Cool ... (rubbing chin) ... now the question is why?

If I understand what you described, the usual pattern across the field is: mostly browns / mostly greens / mostly greens / mostly browns, and in the summer last year part of the mostly greens areas received the wood chips, so that area had a different mix. Is that right?

When you say regularl tilling, was the whole field similarly tilled, or was that periodic tilling additional for the area that was seeing the added wood chips? I guess what I'm asking is were there any differences other than the addition of the wood chips in that portion of the field was managed or treated? Does "thicker" mean thicker stalk, or more tillers, or more leaves (I'm assuming plant density per unit area was the same as set by planting)?

In a pre-coffee state (which is always dangerous) I can think of three major categories for a possible difference: (1) some difference in desirable plant nutrient levels in the soil, (2) some difference in soil texture or soil structure that was, in the end, beneficial for plant growth, and (3) some difference in soil biota compared to the non-wood chip areas that, in the end, was beneficial for plant growth. There may be something else that isn't captured in one of those major groupings that comes to mind after brain fog clears.

It would be interesting to know if there was any discernible difference in plant root growth across the areas, and of course nutrient levels, but after the fact I wonder if possible nutrient differences would be discernible.

Any thoughts at this point as to the cause of the enhanced growth in the wood chip treated areas? Any plans on trying to sort out why the difference in the wood chip treated areas?

This post was edited by TXEB on Fri, Aug 23, 13 at 6:31

Those results are similar to what was found in the Back To Eden video.

Here is a link that might be useful: Back to Eden

Ya, IâÂÂve been pondering this all night (night shift).

The overall field is basically treated the same as far as tillage goes. The seed is the same and seeded with the same equipment. The plants were taller, thicker stalks and larger heads. We havenâÂÂt harvested yet but IâÂÂm betting there will be a higher yield. The differences in the crop this year was remarkable. The areas that had just leaves put down in the fall was horrible. Short plants, almost no heads to speak of. The areas that had spring leaves/thatch put down looks like a normal plant. The grass clippings alone area was good but the chips/grass clippings was exceptional. Will try it again next year on a different field to see if it happens again. What caused it? DonâÂÂt know. IâÂÂm leaning towards something to do with aeration or water retention. Maybe fungal issues? Is there a fine line between too little or too much wood chips and I just happened to hit the sweet spot? Clearly this is all anecdotal but it sure peaked my curiousity.

Lloyd

Maybe time to talk with some of those piled-higher-and-deeper guys at one the institutions. You may be on to something rather significant, and some controlled plot studies could be really insightful. Then, I'm not sure it's worth the grief for you.

After harvest have you thought about some digging and a peak at the roots?

.. deleting duplicate ...

This post was edited by TXEB on Fri, Aug 23, 13 at 6:48

Lloyd - I'm going to show my ignorance here, but does thicker growth as you see require more energy to harvest? I'm wondering if there is a point at which an increase in yield vs. energy cost could start going the wrong way.

This post was edited by TXEB on Fri, Aug 23, 13 at 12:51

Exciting and thanks for sharing.

I've been getting interested in mushrooms. I think if I had a hundred tons of wood chips I would start thinking about inoculating them with various kinds of mushroom spores and see what happens.

What type of wood chips are these? They look similar to the shredded bark I get from a log home builder to use as mulch.

The mixture clippings + chips is basically the same as ramial mulch or ramial chips. Google to find about their many advantages.

I support the ideas of increased water retention, increased nitrogen retention (from clippings to chips), better fungal flora, better humic acids (better nutrient availability). I think the leaves will work at least OK, but they need time to decay. Try the same field one year later, nothing else added.

Lloyd, I'm experimenting using large-ish (1 - 3 inch) pieces of dry, dead pine bark in my containers and garden soil - as a mulch, and to some extent, turning it under. In the containers its about 2/3 large bark pieces by volume, the rest normal potting soil, perlite, trace minerals, aged compost. I grow peppers and they are doing spectacularly well.

In the veggie garden, I turn some off this bark under in the top six inches.

In the flower beds, I use it as a mulch.

The bark pieces are just full of tiny rootlets - even with the mulch.

So I ponder, and figure that - at least in the containers and veggie garden - the serve as a water reservoir, soaking up enough moisture to keep the ground at a more constant level. And there must be some nutrient value as well - or why all the rootlets?

Increased yield is always beneficial. If it turns out there is just more and stronger straw, rather than more grain, then that would be a bit of a negative. Having said that, there is a market for wheat straw bales and I usually sell all I bale.

The wood chips were just trees cut from under power lines along country roads. IOW, various types. Maples, oak and poplar being the top three. The contractor was just hauling them to the landfill as it was the dead of winter and no one wanted them. I was darn near apoplectic when they told me that.

There is an area of the field that gets the spring leaves and it does okay, not spectacular, but okay. I pondered the difference between this leaf area and the wood chips area. They are both higher C materials but the leaves do break down in one season whereas the chips are still visible even now. I'm also interested to see how the land tills up now as well. Will the wood chip area be easier pulling due to looser soil? If so then I'm going to speculate that the wood chip area doesn't compact as much allowing more air infiltration.

For next years field I'm going to use the rest of the chips I have and spread them perpendicular to the application of the yard trimmings to see if they have any affect on the other yard trimmings. I think I will also take a few truckloads of clippings and apply them to the spring leaf area to see what I get. I'm also going to apply some synthetic N to parts of this years field when I seed it next spring. I'll have to flag the areas so's I remember what I did.

It's possible I'm over thinking this whole issue. DW thinks I've gone around the bend.

Lloyd

Good morning!

Around the bend? Nah ... you're just hanging with those of us in the obsessive group. But you do it as a professional and on a much larger scale. I'm jealous.

My SWAG is that the difference reflects all of the things we repeatedly discuss about the benefits of a properly constructed compost (primarily C:N ratio) on soil texture & structure, moisture retention, and nutrient balance, as well as the problems that can be created when the compositional balance of soil incorporated OM get pushed much out of that balance. The fall leaves are primarily C, and while they fall apart the end result may be lower plant available N. The green areas have probably had the N, but lacked the soil structure benefits that the wood chips brought, and the combination of grass clippings along with wood chips gave you the best of both. The resulting increased aeration would also benefit the microbial community beneath the surface. That in turn might possibly lead to increased nutrient uptake and utilization.

If I understand it correctly, I like your checkerboard experimental design. Have you thought about a patch with just the wood chips alone, and then another of woods chips + N fertilizer?

I had to go out and take some pictures. They don't really do it justice but I think people can see what I'm talking about. There should be explanations below each picture if I did this correctly..

I could do different application patches during next years deliveries. I'll have to do some serious mapping/marking.

Lloyd

Tell your wife we are all interested. What is the pH of the land?

What is the pH of the land?

Not a clue, I've never had a soil test done. We are on limestone though and the province classifies our area as alkaline.

Lloyd

Lloyd - the color change that came with grass clippings + wood chips vs. just grass clippings is quite evident. The difference between those areas and the fall trimming plus leaves is quite amazing. Can you tell if there was any difference in tillers?

I wish I could say I had monitored this crop during its growth. Sadly I did not. I seeded it, sprayed it and just finished cutting it so I was in the field once during the actual growth stage. I know, not much of scientist (or farmer for that matter). :-(

I'll have to see if there is much fusarium or ergot once we get it harvested. I should also take samples from specific areas to see if there is a corresponding difference in protein/grade.

Looking at the stubble, I'd say that tillering was far more prominent in the wood chip area. The poor performing areas are basically single stem plants. I should dig up a plant or two before I till to look at the roots. It might be just as interesting.

Lloyd

Definitely look at some roots - and take more pics (take a large pace of white paper or board to use as a background)

If it is alkaline, the chips could have helped with the pH, or indirectly through releasing, say, iron by binding to the more abundant humic acids.