• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

319-Corn_ Beans-139 in 2006

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    319-Corn_ Beans-139 in 2006

    Charlie,

    SOme folks think yield is not the economic engine that needs to be looked into closely when marketing our western Canadian grains.

    I object!

    I think we should take a long hard look at our CWB mentality on quality vs. quantity! We have been brainwashed!


    Did you see these yeilds?

    Steven Albracht, a farmer from Hart, Texas, won the NCGA contest's ridge-till, irrigated division with a yield of 319.7617 bushels per acre.

    2nd place went to Kip Cullers of Purdy, Mo., with a yield of 297.711 bushels per acre. Last year Cullers had the second highest corn yield @ 345 bu/ac. On this same ground Cullers won this years Missouri Soybean Association's 2006 yield contest with 139 bu/ac.

    Cullers decided to enter the soybean contest in mid July after the feild looked promising. The Pioneer soybean variety 94m80 seed population was 245,000 final stand planted on 7.5". The plants averaged 120pods/plant. Cullers said this wasn't his only good feild, as he had another feild that yielded 131 bu/ac this year.

    Albracht's 70-acre clay loam, center-pivot irrigated field in Castro County was planted with Pioneer 33B51 in 30-inch rows at a plant population of 40,800. The field was planted to cotton last year and had an application of feedlot manure. Fifty-two tons of manure has been applied to this field over the last three years, Albracht said.

    In addition to the manure, he also applied urea and, later, liquid nitrogen through the center pivot. Albracht used a micronutrient compound and treated his seed with insecticide prior to planting.

    Though this field is ridge-tilled, Albracht does not shy away from certain tillage practices.

    "I have run a DMI subsoiler through the field," he said. "I just think it is a good idea to do this every once in a while."

    Albracht has entered the NCGA's corn growing contest for about five years. He won the state title two times and finished in the top three in nationals three times, including this year's first place finish in his division.

    Albracht, who farms about 1,800 acres, feels there are two factors that are vital to achieving high yields in corn production. The first factor is applying enough water on the field, especially during certain plant growth stages such as pollination.

    "This summer I figure the field had about 38 to 40 inches of water, including rainfall and irrigation," he said. "We applied a lot of water in the May-to-August time frame when it only rained 3 inches. Then in August alone it rained 8 inches so we finally got to shut the pivot off for a while."

    The second factor, Albracht said, is important is a consistent stand.

    Wouldn't our economics and marketing change if we doubled our yields?

    #2
    Would agree. Need to look at Murray Mcclelland and Phil Thomas (former Alberta Agriculture staff) that looked at farming practices of farmers who were consistently in the top 10 % of their communities yields.

    Need to look at other factors as well. For example, are there varieties of canola/****seed that consistently yield closer to 45 % oil? Are there crops that producer higher energy/starch content for the ethanol industry? Can we produce winter crops that can survive our harsh winters (maybe won't be needed with global warming)? Pulse crops that add nitrogen (liked the idea in a previous thread of fractionating protein out of peas and using starch portion for ethanol)? Perenial crops that meet a market need?

    Comment


      #3
      The one thing both of you are missing is that in the Good old USA there subsidised so why wouldnt you produce as much as you can and throw every dollar at a crop.
      Its like being in supply management dairy etc. Quota is gold and why they have a set price for a product.
      Relatives in USA are doing way better than our farm in canada and only one reason its uncle sam. As far as producing more in canada We can kick most ND and Montana farms in Yield.
      ONE other note the Big hitters in our area who dont look at Costs just big yield are gone after the 02 and 04 frost. BECAUSE WHY? Our Canadian support failed them and they couldnt cover there imput costs when there was no crop. (SASK CROP INSURANCE AND CASIP)
      So yes a huge crop will give you way more money in high prices and perfect conditions but unless we have a system of protection similar to the USA we wont survive.(I never believed this till after three wrecks in a row and NO help from OTTAWA or SASK GOVT)

      Comment


        #4
        But SaskF3, isn't that called the cost and risks associated with any business? If you don't run your business so as not to rely on government free gifts like a beggar - should you stay in business? If the guy on the corner who owns a ski doo store doesn't have snow and has a bad year, where is his CAISP, or sled sales insurance? Why as a farmer do you expect a handout?

        Pride of ownership and realization of running a business is gone for most farmers and have turned into welfare bums looking for 100 bucks to carry on another day. Get smart or get out. Sheesh.

        Comment


          #5
          ...wd9...did you not just read saskfarmer's post...the usa govt were supporting their grain farmer at a set price what part of that did you not understand...

          Comment


            #6
            Sask farmer
            I agree it's net doolars that make the difference.
            While the U.S farmer can through everything at crop and have bankable farm programs we don'thave that option so our pencils must be sharper. this also highlights the need for real WTO reform, as the Canadian taxpayer will see no benifit to themselves for rural subsidies they don't owe us a living but they do owe us policy that levals the playing field

            Comment


              #7
              Blackjack,

              THis year US grain growers don't get a cent from uncle sam on loan rates... some $20b less than last year.

              If we have had a shift in the grain economy to an energy component based system... how much N do we plan for... at what yield?

              I see NH3 @ $.39/lb... why would we plan to cut our own throats by growing a 40bu wheat crop... when 25lb of N @ $10/ac gives another 20bu/ac of wheat?

              And if CPS were grown... that is 80bu/ac instead of 60... with much less grade risk, production and frost risk for varieties like Foremost.

              The CDN "quality" systems have maxed our risk... for what reward? a lost 40bu/ac @ $4 when the same CPS wheat is worth $2/bu more on the 40bu/ac we did get... for a gross difference of $200/ac less income?

              No wonder we are losing money!

              I think we should PLAN to be a little more productive.... and maybe we would make a little more profit along the way! Quality vs. Quantity... haven't we been brainwashed? And even on frosty years... what did growing CWRS get us... other than feed wheat and low yield?

              We grow the high quality in 06... and I still see 3CWRS being handed out... because we only have a easy market for 4mmt of CWRS quality(they only took 80%)! And at a CPS/WW discount(Winter Wheat Quality in the US) still applies when we are only getting US WW returns for our high quality CWRS!

              What are doing to our selves?

              No wonder the world squalks when we talk about touching the "single desk"... and Measner! Just think if they had to pay a fair price to get wheat from us... it might actually lift world prices... not Just Canadian prices for wheat!

              Comment


                #8
                Just wanted to make the comment that while the American system may reduce risk, generally subsidies do not lead to better production. Many producers don't need to get better because they can still survive on an average crop. If you are on irrigation you need big yields just to cover additional fix costs. Sadly as Tom mentions maybe we have lost opportunity in areas where moisture is less of a limiting factor.

                Comment


                  #9
                  i have to agree with sask farmer, in many respects. in 02 03 04 the more money you laid on the table the more you lost.
                  every area is different, with no irragation, shorter season.
                  fertilizer N rates above 60lbs. and rain can get you 70 bushell wheat,but it is likley to be frozen feed (or in 04 25bush frozen feed with 15.5 protien). if its worth 3-4$bush fine , if its 1$?

                  every year is different, and with lower grades being worth something. stratgeys will change .

                  Comment


                    #10
                    ...tom4cwb...i have no problem with you increasing your production but i hope your right and the export will not be a problem... we have a over surplus as you know in beef that we cannot export cause of rules...what makes you think the border will be any different with your product...

                    Comment


                      #11
                      BlackJack,
                      From Alberta;

                      We export pulse crops around the globe.

                      We export Canola around the globe.

                      We export Hay products around the globe.

                      We export dog and cat food around the globe.
                      We export Canola meal around the globe.

                      We export Canola Oil around the globe.

                      We export pork products around the globe.
                      We export Oats around the globe.

                      The Agents of the CWB export wheat and barley around the globe...
                      With0ut 1 CWB staff person, Director, or manager ever seeing or touching this grain.

                      What are you so afraid of?

                      Is this rocket science?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Blackjack - the part of:

                        Our Canadian support failed them and they couldnt cover there imput costs when there was no crop. (SASK CROP INSURANCE AND CASIP)

                        and

                        unless we have a system of protection similar to the USA we wont survive.(I never believed this till after three wrecks in a row and NO help from OTTAWA or SASK GOVT)

                        is what I was referring too? It seems to have become engrained into our thoughts and conversation as if it were some sort of answer.

                        What is the difference between food and skidoos? Food is abundant and can be purchased from anywhere cheaper than it is produced. Why should the government support a loosing entity? Is that good use of tax dollars?

                        Is there another way? Forums like this are for challenging that "conventional wisdom". In this case it is reliance that the government will make my farm viable thru the next program anouncement. So, I'm challenging it.

                        In terms of yield, grow 10% more than your neighbours and you will stay in business. So I would agree, yield is vital, but so also is contribution margin.

                        Comment

                        • Reply to this Thread
                        • Return to Topic List
                        Working...