|
Aberdeen MS | I'm not slamming your operation or system you use. On the contrary, if what you do and use provides you with your best return, then by all means don't switch.
I'm not saying you are wasting N. Various levels of nutrients are required for various systems to achieve a profitable return. I have no doubts that your yields are probably higher than what mine are. Yield is only the income factor when totaling up the years productivity. The cost of the inputs....and that means ALL the inputs subtracted from that determines how much Uncle Sam's IRS arm is going to be looking at. Higher yields less higher inputs will equal the same bottom line as lower yields less lower inputs assuming both yields are marketed at the same price.
The reduced placement of nutrients I have gone to are only a small % of my reduced inputs, not the major portion, far from it. I am following the same data as you are from the U of MN and have talked with Dr Rehm on more than one occasion over the years. I've only reduced N by 20 units/acre. My nutrient placement over the years is done broad spectrum over the field. And nutrient placement is done every year. Beans get nutrient placement just as the corn and wheat do. The band is moved every crop year. Some nutrients will be tied up in application year.... and some of that "tied up nutrient" will be released in subsequent years. Don't forget the ability of the soil to rejuvenate itself with NO additional nutrients. "Here", the soil is capable of producing somewhere around 50-60 bu/ac corn if you did no fertilizing at all. Dr. Rehm puts that figure at around 75-80, but I stay a bit on the conservative side. That means with my 10 yr APH of 153, I only have to supply nutrients for about 100 bu/ac give or take and maintain static fertility. By using university and industry accepted removal amounts..... I'm still over fertilizing. Industry "recommendations" assume a "sterile" soil starting out every year and after the harvest is done, you have a "sterile" soil once again. But we all know that isn't the case. Just for an example.... 100# of 0-0-60 applied in the fall incorporated... gives about 15# of available K for the next years crop. When I toss that out to my supplier.... he gets a "deer caught in the headlights" look. When you have soil tests that range in the VH of K, why would I want to take the nutrient balance further out than I already am????? The last 5 years over 5 - 6 different hybrids, my yields range from 190 down to 156, nutrients were applied the same per soil tests on each field, meaning, they were matched to the soil test, not one formulation across the farm. Hybrid selection, pollination timing were the limiting factors... not nutrient availability.
Where my savings come into play is reduced trips across the field. I only make 2 from the combine until the crop emerges. My nutrients are placed in those two trips as is my tillage and planting. No longer am I putting out $5/ac for the fert plant to put them down. I only use 5 pieces of equipment to go through my crop growing year. Maintenance is greatly reduced. Up until spraying.... 2 tractors had a total of 78.8 hours put on them for 575 acres of crop land, combine to crop emergence. That related to extremely reduced fuel usage. So far I've gone through 500 gallons of diesel since Jan 1. I already have 75 acres done for the entire year so harvest costs for that 75 acres are included in the 500 gallons.
Interest savings come into play, kind of a "hidden cost" many don't take as serious. Many do, but many do not.
I have no bins or on farm storage, but that comes into play on the marketing end. But I have no maintenance, insurance, electric, or RE taxes on the bins either.
I'm not corn/beans and I certainly didn't buy into the "fence row corn" this year. Corn makes up less than half my crop land. Only 210 out 575 and I have no income producing livestock. I will share an exact dollar figure. My 75 acres of wheat in 07 has grossed me $408.38/acre. Some bushels were marketed at $6.02 cash price local. That money is already deposited, so it isn't "projected". Factoring last years wheat price to this years price, 06 had very similar returns. When one does the math, 150 bu/ac corn (achievable this year??? maybe.. maybe not) @ my locals Dec bid is $3.16 is $474/acre. Harvest price to harvest price comparing apples to apples. Which is more profitable?????? Only you can answer that question for yourself. I know where my profit is.
What I have not put a figure to is "my time factor". What is my/your time worth in $$/acre? That will be different for each individual.
I am in no way, sharing this info in an attempt to "sway" your line of thinking to switch systems. On the contrary, like I said previously, if you are profitable the way your operation works.... by all means continue so. I do hope that by sharing, you might gain some information other than "university trials" as to how to you might be able to"tweak" your system for increased profitability.
as a P/S on the no till. If you have followed any of my posting on a rebuttal to the "die in the wool no tillers", you already know I'm in the same camp as you are. No till "here" is agronomically feasible, but it is not economically feasible.
Good luck to all for a profitable 07 crop year. | |
|
NH3 in strip till
