Contributed by Jack Ensley

Erosion has always been a serious problem in the Palouse. Many believe that farming techniques have had a big effect on that problem and that we can do more.

The claim has been made that by using no-till together with leaving the crop residue on the land will stop erosion in the Palouse. The purpose of this article will be to try to present in an accurate and objective manner presentations that will try to either prove or disprove that statement. Also it is the precept held by many that to adopt no-till practices by a farm operator will require the sacrifice of some income. While it will be difficult to prove that either way with the resources that we have, we will touch on that subject. These things go along with the mission statement of the Whitman Conservation District. Here is that statement, “The Mission of the Whitman Conservation District is to promote the wise, ethical and sustainable use of Natural Resources, by the leadership in the education and assistance of all Stakeholders. The Whitman Conservation District will promote the implementation of best available conservation measures and provide a form for local input on Natural Resource issues.”

At this point we are searching with this page for ways to do those things and we are open for any suggestions along those lines. The worst erosion that we have each year is on fields that have gone through the summer as black summer fallow and are planted to fall wheat. We will concentrate on that issue. The question here is conventional or chem-fallow summer fallow. The district has conducted a trial for the last four years to try to determine if there is a difference in soil moisture and crop yield in those two programs. This is the final year for that trial. The results seem to be that there is no significant difference in the two methods. Erosion differences haven’t been mentioned. We have considered following two different fields with pictures, one field chem-fallow the other conventional, to just observe the progress. It seems that enough has all ready been done to predict the outcome of that but maybe it would be of some benefit. It seems that the biggest question is the financial aspect. What does it cost and is the yield comparable? Even if we could get two farmers to list their costs and returns from their fields, there would always be a question about the accuracy of the numbers. Again we urge input and suggestions from those on both sides of this issue.

Many farmers that have not adopted no-till will tell you, “I tried it and it didn’t work”. All know that seasons are different and that things can be predictable but not absolute. So far no one has written a book titled “This is How to Farm”. There are also different ideas as to what no-till is and how to do it. We should all be open minded and willing to learn. Hopefully this page can help with that.

Pictures

This is a picture of what we all want to avoid.

This is black summer fallow that was hit by a hard spring shower. It still has to go through the winter. Maybe by then it will have a stand of wheat that will hold the soil. At least that is the hope.

Click on small picture to get larger one.

The claim is made that things like this can be avoided by the use of chemfallow. The question is then asked, if that is true then why doesn’t everyone stop using black summer fallow and change to chem.-fallow? One of the reasons that doesn’t happen is because there is a perception that one will make less money if they do that.

Here is a picture of harvesting a crop of wheat that grew on land that had been chemfallow