Bourgault has settled its lawsuit with Agriculture Canada.
The legal action followed a 2003 report that found it made little difference to yields whether fertilizer was side or mid-row banded.
Gerry Bourgault says his company talked to Agriculture Canada and the Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute for two years after it became concerned about comments that were made about the study in 2006 in the news media, including The Western Producer.
Those talks failed to resolve his company’s concerns, so “things proceeded down a legal path after that.”
Read Also
Interest in biological crop inputs continues to grow
It was only a few years ago that interest in alternative methods such as biologicals to boost a crop’s nutrient…
The study showed that nitrogen fertilizer in a sideband was as effective as midrow banding, but it also found there was little greenhouse-gas loss difference between systems.
“The PAMI report reported on yield differences and similarities and other observations,” Bourgault said about whether the distance between the nitrogen band and seed row was an issue as long as the fertilizer was placed into moist soil.
“One of those was very problematic for us.”
The original report that PAMI released was written as a summary of some of the results of a major federal and provincial research project that was conducted over three years, ending in 2002.
The project examined greenhouse gas emissions as well as agronomy results of the two nutrient placement strategies and resulted in a 257 page paper. It showed that whether the fertilizer was placed in a band, below and to the side of the seed or between the rows of seed made little difference to yields and seed quality of prairie crops 84 percent of the time.
The mid-row band, when placed into moist soil where roots would find it as plants developed, was just as effective as other strategies.
Some of the comments that Bourgault had trouble with related to fertilizer becoming stranded away from the crop in dry conditions.
He said no agronomic difference occurred when the mid-row units placed fertilizer deep enough in droughty soil.
“We believe that mid-row (placement) offers additional crop safety as well,” said Bourgault.
The PAMI report, No. 768, has now been re-released and seems to reflect the agreement between the manufacturer and researchers.
Bourgault said the terms of the settlement are not being disclosed, but the two sides have agreed to facts that both find acceptable.
Both the longer version and the PAMI piece are available for viewing with this story on producer.com.
Bourgault and the government also agreed that side band systems have “higher seed-bed disturbance compared with mid-row band systems, and that under dry conditions, this has the potential to reduce or delay crop emergence or reduce yield,” according to terms of the settlement.
“This underscores the importance of proper seed placement and suggests that the higher seed-bed disturbance inherent to side band openers may at times prevent good placement and lead to increased seed-bed drying.
“There has been a concern ex-pressed by some that with a mid-row system, access to nitrogen may be delayed in dry soil conditions with low residual nitrogen. This likely occurs infrequently and would pose minimal risk under most prairie conditions.”
