Corn on corn is a difficult prospect in 2015. Regardless of location within the Burrus footprint, continuous corn lags behind other cropping systems in average per acre estimated income.
There are reasons that individuals will still practice continuous corn:
- Landlords sometimes demand it.
- Local marketing opportunities sometimes encourage it.
- Past government policies have sometimes promoted it.
- Previous chemical and/or fertilizer programs sometimes dictate it.
- Pest management issues sometimes force one into it.
- Cropping plans sometimes necessitate it.
Seed
Let’s
begin by discussing how we might “go crazy” when it comes to seed (how we might
go beyond what is necessary). Let’s do so
by asking some probing questions. First,
does your situation really require a pyramid or single trait RIB hybrid (i.e.
does it require a hybrid with multiple traits targeted against the same pest or
does it require a single trait pour and go/no-refuge hybrid)? A resistant rootworm population or a bulk
fill planter may require both, but if that doesn’t describe you then ignoring a
cheaper single trait/non-RIB product may be “going crazy.” If a cheaper single trait/non-RIB product
helps you get to “necessary,” does it really make sense (given the market) to
aim for “extraordinary?” Are there other
seed-related issues that might trend toward going a little crazy? Carefully consider what you need and what you
want. There is a difference, and
continuous corn will dictate “need” rather than “want” to cash flow.
Let’s
now discuss how we can “cut corners.” It
is tempting to go cheap in 2015 when it comes to seed, to merely look at price
and discard all other considerations.
Saving dollars should always be on the grower’s mind, but it must not
come via cut corners. Seed selection
holds the most potential to make corn on corn work. Conversely, it can also make corn on corn a
disaster. Yes, a Burrus sales agronomist
is making that statement, but that doesn’t make the statement less true. A poor seed choice will negatively impact
continuous corn and will likely tighten up margins. A selected hybrid must fit the actual
productivity level. It must fit the most
likely environment encountered. A
selected hybrid must perfectly fit the seeding rate desired by the grower. It must have a good synch between pollen shed
and silk emergence (i.e. good nick).
These considerations are always important in hybrid selection, but they
are not negotiable in continuous corn.
Continuous corn does not allow the grower to simply pull any hybrid off
the shelf.
Planting
Planting
is another area where “don’t go crazy” seems to be the appropriate starting
point. Bluntly stated, unless you are
already in the market for a new planter or new planter attachments, and have
been for a while, dramatic investments in equipment or attachments will often
fall beyond what is necessary in continuous corn. Any dramatic “gadget investment” had better
yield lots of additional bushels the majority of the time.
What
about “not cutting corners” when it comes to planting? Take some time to calibrate the thing. New attachments won’t make a difference when
a planter is dropping lots of doubles or when the spacing between kernels
begins to swing wildly. Make sure you
are getting uniform drop, stand and planting depth. Then... check things out throughout the season. Calibrating and observing planter performance
post-calibration is not wasted time. Poor
calibration costs growers income each year, and you can’t afford lost income
with continuous corn.
Field Preparation
Fuel
costs are one of the biggest line item expenses for the grower, and growers are
rightfully on the hunt for ways to reduce that fuel bill. Even with recent positives in the fuel/energy
sector, fuel expenses will remain significant.
It is tempting to save dollars by eliminating tillage. The suggestion “don’t go crazy and don’t cut
corners” applies when we speak of no-till in 2015. Let’s again ask some probing questions.
Does
the hybrid selected lend itself to no-till or to conditions that might
accompany no-till? Do you have
experience with no-till or would this be your first shot at the practice? Will the continuous corn field lend itself to
your skill with no-till or will it not? A hybrid
with a low no-till score is not going to suddenly perform at its’ peak when the
grower places it in no-till. A hybrid
less suited to “wet feet” is not going to perform well if no-till causes a field
to hold excessive moisture. Placing such
a hybrid in such a situation is “cutting a corner” and kind of “crazy” at the
same time. You are ignoring the
necessary and expecting a good result.
Embracing no-till is admirable and
possibly a great long-term goal.
However, the tight margins of 2015 may not be the time for tillage-prone
growers to jump exclusively on the no-till wagon. No-till takes a skill set. Well practiced no-till takes a well-earned
skill set. Eliminating tillage minus any
experience in doing so may potentially “cut corners,” and if you really aren’t
very good with it – you’re going to look “crazy.”Any piece of ground can be no-tilled. However, some tracts are more easily no-tilled than others. For instance, bottomland gumbo can be no-tilled – but it proves a difficult prospect for many. The decision to go continuous corn is not the time to play bold and pretend a practice is within your comfort zone. Be honest with yourself. If you know you cannot make the practice work in your situation and you none-the-less try it anyway, you are “cutting a corner.” You are “going crazy” when you try to cram your square peg into the field’s round hole.
Weed Management
A weed
management program in corn doesn’t need to be extravagant (i.e. crazy), but it
does need to provide a good product mix.
An appropriate mix of chemical options/applications may at first look
extravagant when compared to past one-pass post-emerge programs – but a good
product mix is far from being “crazy.”
Pre and post applications should be used. Residual products should be used along with
less persistent products. Resistant
dictates this approach, and moving to a one-pass post-emerge program (with the
hope of hypothetically reducing herbicide costs) is production suicide. Resistance is lurking. On paper, a one-pass program may look
appealing, but for most growers the practice will only save money on paper –
not in reality. When that program fails,
subsequent (often futile) trips will continuously thrust the sprayer back into
the field. When done right, a mixed and
multiple application herbicide program will provide great control while
reducing the number of trips across the field.
Insect Management
Savings
in this area really depends upon the quality of the grower. Are you good at scouting? Do you know how to do it well? Do you scout when, and as often as, you need
to? The answer to those questions will
determine if insect management qualifies as a cheap risk-filled endeavor or
insanity embraced.
Growers
with well-honed and frequently practiced scouting skills can save money when it
comes to insect management. They will be
able to spot the rise of a problem, control that problem when it hits
threshold, and reap the financial rewards.
Applying insecticides prophylactically when scouting skills are
well-honed and frequently practiced is “crazy.”
Trust in that skill and save yourself some money. Do what is necessary, but don’t shoot for
extravagant or extraordinary.
Growers
less skilled/less vigilant when it comes to scouting must do two things. First, they need to correct that lack of
skill. Economic thresholds have been
designed to benefit the grower’s bottom line.
Scouting is a tool that can detect when those thresholds are met, and it
should be used. However, if you must
plant corn on corn and you don’t have those skills, you need to invest in
traits that will control a broad spectrum of butterfly/moth larvae and
rootworms. To both ignore traits and
ignore scouting represents a serious cut corner. It will likely harm grower income.
Disease Management
Pathogens
responsible for disease can afflict any field, be it corn after beans or corn
after corn. However, some diseases are a
little more likely in continuous corn.
Additionally, the reduced yield potential of continuous corn makes the
impact of disease that much more potent.
Don’t go crazy by applying fungicides to a crop that fails to show
economically significant evidence of disease.
Likewise, don’t cut corners by investing in a hybrid that does not have
a good resistance package. Choosing a
good resistance package can reduce pesticide costs.
Fertilizer
What
does your current nutrient situation look like?
Would your fertilizer program qualify as insane or potentially harmful
in continuous corn. Let’s start by considering
phosphorus (P) and potassium (K). If P
and K are currently at adequate build up levels, leave them there and merely replace
what you remove (i.e. go with a maintenance fertilizer rate). To invest in more than what the soil needs
right now would be crazy. If soils are not
adequate though, you must invest in both buildup and maintenance. Not getting the soil where it needs to be
will reduce yields, and it is a cut corner. Nitrogen investments represent
another area where balance is necessary.
Return on investment must be the goal (i.e. achieving what is necessary
while straying well from potential harm).
Now is the time to embrace a Return to Nitrogen approach, the approach
promoted by many Midwestern universities. The evidence for other nutrient
investments is pretty sketchy/pretty thin.
Because we must squeeze more dollars out of continuous corn, it makes
little sense to invest in much more than needed lime, P, K, and N.
Harvesting/Storage
The
thoughts here mirror those of planting.
Unless you are already in the market for new equipment, bells, and/or
whistles - do not purchase equipment,
bells, and/or whistles. To do so is
crazy. Don’t cut corners
though. Once again, make sure the thing
is calibrated before harvest, and make sure you are satisfied with performance
during harvest. Are you blowing too many
kernels out the back? Are concaves set
right? From a storage standpoint, reduce
some energy cost by selecting a hybrid that dries down well in the field. A bin fan can represent considerable saving
over the LP needed by a drying bin.
Marketing
We have
stated, throughout this article, that continuous corn systems must seed to
optimize income. Striking a healthy
balance between not “going crazy” with inputs and not “cutting corners” with
inputs is the only way to press income potential higher in corn following corn. We therefore must mention marketing. Because continuous corn income potential is
already at a disadvantage, a grower simply cannot pick and sell in the
fall. Nor can the grower flippantly sell
at other times of the year. Corn on corn
is not a system suited to marketing all one’s corn at once, and it is not a
system suited to ignoring the commodity market.
At the very least, pick some evenly dispersed days out on the calendar
and market a fraction of your grain each time.
Better yet, work with people skilled in squeezing additional value from the
market.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.