November 12, 2013

Agronomist Notes

Hello Reader

Last week’s AgriTrade event was excellent and a great place to catch up with everyone after a busy season. I spent most of the time meeting with colleagues and clients and didn’t have the time to take a good look around. The only thing that caught my eye this year was the number of manufacturers displaying vacuum planters. Go figure!

The next two weeks are jam packed starting with our CTF Alberta meeting next Monday, Advanced Agronomy Conference next Tuesday-Wednesday, followed by a Bayer consultant event in Banff and Farm Forum Event in Saskatoon the following week. Then it’s hello, December! and a scramble to finish year end.

In Beyond Agronomy News this week we’ll look at comparing wheels versus tracks and see what it would take to justify the cost upgrade on your seeding unit. Next, we’ll look at the results of Case 1240 vacuum planter trials in canola along with plant density trials. Last, we’ll end with a look at what separates the most profitable farms from the least profitable. We’ll finish with technical grain market news.

Have a great week.

Tracks versus Tires

We’ve just finished another wet year (number four) in our area and once again it was easy to see the damage caused by spring wheel traffic. In some cases crops were delayed in the wheel tracks or just the opposite with crops advanced by 7 to 10 days in the wheel tracks. The photo on the right was taken two miles from our farm. The wheat is flowering inside the wheel tracks and not even heading outside the tracks.

With standard 800/38R’s duals on a 4WD pulling a 60-foot air drill, you’re looking at covering 17% of the field in wheel tracks. Add a pre-seed herbicide application and you’ve now placed roughly 20% of your field at risk for yield and grade loss from uneven crop staging. This includes the risk of crop damage from poorly timed herbicides and fungicides. For those of you who believe the freeze/thaw cycle takes care of compaction, you should note that we likely won’t see a deep freeze/thaw cycle from May to August until the next ice age. I digress.

So, if you don’t plan on moving to a controlled traffic system or, if you do and want enough rubber to pull large seeding equipment, the natural fit is a move to tracked tractors. As always, it comes with a cost. The question is whether the benefit outweighs the cost. We know that tracked units reduce slippage, compaction and improve traction over wheels and there is a significant amount of research to support this. Here are a few examples.

Soil compaction caused by tires at an axle load of 10 T could be measured down to a depth of 500 mm and that it could permanently reduce crop yields. Kansson and Reeder et al. (1994)
Found a greater cone penetrometer resistance after using a wheeled tractor even though the rubber-tracked machine had a 24% greater total mass. Campbell et al. (1988)
Found greater resistance between 200 – 400mm depth for a wheeled tractor in comparison to a rubber-tracked tractor. Servadio et al. (2001)
Found more compaction in the top 125 mm for wheeled tractors, but below 125 mm differences between wheeled and tracked tractors were minimal. Brown et al. (1992)
Found a greater resistance between 200 – 400 mm depth for a wheeled tractor in comparison to a rubber tracked tractor. Servadio et al. (2001)

The approximate cost to move from an articulated JD 4WD with 800/38R duals to a solid frame JD tractor with 30-inch tracks is roughly $40,000. You can reduce the impact of your footprint somewhat with triples over duals for a cost of $4,000-$12,000, but you’re still left with wheel track issues. Let’s run the numbers on the increased revenue required to justify the cost of tracks over duals.

Steve’s quick math
4,000 ac farm, 60-foot wide air drill
JD 4WD 800/38R duals: 17.5%
JD 8000 RT 30-inch tracks: 8.3%

$40,000.00 ÷ (3yr x 4,000 ac) = $3.33/ac
$3.33 ÷ 9.2% = $36.19/ac
$36.19/ac ÷ $6.00 bu/wheat = 6.03 bu/ac
6.03 bu/ac ÷ 60 bu/wheat x 100 = 10% yield

If you were looking for a 3-year ROI in this scenario, you would need to generate a 10% yield increase from the 9.2% of area no longer compacted by wheels tracks (17.5% - 8.3%). In our heavy clay soils that are typically wet in the spring, I’d say this is easily achievable. Also, for those in sandy soils with heavy wheel slippage (factory says 8-12% is ideal!) you could also argue that a 10% yield increase is possible.

In the end, the only way to reduce your footprint, pull a wide air drill, maintain traction and reduce slippage is to move to a tracked tractor. Soils in the spring are typically moist leaving 17% to 25% of your soils vulnerable to wheel track damage. In my example, I’m only using one year’s yield loss potential. The reality is that one wheel track at the wrong time can impact yield for years to come. The compounding effect on yield can be much greater than 10% on a much larger area. Tracks make a whole lot of sense when it comes right down to it. SL

Photo credit: Steve Larocque

Vacuum planter trials in canola

2013 results

In 2013, Rocky Mountain Equipment from Balzac, AB provided a number of growers with a 40-foot, 15-inch row Case 1240 vacuum planter demo unit to plant canola. The goal was to evaluate the vacuum planter as a tool to plant canola and look at optimal plant densities. The planter was also set up with a liquid starter kit where Alpine 6-22-4-0 liquid phosphorus was applied. Herman Van Genderen from Pioneer supplied 45S54 canola seed and the Alpine fertilizer.

All fields were banded with N-P-K-S in the spring prior to seeding. Some were hit with a heavy harrow and some rolled to smooth the surface after banding. A seedplaced application of liquid Alpine phosphorus was applied with each trial at 3-4 gal/ac in the seed row.

Farm 1
Plants/acre bu/ac Moisture
225,000 53.1 11.0%
300,000 55.1 11.0%
375,000 55.1 10.5%
300,000 49.1 11.0% No Alpine
6 lbs/ac 53.2 10.5% Air Drill

The yield results showed a 2 bu/ac increase with the 300,000 to 375,000 plant densities (not significant).
The planter saved roughly $25.00/ac in seed costs compared to the air drill but the additional pass to band fertilizer reduced that advantage.
Even at 150,000 plants/acre the distribution of seed in each furrow is quite variable. True singulation has not yet been achieved.
The initial results from the starter Alpine phosphorus showed a 3-5 bu/ac increase over no starter phosphorus. There was 30 lbs/ac of phosphorus applied prior to seeding.

Farm 2
Plants/acre bu/ac Moisture Emergence
150,000 55.9 8.2% 85.2%
225,000 53.1 9.0% 71.8%
300,000 49.8 8.8% 71.6%
375,000 50.1 8.7% 70.0%
5 lbs/ac 48.9 10.1% Air Drill

The 300,000 and 375,000 plants/ac treatments yielded 3-6 bu/ac less than the 150,000 and 225,000 plants per acre. Lower plant stands yielded highest. Interesting!
The highest emergence rates occurred with the lowest seeding rate.
There was a 7 bu/ac difference between the air drill planted at 5 lbs/ac and the vacuum planter at 150,000 plants/ac.

Farm 3
Plants/acre bu/ac Moisture
375,000 38.2 8.8%
300,000 44.0 8.1%
225,000 43.9 7.9%
150,000 45.0 7.6%
300,000 44.8 7.6% No Alpine
300,000 45.9 7.6% Field average with planter

The lowest yielding treatment with the planter had the highest plant population again at 375,000 plants/ac.
There was no difference between banded phosphorus and no liquid phosphorus starter.
All treatments yielded very close to each other except for the high plant population.

Discussion
In general, the vacuum planter saved $20-$25 on seed costs and maintained or added a bit of yield. The lower plant densities achieved higher yields (150,000-250,000 plants/ac) than the higher plant densities, which is the opposite of the current recommendations. The Canola Council of Canada recommends 8-12 plants/ft2, which is 350,000 to 520,000 plants/ac. The ideal plant population is likely between 250,000 and 300,000 plants/ac with a vacuum planter or 5-7 plants ft2. This gives you room for some early spring frosts, which may wipe out 30 to 50% of your stand on the odd year.

The liquid P starter kit is a must for those with low P soils or cool, dry or wet conditions where phosphorus may be limiting. Starter phosphorus is very important and with narrow openers and wider rows, adding granular phosphate with the seed would be too risky and cause toxicity issues. Liquid P has a low salt index and neutral pH so it is safe to apply with the seed.

At this time, the two pass system required to band fertilizer ahead of the planter reduces the savings you achieve with lower seeding rates. For those who already have a two-pass system you may be further ahead with a planter. In the future I still see a hybrid drill with vacuum planter technology and a one-pass system. There is no reason you can’t pull an air cart behind the planter and set up mid-row banders to place N-K-S. The liquid P starter is still a good idea in my opinion.

In the beginning I was looking at used Monosem and John Deere planters with $20,000 to $40,000 price tags. I thought I could put together a unit and add it to our system economically. The Case 1240, 40-foot planter on 15-inch rows is roughly $160,000 new, which really puts pressure on the ability of this machine to provide a return on investment. At this time, we’re still in the early adoption phase for planters in a direct seeding system, which means there is still tuition to pay to learn the new practice. I look forward to another year or two of trial work before we run with the concept. SL

Photo: Case 1240, Steve Larocque

You control your profits

What separates high profit farmers from their peers

As commodity prices look poised to slip downward in 2014 and margins get tighter it’s important to keep costs in check. So what operations are poised to continue with good profitability in spite of a potential downturn? I was re-reading a 10-year study from Kansas State University that looked at the differences between high, medium and low profit wheat producers. In spite of many uncontrollable variables that impact farm profitability, there are some within the farm manager's control. The study looked at these variables and outlined what separated the high profit farmers from their peers.

Economies of scale
High-profit farms farmed 10% more acres than mid-profit farms and twice as many acres than low-profit farms (i.e. there are financial benefits from economies of scale and the advantage is growing).

Cost of production
Machinery costs had the biggest impact on profitability. Machinery costs were 33% lower for the high-profit farms relative to the low-profit farms. The second greatest influence on farm profitability was the ability to buy crop inputs with fertilizer and herbicide being the most important. High-profit farms spent $18 an acre less on fertilizer and herbicide than the bottom third.

Price and yield
The average yield difference plays a larger role in explaining income differences than the average price difference. Yield and grain prices contributed the least to overall profitability. There's little evidence indicating that producers can consistently get higher prices than the average (i.e., the fact that they get a high price one year is somewhat of a random occurrence).

What this study revealed was that farm managers should stay focused on building economies of scale. I think it’s important to note that high profit wheat farmers were 10% larger than the norm, not 100%. Economies of scale can spiral into dis-economies of scale where efficiency gains are lost due to un-timely applications.

Next, controlling equipment costs is paramount with high profit farmers having 33% less equipment costs than low profit farmers. It is especially true to re-evaluate equipment costs after a bull run on commodities and good yields the last few years. I’ve personally seen $120 an acre differences in fixed costs on producers with the same acreage and yield potential.

Crop inputs and timely fertilizer and chemical purchasing also separated the high profit farmers from the low profit farmers to the tune of $18.00 per acre. Knowing your herbicide plan well in advance and allowing for a few in-season changes can save you money. Also, there have been $100+ a tonne swings in fertilizer prices the last few years which can add over $10.00 per acre to fertilizer costs.

High-profit farms had the highest income, lowest cost, and highest acreage of the three groups leading to a difference in returns of approximately $120 per acre. The differences in profitability were primarily driven by cost and yield differences with cost being number one. As we move into lower commodity prices it is so important to give ourselves a reality check to make sure our costs are in line. This study from Kansas State was a good reminder of that. SL

To read more on the study click here.

Source: 2010 Manitoba Agronomists Conference procedings paper – Dec 2010. Kevin Dhuyvetter, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS

Advanced Agronomy Conference

Last call!

Our 6th annual Advanced Agronomy Conference will be held in Leduc, AB on November 19 and 20, 2013. We have a great line-up of local and international speakers including Graeme Jones from New Zealand, Blake Vince from Ontario and Andrew Newall from Australia. We’ve put together leading edge topics and content you won’t find at a typical agronomy conference. Be sure to register today!

Topics & Speakers