| |
Reduced foreign markets
and U.S. surpluses have been macroeconomic variables leading,
in part, to our current low price conditions. Trying to increase
production at this time looks like a bad idea. Growing more
of a commodity doesn't seem to make sense. Or does it? If
we decide to grow a low-priced commodity, how can we cover
the costs of production? For instance, how can we cover the
$300/acre expenses of growing corn? The answer: volume. At
a price of $1.60 per bushel, we need to produce 188 bushels
per acre just to break even. Ironically, part of the short-term
solution at the microeconomic, or farm scale, is to grow
more of a commodity in such times, rather than less.
I'm already doing everything I know how. Many
producers feel that they are already doing all they can to grow
the best crop possible. Weed control is good, fertility is right,
and plant stands meet expectations. The potential levels that
crop yields can reach depend on all these factors and more, the
most important of which is probably moisture. But how much tinkering
with the crop production system has been done on an individual
farm? Most farmers will try planting different varieties or hybrids,
but that's normally where the experimentation ends. How about
trying different plant populations, row spacings, fertility levels,
or nutrient placements and timings?
I don't know what to try first. The
number of possibilities for management changes is, at first,
overwhelming. There is also risk involved. We want to change
things for the better, not mess up things that are already working.
So where do we start? The place to begin is by looking at the
management practices with a history of success. Often, practices
that have been investigated, for some reason or other, do not
gain wide acceptance. For instance, in some areas, starter fertilizers
and banded applications of phosphorus and potassium have been
shown to be beneficial in areas of the country where their adoption
rate has been slow. Soil testing and plant analysis are proven
successes, but in many areas, they are not being used extensively.
When trying something new, start with a test area, a small bit
of land away from the road where no one can see if you have a
success or failure. By keeping things at a small scale, your
risk can be minimized while still enabling you to explore new
possibilities. And remember to consider simultaneously adjusting
other input levels that may be tied to yield. Otherwise, a potential
yield increase to the factor of interest may not be realized.
Higher production means higher inputs, which
are bad for the environment and cost me more, too. It's
not true that higher production always has to come from higher
levels of inputs. Forinstance, earlier planting and hybrid/variety
selection do not necessarily cost more, but can lead toincreased
yields and quality. Also, better timing of fertilizer applications
to more closely match cropneeds can reduce nutrient losses
to the environment and make better use of the money spent onfertilizer.
There are lots of things that can be done that may not result
in costs or inputs much greater than what is currently being
practiced. When higher inputs are necessary, careful approaches
canminimize risks of profit losses or environmental contamination.
Are you satisfied with your yields? Answer
this question carefully, then think of the possibilities.
In order to
view the PDF versions of these documents, you need to have
a copy of Acrobat Reader installed on your computer. You
can obtain a free copy by clicking on the icon below.
|
|
