I upgraded from an IPAQ to a fuller sized screen computer for soil sampling and scouting. The screen is becoming harder and harder to see, even with glasses so it was time for something a bit bigger.
I looked and looked at some of the offerings from the major Ag software and GPS vendors and then settled on a couple of used Panasonic Toughbook CF-18′s. I ended up getting two used ones for a fourth of what one of the new super duper filed computers from X or Y cost. (X and Y are major Ag software and GPS companies.)
I can do everything the field computers can do minus take a picture with a build in camera. I am not saying they are as fast or as good or comparable but they get the job done, are tough and have so far held up to the abuse I have given them. The real test will start when the ground dries up. Plus they are touch screen so there is no real need for the keyboard, just use your finger or pen.
Nice thing about these units is when I am not sampling, I can use them camping or for Ham Radio/ARES/RACES. Which I already have………
Well we got the first field of wheat sprayed with fungicide and insecticide today. Tim from Browns at Galatia showed up before noon and commenced to spraying with the big wheel Miller sprayer.
I was concerned it was going to be wet and it was, there was water standing on a good portion of the field. We had had almost 4 inches of rain on Sunday but walking the field on Tuesday showed it was firm, more firm that I could ever imagine. So I made the call to T C and the plan was made.
I had made arrangements to get my name on a list for a helicopter to spray. Why not an airplane? Well they won’t fly on me because I am so close to town and to the airport. The helicopter wasn’t a done deal either and they were going to be another day or so getting here and then would decide if they would fly on me.
So first thing this morning I made the call to cancel the chopper, much to the disbelief of the other chemical dealer. I don’t think he thought we could run a ground rig today. I am just not a fan of spraying with a plane or chopper. You cant convince me that 2 gallon of water per acres gets you any type of coverage compared to a ground rig where you can just about paint the leaves. And with all this water and forecast of hot weather coming next week, were going to set ourselves up for a disease issue and I want the best chance to prevent it, not just say I sprayed.
Well Tim did sink down a bit in places but the ruts were not much deeper than what he made on the second application of nitrogen a few months ago. In a lot of places he didn’t even sink down, just ran over the wheat that was growing in the ruts. That is the nice thing about using the same rig over and over again, you can run those same tracks like tram lines.
By late afternoon the wheat had stood back up in several of the wheel tracks to the point that it was hard to tell where he ran and were he didn’t.
I also got a picture of the tile line in this field to show how much it was running. That 4 inch tile wasn’t running much water at this point.
Well we sit and wait now until about Friday or Saturday to spray the rest of the wheat, the head is just about out of the boot, but not quite. Hopefully it will be at the right stage by then before the next round of rain is to get here.
Took some pictures this morning of the winter wheat crop here at our farm in Benton.
I am very well pleased this year with the entire crop. Yes there are some holes and some smaller plants due to late or uneven emergence but on the whole I think it is one of the best looking wheat crops we have ever had at this point.
The first planted field has jointed and is elongating rapidly.
Here are a couple of plants I pulled to look at the head development.
Many people dont know that you can see the head of wheat in the plant at this stage.
If I had a better camera and light source you could see the actual glooms or where the seed will develop and be held.
If everything keeps on track I think we will have an above average harvest at worst and a record harvest at best. But its a long time between now and harvest and a lot can happen. So with all crops we do everything we can do to make sure it has every chance and let the Lord do the rest.
Well it started off as a wet snowing morning again here in Southern Illinois so I found myself inside at the desk sorting out soils sample maps for what needs to be spring sampled.
The nightmare of it is that the particular farm I was working on this morning is like trying to undo a rats nest of bailing twine. Farms that are renamed, sold and split are making me pull my hair out. I figure I had better get use to it as this is going to be more common as farmers get larger and compettion for rent ground gets tougher. There still is the fact that these 20yr old plat books and hand drawn maps are an added unneeded addition to the mess.
Digital maps make this process a 20 minute job and not a 4-6 hour one like it has turned into. Why cant everyone use GPS, GIS, Google Maps and all the other nice, neat and clean ways to handle data. It just makes sense to handle data like this GIS and not paper in files with food stains and water marks. This is why I went GIS/digital years ago……..and have not regretted it one bit. Matter of fact it makes life as a soil sampler easy.
A hand drawn road map and field map on part of a fast food sack doesn’t get it. At least for me it doesn’t. After the last two hours, anyone who shows up here and needs a plat book map to do anything is so low tech that they will be showed the door. Get digital or get out. Make my life and yours a whole lot simpler. At least show me that your in the 21 Century…………
On March 19, 2011 Robertson Farms began weather data collection using a Davis Vantage Pro 2 weather station pictured below. We are streaming our observations live to the internet. You can now access real time and daily total weather data from our farm in Benton.
Click the link below to see weather conditions at the farm in Benton, Illinois
Robertson Farms CURRENT WEATHER
The Davis Vantage Pro 2 wireless unit features a rain gauge, thermometer, barometer, humidity, wind speed and direction instruments. The wireless unit attaches to our internet modem so that weather is collected and stored online. With the alarm feature I can have text or email messages sent when temperature or rainfall per hour exceed a level I set. It also keeps a running summary of the daily totals.
I would like to see other farmers in the area get set up with these weather stations. They are a great tool for record keeping, predicting insect and disease pressure as well as keeping track of growing degree days for crops.
Please visit the CURRENT FARM WEATHER page on our site to see what the weather is here NE of Benton.
Well I took a short walk across one of the wheat fields checking out the how things were looking. I took a few pictures and experimented with a couple of different views, starting with the ground up.
Overall the wheat is in pretty good shape, I would like to see a bit more tillering in some places but the first shot of nitrogen has done its job and we have greened up and are looking pretty good overall. Still some burn from the cold weather but not bad at all.
One thing for sure we are going to have to apply some herbicide to control some of the winter annuals and garlic out in the fields this year. Weather will dictate when that happens as much as when the next application of nitrogen will take place.
Got ready to go pull some soil samples today but by the time I was ready to roll it started raining. Not much rain but enough to make it kind of sloppy on top. One thing that I noticed right off was the need for a mud flap of some type to keep the mud thrown up from the front wheel from getting into my sample bucket.
I searched the shop over looking for something that was light, strong and easy to replace if it didn’t last long. I found that I have a good supply of these Pioneer field signs from days gone by. They are light, strong and one sign will make two mud flaps. So I was in business.
After a bit of eyeballing, I bolted it in place. So now my samples are kept mud and debris free and Pioneer gets a bit of free advertising for pimping my ride.
Well today I thought I would share a few pictures. Nothing spectacular but just a way to get a couple of points accross.
First picture is the field tile line running water. Why is this a big deal? Because it is running! It quit running in July 2010 then ran again briefly a the end of December 2010 and now it runs again on 17 February 2011. Note that is is not running that much. Despite the snow, we still haven’t had that much rain and water to recharge the system!
Next is the conventional wheat planted into corn stalks the first week of October. The ground was worked prior to planting and was just near bug dust.
Last is the wheat planted no-till into the canola/dc bean stubble about 10 days later. Quite a bit of difference in the two stands
But the good news is that they are both green……….and growing with a little warm weather and the first shot of Nitrogen on them!
Once you have your soil test pulled you must decide on which chemistry you will used to test for P. From the basic descriptions that were given in the last post, we know that some test work better in different soils than others do. No matter which test you use, you need to know how to interpret the results of that test. Below are the interpreted categories for each test as used in Iowa for low sub soil P soils.
| Soil Test | ppm P | ppm P | ppm P | ppm P | ppm P |
| Low Sub Soil P | Very Low | Low | Optimum | High | Very High |
| Olsen | 0-5 | 6-10 | 11-14 | 15-20 | 21+ |
| Bray P1 or M3 Color | 0-8 | 9-15 | 16-20 | 21-30 | 31+ |
| M3 ICP | 0-15 | 16-25 | 26-35 | 36-45 | 46+ |
It becomes clear that based on the soil test used the results for the various ranges change pretty quickly. Samples testing High or Very High with any method would not get any P fertilizer yet the bottom of the High range varies 21ppm from one testing method to another. This is where some of the confusion comes in. It is important to know what method the lab you’re sending your soil test to is using and what they are reporting. So the question is: Is one method better than the other? The answer is it depends on your soil. It also depends on what is the established recommended practice for your state or area. As an example in Illinois, the Olsen is not recommended and the Bray is preferred. This is due mainly to our acid to neutral (pH =<7.0) soils.
I use the M3 ICP most often because I also run into a large amount of soils that have been over limed here in Southern Illinois, due to readily available and cheap lime, where the pH is greater than 7.0. I also find that the M3 ICP runs consistent with the Bray P1 for the most part in all soils that I work with. I also run the Bray P1 as a check on a lot of samples as well. I feel very comfortable making a recommendation with either testing method here in Southern Illinois.
As important as what chemistry you use is, sample handling and what lab you use is just as important. It is also important not to switch between labs or testing methods in order to develop a trend or benchmark from which to know how your soils are reacting to the amendments you apply based on the test results. Next post we will look at some difference in test values for some soils with know P levels, or check samples and why labs, test methods and consistent sampling is important.
There seems to be a lot of chest beating as of late in the countryside between competing philosophies on soil tests for phosphorus. These discussions and debates, often aimed at competing consultants, fertilizer dealers and company agronomists are funny from the stand point that most have taken a “side” in the debate, yet can’t accurately defend their position. More sadly they are armed with incorrect information or selective information about the testing methods for phosphorus. Worse yet, all this does is cause confusion with the farmers, who in some cases, are tough enough to get to soil test anyway without the name calling and finger pointing.
What I will attempt to do is in several blog posts is discus the difference between the three testing methods, test result interperation and recommendations. It will not be perfect by any means but is meant as an overview to help kill some of the confusion in the farming community.
Let’s review a few things about P testing here in the Midwest, or at least here in Southern Illinois and the surrounding area that I work in. There are three methods of soil testing for P: The Bray-Kurtz P1 test, the Mehlich 3 test and the Olsen test.
The Bray-Kurtz P1 test, or know more commonly as the Bray P1, was developed in 1945 at the University of Illinois by Dr. Bray and Dr. Kurtz. The test’s extractant is a dilute hydrochloric acid and ammonium fluoride solution. It is recommended for neutral and acid soils (pH < 7.0), but not for alkaline soils (pH > 7.0). This has been the most commonly used P test in the Midwest for many, many years. The test is done by colorimetric test which forms a color in the test tube. The amount of the color is then measured. The more P, the darker the color. With high P testing soils or those that have had been heavily manured, accurate P testing might require several dilutions to get a color that is “light” enough to read.
The Mehlich 3 Test was developed by Adolph Mehlich in 1984 and iss a modification of previous Mehlich test for the acid soils of North Carolina. The Mehlich-3 extracting solution consists of multiple chemical solutions: acetic acid, ammonium nitrate, ammonium fluoride, nitric acid and the chelate, EDTA. With the development of Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectroscopy (ICP) instrumentation, it was found that not only the concentrations of plant-available P in the Mehlich-3 extracting solution could be determined, but also the concentration of plant-available potassium (K) and other nutrients could possibly be measured at the same time. P testing using the Mehlich 3 test can be done by ICP or colorimetric methods. M3 P works well in neutral, acid and alkaline soils. The colorimetric method correlates very well with Bray P1 in neutral and acid soils. However M3 ICP does detect more P than when done colorimetric. I will discuss this more in a later blog post.
The Olsen test, referred to as the bicarbonate test for P, was developed for the alkaline soils of Colorado by Drs. Olsen, Cole, Watanabe, and Dean in 1954. The extracting solution is a solution of weak sodium bicarbonate. The Olsen Test does not correlate well with the Bray P1 but does seem to have some good correlations with the M3 in alkaline soils. The Olsen test is used very infrequently in Southern Illinois but does show up on some soil test reports from labs used west of the Mississippi. On soils that have been excessively over-limed this soil test can do a very good job in assisting the agronomist in P fertilizer recommendations.
In the next post we will look at some difference in soil test levels using the three mentioned soil test methods for P on some check soil samples I have here.
Part 3 of grids vs zones. You can down load the U of I Grid Testing Pamphlet Here as a PDF
Recommendations
There are two basic methods of making a fertility recommendation no matter how one samples the soil. You are either using either the Build and Maintain approach or the Nutrient Sufficiency system for making fertilizer recommendations. Both methods have their own strengths and weaknesses which are well known in the industry and the descriptions of both are well publicized on the web so I won’t take time to go into those here. Each has its place in the Corn Belt and in different management systems and the farmers approach to their cropping systems. The most important thing is to adapt one approach and stick with it during the initial phase of implementing your directed nutrient programs.
Assuming that you have done your best with either grids or zones to capture the true variability of nutrient levels and holding capacity in the field you have tested the next two steps in the process often result in why farmers are dissatisfied with their soil testing programs and the results they obtain. Both problems are a result of improper calibration or the methods used to make the recommendation. Because we introduce more variability into the system, the result of follow up testing is not “where it should be” based on the amount of nutrients applied to the soil. These two problems are crop removal/nutrient replacement and using yield maps to direct recommendations.
What goes wrong?
When using crop removal/nutrient replacement charts the result of subsequent soil test can show lower than expected nutrient levels in the soil. This is pretty common place here in my part of the Midwest. The reason I think is two fold and simple: first the crop removal charts are wrong or too low for our newer hybrids and second our soils clay types and holding capacities tend to tie up “fresh” fertilizers. Farmers and consultants need to do individual calibration of these removal charts for their soil types and cropping rotations to see what the actual removal or replacement rates are. For instance in my area to maintain a soil test level of P or K, I need to add 1.25 to 1.5 times the nutrient removal rate for that nutrient depending upon CEC or clay types. By doing so my soil test levels tend to be very predictable from one testing cycle to another however drought or excessive moisture can cause these levels to fluctuate and that is expected.
The biggest complaint I get from farmers who have entered into a grid soil sampling program with other companies or consultants is the lower and in some cases incredibly lower soil test results in subsequent testing cycles because they have been sold and assume that by incorporating a yield monitor to calculate the actual removal rates their fertility maps will “even out”. First your fertility maps most likely will never even out. Second if your using crop removals then we already know that there is a high likely hood that your soil test values will be lower at the next testing cycle. Third the improper calibration of the yield monitor adds another level of variability to the equation. When you add one error to another you don’t get two errors, you get four!
Why Yield Maps Fail
Unfortunately most farmers calibrate their yield monitors wrong. They calibrate for accuracy with truckloads or scale tickets. Doing so causes individual yield points in the field to be off dramatically on the high and low ends of the yield range. The map above shows a field with 6015 yield points. Because of improper yield calibration 45% (the yellow points) are not in the range of the calibration the farmer did and are inaccurate. So applying a crop removal rate that is low to a yield point that is also inaccurate causes the resulting soil test levels to be way off. This is not a hard problem to fix or detect. Follow the instructions in the manual for proper yield monitor calibration and have your crop advisor check you calibrations as you harvest. You should also have your consultant check each yield map prior to using it in you fertility program to see if it is any good for making a recommendation off of.
What to do?
With only 20% of farmers using a directed nutrient management program is it no wonder why so many have just gone back to blanket applications? We need 80% or more of farmers using directed or site specific nutrient management programs before we are mandated to do so by the EPA. There are numerous consulting agronomists in the Corn Belt who know how to calibrate yield monitors correctly and do the kind of analysis shown above to insure that your data is good when it goes into your recommendations. These same consultants also know how to calibrate removal rates to local conditions. If you cant find one let me know and I will put you in contact with one of the many I am familiar with, associated with or have worked with.
Simply taking a soil test and then entering it into a computer program to make a recommendation with inaccurate data like removal rates and yield maps will result in a big fail when the program is reevaluated with subsequent testing. Getting things right, from mapping the most variability in the field accurately with soil test and yield monitor, then applying correct removal and buildup rates to those variables will insure success.
Part II of Zone vs. Grid Soil Sampling. Part 3 tomorrow
The Grid History.
Although touted as a new and very accurate method of soil sampling by various universities, agronomist and agronomic groups in the last twenty years, using a grid pattern for soil sampling is nothing new. Grid soil sampling was advocated by the University of Illinois in a publication called Test Your Soil for Acidity in 1923. New developments in technology have only slightly updated this 90 year old approach to soil sampling.
The U of I pamphlet contained descriptions and guidelines on how to sample a field using a grid pattern by steps or pace count. The pamphlet also showed farmers how to make color site specific application maps by using the grid points and colored pencils or crayons to color or shade zones based on the nutrient treatment recommendation for each grid point. The application maps very closely resemble the “kriging” VRT maps of today. In reality only two differences exist between 1923 and 2010: One is that we now use computer processors to create color maps instead of graph paper and crayons. The other is the sampling density or number of acres needed to comprise a grid cell has changed over the years.
In the 1980’s grid soil testing began to take hold and grow in the corn belt due in large part to a soil testing business called Top Soil Testing Service. Top Soil did grid soil sampling on many acres of corn and soybean production and were the leaders in establishing the use of GPS for creating field maps in the early 1990’s. By the time the mid 1990’s arrived GPS guided grid soil sampling was becoming the norm as an explosion of field mapping software and VRT technology began to develop and grow. The use of GPS and computerized mapping programs allowed for grid soil sampling to move from a labor intensive “guess” of grid design and sample location to a more precise and repeatable process that could be done by anyone with very little computer training.
The Reason for Grids
Grid soil sampling has as its foundation the systematic approach of evenly spaced sampling points within a field. Evenly spaced points allow for even distribution and equal distance calculations or inverse distance analysis to be done on the data collected to estimate power or strength of one grid point result against the other neighboring results. The output of these equations is an estimate of what the nutrient map could look like if it were analyzed on a foot by foot basis. These numbers can then be kriged or interpolated to produce the same “feed sack” maps that were shown in the 1923 pamphlet.
Modifications to the Standard Grid Sampling Program.
Sampling a field on a 5, 3.3, 2.5 or one acre grid simply because that is the agronomicly accepted practice for an area or because that sampling scheme fits well with the consultants or labs mapping software is a poor excuse for sampling. If the reason for soil sampling is to capture variability and treat that variability then using a rigid method of sampling that introduces more variability or does not allow for proper treatment of the variability does not promote profitability or a true site specific management program. The results of any rigid program will be less than ideal and in many cases can lead to poor conclusions and improper or inadequate fertility treatments.
The major weakness of grid soil samplings is the assumptions made starting at sample collection. Except in rare instances in the soil sampling industry, no allowance is made for any in field variability with regard to soil type, texture or color, landscape position, past management or production practices or other soil site factors that could or do lend themselves to different nutrient holding capacities in a grid soil sampling program. In addition the analysis of the equal distance sampling points can introduce variability that doesn’t exist due to afore mentioned soil site factors.
Soil site factors that guide zone establishment in a Zone Sampling program should be used to modify the grid soil sampling map as well. Using or establishing “smart grids” based on these factors can allow a consultant or agronomist to eliminate a lot of induced variability that a systematic grid program can lead to. Smart Grids can be made to match, follow or mimic these soil site factors while still allowing for the same sample density in the field. They can also still be equal distance while constrained by soil type, landscape position or past practices. This allows for more accurate interpretation of the results and can be related directly back to the soil sample map or field and not to a generic color interpretation of what the field “might” look like.
The major drawback of using smart grids is that it eliminates the “drive the field boundary and apply a grid” methodology of many field technicians who need to get over a large amount of acres in a day. It also requires that each soil core be examined and could lead to grid modification based on observation at the time of sample collection thus eliminating any gain in sampling “efficiency” that the pre plotted points offer.
In addition to modifying the grid layout to “smart grids” some attention needs to be paid to grid size or the number of sampling points in the field. Large fields that are homogenous with regard to the soil site factors mentioned can have a larger grid size and a smaller number of collected samples due to the lack of in field variation. Smaller fields, larger fields that are made up of several smaller fields from past management or production practices or irregular shaped fields need to have a much smaller grid pattern and more collected samples in order to capture the variability correctly. Grid size and the number of sampling points should be adjusted on a field by field basis to insure you correctly capture the variability of the field.
Smart Grids and Smart Grid Sampling is a grid sampling program that is done on a field by field basis, matching grid size and sampling density to all know or observed soil site factors in order to accurately map maximum variability to aid in a directed nutrient placement program (VRT).
Grid Sample Depth and Frequency
All core samples should be taken to the depth of the furrow slice (6-7 inches) or modified based upon tillage practices or the lack of tillage (no till) for the farm. Grid samples should be collected on a regular sampling interval based upon crop rotation, fertilizer or manure applications, or tillage practices. In some instances under high management it would be appropriate to sample fields every year. Fields with high test levels or fields receiving manure should be tested every year. In other cases sampling every two years under a corn-soybean rotation or under a bi-annual fertilizer application would be appropriate. No more than three years should elapse between sampling intervals
There has been some email discussions going on as to why one would grid sample a field vs. zone sample the field. I thought I would dust off part of a paper I did for a presentation to the state NRCS at one time on why I sample the way I do. So for this blog post, here is why I and how I zone sample. Grids are next.
Zone Samling and Soil Sample Location
Each sample should represent a uniform soil area with similar past management. It is recommended that each sample represent 10 acres or less. Sampling areas should be determined by the soil type, soil color, topography, drainage, past management of the field, manure applications or presence of livestock and productivity. Maps of soil electrical conductivity (EC) and GPS yield maps can aid in distinguishing between field areas with contrasting soil properties or crop nutrient removal.
Consultants should use field observations at the time of sampling to determine which local site factors should guide their sampling pattern within each field. Soil survey maps, GPS yield maps, bare soil images and input from the farmer as to past land use (fence rows, pastures, building sites and old field divisions) can be used to create geo referenced zone maps of these factors prior to soil sampling to help guide the consultants sample locations in combination with his or her field observations.
Soil sample zones should be recorded via GPS or geo referenced maps to insure location and repeatability of sampling. This also aids in refining the sample zones as more information becomes available about the field or soil and allows the zone to be used as part of a directed nutrient application (VRT) program.
Sampling Depth, Collection and Frequency
Soil sample probes should be taken to the depth of the furrow slice (6-7 inches) or modified based upon tillage practices or the lack of tillage (no till) for the farm. Each sample should consist of between 10 and 15 cores with cores being collected in a zig zag method thought-out the sample zone. Each core should be examined prior to placement into the sample bag to insure that it conforms to color, texture and depth for other samples in the management zone.
Each soil sample should be air dried and all cores in the sample should be ground and thoroughly mixed prior to submission to the laboratory for analysis. Doing so insures that each sample is truly a representation of the sample area.
Soil samples should be collected on a regular sampling interval based upon crop rotation, fertilizer or manure applications, or tillage practices. In some instances under high management it would be appropriate to sample fields every year. Fields with high test levels or fields receiving manure should be tested every year. In other cases sampling every two years under a corn-soybean rotation or under a bi-annual fertilizer application would be appropriate. No more than three years should elapse between sampling intervals.
Over the last 20 years I have had held some different professional certifications and memberships. Those include certifications as a Certified Crop Advisor (CCA), Certified Professional Agronomist (CPAg) and a NRCS Technical Service Provider (TSP) among others. Holding these certifications and memberships costs a lot of money. Not in the actual fee of membership, but in the different requirements for keeping the certifications current.
In the not-so-distant past I let my TSP go. The amount of time and hoops to jump through for a certification and re- certifications became ridiculous for something that is pretty much useless to me and those whom I consult with. It became evident to me that the NRCS really did not want non-government professionals doing their job. Plus, they don’t pay near enough on those jobs to justify doing them. I know others think differently, but as with all things governmental, life is too short for that much red tape.
The CCA is basically a way of stating that a fertilizer dealer knows what they are doing. I am not a fertilizer dealer, nor do I ever plan on being one at this time. But making fertility recommendations is something I do, so I thought it wise to get that certification. I have never used it for anything, nor have I had to. Being certified now for 15 years, I am wondering why I go and pay for meetings to keep it current when the topics of the meetings are not current. These meetings are not cheap when you figure in business time lost, meal and travel expenses, plus the actual cost of the meeting. In some cases it figures out to be over $100/hr credit.
The CPAg is something I am very proud of. I think it is a true certification for an agronomist. A certification that allows one to be an agronomist and also specialize in a particular discipline without having to get credits in areas that you don’t deal with. The CPAg is more than just a test and code of ethics like the CCA. The certification looks at the entire person, their work experience, academic history and study as well as professional references that one knows what they are doing. You must take the CCA exam as well, but that is a minor part of the CPAg certification.
This past year it has been difficult to get CCA credits in this part of Illinois. I have spent a lot of time on line taking tests for credits. In Illinois all the CCA meetings with approved credits take place up north, it would seem, and none are very well advertized, so that one can make arrangements to get to one. You either know where a meeting is or you don’t. I have visited the Illinois CCA website numerous times but they don’t seem to keep it current and most of the meetings listed were held in 2008 and 2009. And I don’t seem to be on any mailing list to get newsletters for some reason. I don’t even get the “official” CCA magazine anymore even after repeated attempts to register for it online.
So maybe I am out of the loop……………..if I am, then that explains my lack of enthusiasm for the CCA anymore. And if I am in the loop and this lack of communication to the CCA’s from the state is normal then maybe that explains my lack of enthusiasm for the CCA anymore.
Well its that time of year again when the seed salesmen are out in force making their rounds trying to get those seed sales locked in before the last early prepay deadline of the year. I had nearly forgot about it until I saw a post by @cornwuff and @darrenheafty on Twitter today. From the looks of their Tweets, they are doing it right.
Why had I forgot about this looming deadline? Well because I did mine about a month ago.
Two interesting things about seed selection and purchasing from this fall still have me wondering. To be politically correct I will just use Company A and Company B in my discussion. I buy 99.999% of my seed from Company A. I do plant a bag or two of other companies give-me seed for side by sides or just as research to see what is on the other side of the fence. Please note I am very happy with Company A and the job their “numbers” do here on the farm. I am in no way looking to change, so save your emails. I am open though to knowing if something is better, which is why I experiment.
Last year after some listening to some of my customers on the consulting side I purchased some seed from Company B to try. And yes it did quite well. With the dry weather we had from August up until we harvested I wasn’t going gung-ho on anything until the combine got done and and had hard numbers in hand. Upon leaving the field I called Company B to tell them I wanted some of that seed. Their answer surprised me: Were sold out. What? Its September and your sold out? WT? I still don’t really understand how someone could be sold out of seed when the combines haven’t even stopped rolling. But they are sold out I was told.
I shared my experience with some friends of mine in the consulting business and then got a phone call a few days later asking why I was unhappy with Company B. Unhappy? Not at all, just mystified that they could be sold out in September, that’s all. Now if its a marketing plan then it works. If its a supply issue, then it doesn’t work. If its growing pains in the Company, then they have problems. No not mad, not unhappy, not anything but mystified that for three months they have nothing to sell, yet everyone else is out banging on doors left and right, with plenty of seed to go around.
The result of this is that I appreciate Company A a little more this fall, they take care of me, I am in the loop with their sales force and agronomist. They make good recommendations for my farm. They let me know whats going on to insure I have a supply and the opportunity to get the biggest savings with their discount program. In short I see that they value me as a customer and we have a one on one relationship.
So every day a new seed book shows up in the mail from some seed company, and every day it gets thrown in the trash. Seed books just lack the personal touch that a one on one relationship does with you seed supplier.
Recent Comments: