BinVigor?

[poorboy]

Saskfarmer,
I have cleaned lots of my own canola seed over the years and was very happy with the results. I think seed companies should go to jail for the amount of gouging that occured when herbicide tolerance came about. Open polinated canola was worth $2/lb and monsanto gave everyone the roundup gene for free and than the same variety with roundup ready trait cost $4-5/lb. Seed companies still had to do development and selection before and could do it for less than 1/2 of the cost.
Now that I am off my soap box, I am wondering what you are actually seeing for yield differences between certified Invigor and common seed replanted. You obviously have both as you need to source your common seed.
At $30/ac seed costs, you probably save about $22/ac which at $5 is 4.5 bushels/ac. You also save a lot of fincancial outlay if you get a drought/hail/fire, etc.

I think that most people have been told not to do it and are scared. Everyone should probably try 100 acres and see for themselves.

[WildTomato]

The number one most limiting factor to crop production is still rain! However, I would be interested to know what yield differences you've seen between the bin-run and new seed.

[SASKFARMER]

Lets look at the facts in Saskatchewan field of Dreams which has every nutrient every disease control every seed treatment etc. the top yeild over scale for field was just over 60 bushel an acre for liberty hybrid. THis is in the Kamsack area lots of rain and good soil. Agrologist on staff full time etc.
So farmers in Shithole canada that are saying that they are getting 60 bushel yeilds with their combines yield monitors I say Bull ----.
In comparison this is the third year of a full blown study on a bunch of farms in our area. Results show little to no yield advantage over the bin run.
On disease control a yield advantage of .75 bushels an acre to .5 with a net farm loss per acre of 10.75 (rain fall over 400MM)
Best advice is try 80 acres and compare do the same on both parcels and also have comparable land.
Pursuit works same. No yield disadvantage and probably the other variety would do the same.
Remember they took our cost from 1,86 a lb to 6.25 with little benefit to producer and we let them now its time to fight back or lose.
Also remember that the top 4 chemicals we use today have their patend run out next year or 2007 and they are scared shitless. Roundup extra in China can be made and delivered into western canada for 1.00 a liter you do the math on the skinning. Farmers who take advise from their local retailers and reps are getting skinned every day and as long as they let them get away with it, it will continue. Ever wonder why the local chem test plots look so good compared to your field (300 lbs plus of nitrogen in soil) but do they tell you this no.
have a good day!

[kent]

Saskfarmer. I have been reading your threads and I find it hard to believe that you have not imporved your yields in your Canola the last 10-15 years. Every farm has to justify thier input costs, but to believe that you can get the same yield out of a hybrid in year 2 is impossible. You may want to go take a genetics course to believe people when they say hybrids will not perform the same in the F2 generation. I think you will find youself in a minority of people who will cheap out and seed inferior varietys and seed treatments even in the low commodity prices we have.

[SASKFARMER]

Kent when you look at 10 to 15 years of history of canola you will see that the average yield has not changed much in 15 years. We live in real world of frost drought etc. not a lab.
Keep studying and one day when you grow up you will see that farmers are the real losers in all this.
The yield advantage is minimal thats the real facts.

NOT DONE IN THE CANOLA DOME LIKE KENT BELIEVES

[SASKFARMER]

Kent one more thing since you must be a chemical rep or retailer that likes to rip farmers off, with these low prices and no goverment support to speak of watching costs is how one survives not looses and becomes bankrupt.

[WildTomato]

I think we need to look at geographic differences. You can't disclaim what SASKFARMER is saying because he speaks from experience. Perhaps the areas he speaks of haven't seen yields improve much with the latest and greatest inputs.
In Alberta, I believe the breakthrough in canola yields came with Quest canola about 6 or 7 years ago where we went from 30 to 40 bushel averages to over fifty, the likes nobody had seen. They quickly got rid of that variety within two years and replaced it with a poorer variety. This was the time that LL varieties were really starting to come on stream with 50 plus averages as well, all-be-it good moisture years. Now I have personally seen 90 bushel yields in my meager 9 years of canola production this year. The top yield last year was 70 on a 540 acre field. Again, both fields had LL varieties.
The issue with chem and seed companies gouging farmers is another.

[kent]

I agree Wild Tomatoe that places may have not seen great yields over the last 10- 15 years. But I find it hard to believe that Saskfarmer does not think our varieties have improved in the last twenty years. I dont expect him to believe every companies stats, to their entirity because they can pick and choose areas to there advantage to show off their varieties. What we should believe is our gov't tests and independent tests that are out every year. They will clearly show us that our varieties are improving over the years without any bias. As for the 100 bushel an acre comment, I think that some math needs to be understood. If a variety is 125% of the checks from 10 years ago then it only means a 25% yield increase. Say from a 30 bus crop to a 37.5 bushel crop. I would say that would be a fair increase, not the 100 bushel crop you expect to get. Beieve it or not you will see full fields of Canola do 80 bus an acre at times.

[SASKFARMER]

Again what you are all missing is that back in the early 70s 40 bushel canola was possible in eastern and northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. now 40 is possible in Alberta and western Saskatchewan big deal. My main point that Kent doesn't seem to understand and if he doesn't learn eventually we will attend his auction sale and say what a wonderful farmer he WAS!
Kent to survive in a non subsidised world one has to look at all your expense's and canola is one crop that for some reason is now 6.50 Lb from 1.67 lb (yes the new treatment for seed)
Learn something and you will survive Keep looking at what is been sent to your mail box and internet and go the way of the dinosaur

[mhartman]

Here are the historical canola yields for Alberta. Yes canola yields have increased over time, no point arguing that. However, expenses have also increased such that farm income really hasn't improved. The farm income historical tables are at
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sdd10280/$FILE/table6.pdf

Table 86: Alberta Canola Yield, 1955-2004
Bushels per Acre
Source: Statistics Canada
Alberta Agriculture Statistics Yearbook, 2004

1955..................... 11.2
1956..................... 18.0
1957..................... 14.8
1958..................... 13.0
1959..................... 15.9
1960..................... 14.7
1961..................... 17.1
1962..................... 15.5
1963..................... 16.0
1964..................... 16.0
1965..................... 12.9
1966..................... 17.6
1967..................... 13.9
1968..................... 16.7
1969..................... 14.3
1970..................... 17.6
1971..................... 16.1
1972..................... 18.5
1973..................... 16.5
1974..................... 16.3
1975..................... 17.9
1976..................... 19.7
1977..................... 22.9
1978..................... 21.0
1979..................... 18.1
1980..................... 22.7
1981..................... 23.1
1982..................... 22.6
1983..................... 18.8
1984..................... 20.0
1985..................... 19.6
1986..................... 25.0
1987..................... 25.3
1988..................... 24.2
1989..................... 23.0
1990..................... 23.1
1991..................... 24.0
1992..................... 21.6
1993..................... 26.1
1994..................... 21.8
1995..................... 24.5
1996..................... 25.0
1997..................... 23.5
1998..................... 25.3
1999..................... 29.0
2000..................... 26.1
2001..................... 27.0
2002..................... 21.4
2003r.................... 29.7
2004p................... 33.9
2005e … … … … … .. 39.8

[SASKFARMER]

That's some real nice data On yield increases
One note in 1955 on our farm our stubble was not getting 100lbs of N
maybe a little phos.
In the 1960 there was no 100lbs of N
In the 1970 yes a little.
In the 80 we went to 50lbs
In 90s we were at 100lbs ALL ACTUAL
now 100lbs
So yes there is a yield advantage but my point is simple the yields is not there because of the crop its because of the fertilizer we are using.
WE LIVE IN A COLD SHORT SEASON CLIMATE>
YIELD POTENTIAL IS LIMITED LEARN.
AND YOU WILL SUCEED

[mhartman]

I agree that the canola yield increase is not only due to varieties. We have had major changes in crop production practices. In the 1960's there wasn't much N put on canola because almost all of it was planted on summerfallow! Then as continuous cropping came into vogue, canola and other crops were planted on stubble and needed N. At first the rates were low and losses were high due to broadcasting techniques. Now we band or side place N at higher rates. We also figured out that S was limiting in stubble cropping for canola and that has become standard practise.
Also, weed control was a nightmare with canola in the early days. Even with pre-emergents and conventional canola, weed control was mediocre, expensive and often needed cocktails of mixtures. From the studies conducted by the Canola Council of Canada, farmers have adopted HT canola varieties mainly due to easier and better weed control. There was a slight yield and revenue advantage, but that was second importance.
If I had to rank the top influences on canola yield over the last 25 years I've been involved it would be:
1. Better Fertility N and S
2. Better varieties including the shift to Argentine and HT types
3. Better weed control
4. Earlier seeding

[SASKFARMER]

Again nice yield comparison your missing one big point 90%or more of the farms were not fertilizing in 1955. this yield data is not achieved by canola varieties but by inputs of fert.

[SASKFARMER]

Sorry the last comment came was been written without reading yours.

yes fertility is same in Sask none in 50's and sulfur etc.
Weed control was never a big cost for us since wild oats was the big killer.
we would spread chem in fall and have a clean field the next year and the following the wheat was cleaner so there was a cash advantage under old system.
yes the HT varieties are out there and yes I was one of Monsanto's first Ginny pigs. Yes I was wined and Dined in St louis Missouri at there head quarters and etc etc. But what was notice early on is that there is no cash increase do to the technology. the TUA and chem costs work out the same as liberty and seed as clear field etc.
I remember being in a meeting with Monsanto bras and the Pres of company at that time and his comment was thank you farmers for being pioneers with this new technology etc. then one guy stood up and said will the TUA be cut in half or dropped. He went on to say that we had an advantage over the old way of doing things. AGAIN the farmer said we can only spray once maybe twice in Canada VS the US and corn where they are spraying lots. He didn't realize that. But has there being a drop in price of Canola system NO all companies charge the same no matter what system and us Stupid farmers Pay for it.
New Varieties is another good one.
Ill leave that for another day.

[wd9]

One important thing to remember is you have the right to plant the second generation hybrid from offspring of your certified seed if you so wish thanks to the PBR Act. Risk comes in all forms when farming, the decision to plant Binvigour should be based on well researched information to determine whether or not you can accept the risks associated with it. There are other options like blend certified with F2. Try a small plot or a field and do your own research, source a weighwagon etc.

Saskfarmer you make some good points, you've done the risk assessment and you feel it is right for your farm. All of us need to make that assessment for ourselves. This is a great discussion, keep it up.