they are buying. There has to be a very good reason to pay more for an ingredient where previously there had been no problem supplying the same ingredient at a cheaper price to trees in the past.
There are impartial sources of such information available to farmers to help corroborate information provided by product vendors. Perhaps the most reliable and accessible impartial research and education resources for growers are their local Cooperative Extension Farm Advisors and commodity research boards.
When promising products emerge, local university Farm Advisors can advise growers on how to evaluate these products and may help design a small trial to test a particular product on a few trees under local orchard conditions. If in these pursuits a truly promising new product or technology emerges, research board funding may follow but only on the recommendation of that board's Research Committee.