Field Scouting
KARTA Meeting Review
Last week, as you know by now if you read this blog or follow me on Twitter, I attended the KARTA meeting. KARTA (Link Here) stands for Kansas Ag Research Technology Association.
KARTA (originally KARA) was organized in May 2000 by a group of innovative Kansas producers, university researchers, and industry members who shared a common desire to learn more about production agriculture and continue to be a part of the leading technological and informational changes taking place on today’s farms
This year was the fifteenth annual conference. It was an applied workshop consolidating information about new and old technologies with a focus on supporting scientifically valid on-farm research efforts and increasing overall farm business profitability.
Topics included precision ag, social media, economics of travel logistics between fields and farms, on farm research, and crop nutrition as well as various presentations by industries on their new, current or trending technologies.
The Thursday night after dinner topic covered land rents and land values. This particular discussion was led by Dr. Terry Kastens & Dr. Kevin Dhuyvetter. I would call it the “Bear Pit” of KARTA. It was a fantastic discussion involving any and all attendees of the meeting. The topic was batted back and forth and ripped apart…and that was just the three hours or so that I stayed for it! Very good discussion…….
While the evening session or Bear Pit was my favorite part of the meeting, I must say that I give the entire meeting a “10″ as far as meetings go. It was very well organized, very well attended by producers and industry. It was an open exchange of information. Information was CURRENT, RELEVANT, FORWARD LOOKING and it was HONEST. It was everything that an agriculture producer meeting should be.
I think so highly of the meeting that I believe we need something like it here in Southern Illinois!
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know how much I hate the usual “rubber chicken and roast beef” agriculture meeting circuit here in Illinois. Well, this wasn’t a rubber chicken meeting by a long shot………in my opinion it very closely resembled, for the production and precision side, what Farm Futures Management Summit is for the economic and business side.
I left there with that good feeling, that positive feeling of knowing that I had been rubbing shoulders with the progressive life long learners of agriculture. When that happens you know you have been to a good meeting……….yes their world is different than mine here in southern Illinois, but that doesn’t matter. It’s the mindset I look for. The mindset of being proactive vs reactive.
KARTA is a great proactive meeting………I highly suggest you attend the 16th meeting if at all possible.
New Year: Updates and Changes Coming
Well, it’s 2012, or something like, that and January is going to start off with a bang so to speak. A very busy month ahead for Robertson Farms. First up is the Farm Futures Management Summit followed by the KARTA meeting shortly there- after. Throw in a IEMA meeting, K9SIL meeting and some other training meetings and the bigger part of the month is gone.
In between those meetings I hope we see the start of the new machine shed as well as getting the new (to us) NH3 bar home so we can put the VRT controller on it. There is a planter to rebuild as well as the backhoe and dozer to work on. So we need to hit the ground running and not look back.
Plus if the weather allows we need to pull a few soil samples, grain to haul and some scraping to do.
Fun and busy!
If that wasn’t enough……..there’s more! First thing in the spare time is a revamp of the website. I have been wanting to a major revamp but have not had the time with all the other stuff going on this fall. The revamp will coincide with two new business ventures we are going to be entering into here on the farm. Can’t say much about them right now but I think some folks will be surprised at what we have planned. These will bring new opportunities for us in agriculture as well as begin to pave the way for the next generation of Robertson’s to enter the the operation.
Hopefully we will be making some announcements in the next 30 days or so……………..
Don’t be alarmed if I miss a day posting this month with all that’s happening.
It looks to be an exciting and busy winter!!!
krfarm year in review
Instead of the “Year in Review” recap that is typical this time of year, how about something different…….
My Top 5 Blogs of 2011
#1 ICCA Board works to kill off CPAg Certification
#2 Combines, Grain Bins, Grain Trucks and Bush Hogs
#3 Harvested Nitrogen Plot Today
#4 Corn Harvest Begins for Some
My Top 5 Categories Viewed in 2011
#2 Soil Testing
#4 Ham Radio
#5 Guns
2011 was a record year for krfarm.net
Almost 27,000 unique visitors who made 77,000 visits this year with 835,000 page hits while they visited. December, November, September and May were the biggest months for visitors and page content viewed.
Thanks for visiting! Thanks for commenting! Thanks for telling your friends about us!
We are going to try and ramp it up a notch for 2012…….stay tuned!
My .02 on Nitrogen in 2011
Seems like everyone has a blog, newsletter or magazine article on nitrogen and corn yields for the 2011 crop. Well I guess I will chime in with my .02 worth on the topic this Friday.
A pound of N is a pound of N. (Yea, we all know that I hope by now.) It is where, how and when you place that N that matters most. In 2011 where, how and when made all the difference in the world. Yet there are still fertilizer dealers and farmers who are flat out in denial.
I have been told that some calculations have already been done here locally by a few farmers that their sidedressed corn had a $200/ac advantage to their preplant corn. I believe that is the case and think is higher in some instances. A lot higher in some instances. Based on the available N testing that I did this spring, testing for both Nitrate and Ammonia N, there were many instances of preplant N loss, (urea, solution and anhydrous) of 50% with some fields I tested losing 75% by the time the corn was V2 – V3. Some of those fields didn’t have corn growing in them by the 20th of April either…………
Fields with preplant N, where the farmer either tested and believed the results or assumed a N loss based on crop color and looks by V5-V6, and then sidedressed supplemental N at between 50 and 75 lbs/ac, and reported to me a 50-70 bu/ac yield increase over doing nothing.
So 50 bu/ac @ $6/bu = $300/ac Gross minus 75 lbs N/ac @ .50/lb = $37.50/ac Cost equals $262.50 NET/ac (no labor or machine cost subtracted).
So on 100 ac that’s another $26,250 of profit…………..Sidedressed N, applied with a knife, in the ground, between the corn rows.
Will that hold true every year……….. probably not. But if a pound of N is a pound of N and placement and timing are everything, then how much are you willing to give up for convenience? $262/ac? $200/ac?? $50/ac??
In that range of numbers above is a lot of the cash rent that is paid in this area……….Where, how and when could have easly paid your cash rent………plus a great return on your time an machiney investment.
Where, how and when was everything this year……..
Stopped at 50% done.
Corn harvest is all but over for us except for the last 25 acres of corn that is still in the 18-20% moisture range. I thought it would go Saturday and got fooled when the yield monitor wouldn’t go below 17.5 . So we sit and wait on that field to dry down and hope it will stand, which I don’t think is going to be a problem because the stalks look like trees out there.
We are still a 0% on soybean harvest here. The leaves have fallen off about 40% of our crop but there is still a lot of green. Everyone forgets that we planted all double crops this year behind the wheat which has contributed to our lack of soybean harvest progress.
Of note this fall is a couple of oddities or at least oddities to me. First a six inch increase in elevation seems to indicated a 75 bu/ac increase in yield on the flat fields. The difference between the low ground and high ground is remarkable. It is also worth noting that this is only true on the corn on corn fields and not the other corn after bean flat fields. That is definitely something to cogitate on this winter.
Secondly the same corn planted on the same date has greatly different moisture levels by just crossing the road. I replanted most of the corn on corn field the same day with the same number I planted on the last 30 acres. Yet there is a 6% increase in moisture on the last 30 acres vs. the replanted corn on corn. Again go figure that out.
I am sure when I get into the soybeans that I will be scratching my head as well. Beans planted on 13 July into pure hog wallow mud, they shouldn’t make a thing but they don’t seem to be look to bad from a casual scout.
ICCA board works to kill off CPAg certification.
I read with much loathing how the American Society of Agronomy/ICCA Board is going to make the Certified Professional Agronomist (CPAg) certification part of the Certified Crop Advisor (CCA) program. Very disappointing, but expected, knowing how much control the fertilizer dealers have in the ASA/ICCA anymore.
The ICCA board continues to, in my opinion, to work at destroying all other agronomist certifications while promoting and selling fertilizer sales people as professional agronomists at the expense of all others. They have now succeeded with killing off the CPAg by taking a higher standard and making it part of a lower standard I suspect they will work on the other soils certifications in the future as well.
The CPAg was really the only certification for professional agronomists and not those who were trying to make a buck pushing a product. There is no certification for those who are not tied to sales other than some of the independent consulting organizations who offer a “jacked up” certification program that is pretty much a joke as well.
The whole “A CCA can be TSP’s for NRCS” line is also bogus, as many of the plans done by fertilizer dealer CCA’s in this area were rejected because they can’t follow directions or make sound agronomic recommendations. Plus, there is very little TSP work do be done with most all agencies out of money.
Most of the CCA continuing education credits are done in-house by the big chain dealers so their getting sales training and calling it education. Illinois CCA is an even bigger joke as they don’t even publish or give notice of meetings where CCA credits are available, other than their own convention. Just look at their website. They haven’t updated meetings since 2008/2009 and haven’t updated it at all since the last state CCA convention. So the state board does little to help CCAs or CPAg’s that are not affiliated with a dealer get any continuing education credits.
Yes, I am a CPAg, an unhappy CPAg after reading this announcement. I have also been a CCA for almost 20 years, I think. I will have to very seriously rethink renewing my certifications and membership in the ASA this year. There is little reason to be certified anymore.
Everyone is an expert, just ask them.
I seems that we are bombarded with experts at every turn anymore. If there is no one to serve as an expert, someone seems to always self appoint themselves. In some cases there are gatherings of experts walking all over each other trying to get to the top of the expert pile. Most of these folks while possibly well meaning or even good hearted generally have no clue what the heck they are talking about or they come across so absorbed in their own self promotion that they are not tolerable.
Case in point #1: I got a notice that a person to whom I have a very casual knowledge of had passed away. Upon following a link to read what happened I found a gaggle of experts on a discussion board that not only knew what happened to him and how it happened, but his life story in many details. The kicker is that the 4 or 5 pages of comments were dominated by three or four people who were telling all the other people they were wrong. The funniest post was were one person commented on the deceased’s connection with Illinois, to whom the lead expert on this fellow admitted he didn’t know he had any ties to Illinois then wanted proof that the commentator knew what he was talking about. Funny to me but I can just imagine how sad it might have been for any of the family members who might have happened upon this mess. I do know the “one” head expert mentioned above in this discussion, he is an expert on everything he talks about, just ask him. He is one of the skid-marks in the underwear of life that we, regrettably, cant dispatch in a burlap bag with a concrete block tied to it over a bridge into the river.
Case in point #2: While I was trying to find some ballistic information online I came across a discussion on how the .17HMR was not suitable as a coyote round and would not kill anything bigger than a prairie dog. Having dispatched coyotes, at range, with my .17HMR I thought that I must hurry out into the fields and tell these coyotes go get up and run along, despite the smell and decay, as they must be mistaken that I had killed them. The expert was using all kinds of “math” and “physics” to show that the .17 lacked the punch and power to take a dog down beyond 50 yards etc so forth at nausea. Despite testimonials and the comments of a real hunting expert (a person acknowledged as knowing what he was talking about), this fellow held to his guns that you needed a big gun to kill coyotes at range. Maybe coyotes in Ohio wear bullet proof vest or their fur is like Kevlar due to difference in their winters or something. Despite this expert, I still dispatch ole wile coyote with a .17HMR at every opportunity.
Case in point #3. I have been bombarded with propaganda to attend a farmer/consultant field day on growing corn and soybeans like a “high yield expert”. I do attend field days, when there is something to learn or there is a topic of interest. Its just part of the learning and educational process that farmers must go through if they are going to compete and stay profitable. That being said this particular field day is a big JOKE. Its put on by a couple of self promoted and self proclaimed experts whom I wouldn’t let on my farm. One half of this Abbot and Costello team I have know and been some what acquainted with for over 10 years through a friend. They are only about the sale and what they are selling today is better than what they sold yesterday. Did I say this was a joke already? What do they know? NOTHING. Most of what they are going to present is either stolen from universities, picked from other companies with similar products or services and other field days or is not proven with independent non biased research and is only being used to end up selling a couple of products that they get kick back for. Yet, with no industry certifications or qualifications, they have set themselves up as experts, and got the backing of people who should know better, on growing high yield crops and are fleecing attendees for big money when its all said and done.
Case in point #4. The University of Illinois Extension. A complete Chinese fire drill of experts who have never “been there or done that” trying to tell the world how much they know about the real world. Nuff said there.
Yes, I have had my fill of experts this year already. That is why I wont be going to any more field days, conferences or meetings other than a very select few for the remainder of the year. That is also why I have assigned junk and spam status to a lot of emails from experts and why I have erased several talk and discussion boards from my internet favorates.
The result of riding myself of so many experts is that my blood pressure is much lower lately.
Trust me, I know what I am talking about…………..
Some Photos of this Week
Some photos off the cell phone this morning……..sorry for the poor quality, I never seem to have my good camera with me when I see something interesting like these things anymore……..???
First photo is of the super cell thunderstorm that went accross Jefferson and Wayne counties mid week. Took this picture from the farm loooking north at the anvil cloud which is a classic sign of a bad, bad storm
Second is the beginning of the end of this corn field. No its not one of ours, its by one of the new coal mines that practices long wall mining. The ground has fractured and is falling and this is the crack and beginning of the falling of this land. Pretty much destroying it as productive farm ground from now on. Maybe a duck pond, but no more corn and soybeans………..
Going Old School
Ended up having to replant about 25% of what I had planted yesterday. I say replanted, I went in and spotted in. The almost 4 inches of rain last week pretty much killed the corn anywhere it ran across the fields.
For this and for planting the last 30 acres, of which was still pretty wet, even after being worked, I used the old 6 row planter and little 70hp tractor so I could tiptoe over the wet areas and also use all the no till attachments on the planted to do a better job of planting even in the worked heavy ground.
I jokingly say “old school” as I am sure I am the only person in this part of the world who is running such small equipment these days. But the old 12 row and Magnum are just to big and heavy and cause to much compaction in these conditions.
I was slow going, both in replanting and in planting but it did a very nice job and even planted better than it did the first time.
Now the corn that is up gets to roast in the 100 deg sun for the next two days as we go from wet and cool to very hot and dry.
Comments on N sampling results.
Thanks to Luke Baker, Agronomist at BLI for contributing to this post.
Just a follow up on the N testing and the trend we are seeing here in Southern Illinois. I continue to see PSNT (Pre Sidedress Nitrogen Test, the nitrogen test I am running to test for nitrate and ammonium N) return at values less than half the original amount applied. I have even seen samples return that are within the range of what we would see as “background noise” or what we would expect to see from a DAP application or from residual N from a legume.
Again this continues to be true of Anhydrous, Urea or Liquid, stabilizer or no stabilizer. The fields tested so far have ranged from those fields not planted or just planted to fields where the corn is ~ankle high or about three-four leave stage. N has been applied anywhere from mid March through Mid to late April prior to the rains at the end of April. I attribute this to mainly two factors: Soil temperatures above 60 deg F and half a years worth of rainfall over a two week period.
There have been claims that the pre-sidedress nitrogen test (PSNT) does not pick up on N that has been applied with N-Serve. This is wrong. All N-Serve does is “poison” microbes to stop nitrification. The PSNT measures ammonium and nitrate in the soil, thus, we will be able to measure any nitrate and ammonium that was applied as fertilizer because N-Serve only influences the microbiology. This is also true of other stabilizer for urea or liquid N. They do not keep the N from being detected in the testing procedure.
Could there have been loss of spring applied ammonium treated with a stabilizer? Most certainly. In a study done near Brownstown, Illinois (this is available on the N-Serve website) anhydrous was applied on March 15th and April 1st. Samples were taken on for ammonium and nitrate on May 13th and the found that for the March applied N 53% of the total was in the nitrate form when treated with N-Serve. This N is now available for loss. However, this is better than the sample not treated with N-Serve where 100% of the ammonium was all ready in the nitrate form. For the April application, both N-Serve and no N-Serve treatments showed a conversion of ammonium to nitrate of about 50%. In this case the N-Serve did not out perform just anhydrous alone.
Was there loss this spring? More than likely yes. How do we know? When PSNT’s come back low we know there was a loss. For example, if 200 pounds of N was applied in April and the PSNT results come back 20 ppm nitrate and 5 ppm ammonium there was loss. Typical background levels of soil nitrate and ammonium are aroud 5 to 8 ppm for nitrate and 1 to 4 ppm for ammonium. The field that had 200 pounds of N put on is now only showing 100 pounds of N (20 ppm + 5 ppm x 4 [4 is the depth factor] = 100 pounds of N per acre). Also, if the N-Serve was still being effective we would see much higher ammonium levels (25 to 40 or more ppm of ammonium) than we did in the above example.
Once N is in the nitrate form it can rapidly be lost to leaching and denitrification under saturated conditions (which you guys here in Southern Illinois had for many days at the end of April first portion of May). Most of the PSNT analyses that I have looked at from Southern Illinois appear as if farmers are going to come up short on N even though they applied 150 to 200 pounds of N as anhydrous with a stabilizer.
In fact, some samples have had complete loss of N because the PSNT is showing only normal background levels of soil N (8 ppm of nitrate and 1 to 2 ppm of ammonium). In these soils, another 150 pounds or so is likely to be needed for good corn yield. These fields have corn that was just planted or just coming up.
Do I need more N? Most likely yes. In my above example showing 100 pounds of N per acre, 80 of those were in the form of nitrate. If the weather continues wet this N can be lost rather quickly too. One recommendation that I heard was to “fly on” urea at tasseling. This would give you quite a bit of bang for you buck. However, you need rainfall to get the urea into the soil. If the weather turns dry…as I heard that it might the urea would just sit on the surface and volatilize (be lost to the air), which does your corn no good. Side dressing N now or later with a high boy so that it gets into the soil is a much better option. If sidedressing now, it may be wise to use a stabilizer to limit N loss if weather is expected to stay wet for another few weeks.
Who needs Vegas when you can be a farmer? Don’t guess or rely on the past to assume what is left in your fields. This year you are going to be very short.
Don’t guess, soil test.
Back to a regular schedule?
Hope to get back to normal posting next week. Just about wore out switching between implements and jobs this last week. But I did get most of my corn planted. But is ugly farming.
New Sampling Computers
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………
Roof Top Scouting
Had to patch a hole in the skylight of the machine shed today that the wind storm tore off, so while I was up there I took a picture or two with my cell phone of the wheat around the house.
You can see the water in the wheel tracks in the one shot.
Sorting Out Sample Maps
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…………
What goes wrong with zones and grids.
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.
