BinVigor?

[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.

[shamus]

I totally agree with Saskfarmer. A few of our neighbours in the late 60's, early 70's were having "****seed" yielding in the 40's. Don't remember what it was worth back then but my father and many others stuck with growing 20ish b./acre wheat and selling for dick all and these guys after wisely investing their winfall are still having trouble spending their interest after all these years. The funniest thing is rarely do they get those kind of yields with the 6.00/lb. canola!!! The seed companies now are the ones having the trouble spending their interest. And yes I too don't believe all the bull about the wonderfull new varieties. My long term average over 12 seasons is around 22 with 30 realized only once. Nobody in this RM has a better fertility program than me and I use all the latest in varieties and in equipment but keep getting broker buying expensive seed and fert. listening to the long trail of B.S. coming out of their mouths!!! As for a 10% yield drop in bin run LL; who cares. My high priced 5000 series with 90 20 00 10 did not make 30 when right beside it an RR with half the fert. did 10 bush. more. So go stick it!!!

[WildTomato]

Wow. No wonder you guys are choked. The common theme that I'm hearing is that you're spending 30 to 40 bucks alone on N and 30 bucks an acre on seed and still only averaging 22 bushels an acre. Even at 8 bucks a bushel that doesn't make sense to me. Why bother seeding canola?

[WildTomato]

I totally agree with you saskfarmer, unlike the rest of these guys I'm willing to listen to suggestion. I'm only 24 years old, and you have been doing this for 30 years - you can't argue with experience. I've grown home grown Invigor for 4 years now. Never the whole the farm, but always a 1/4 section and the rest of the acres, 2lb, certified, 2lb homegrown works great. This year I'm going all homegrown because with a weigh wagon my homegrown out yielded my certified. You guys also have to remember, at $5 canola you can give up 5 bushels just for seed alone. Saskfarmer, you talk about smoke up our ass I agree. Ther is a lot of talk out here saying you won't get liberty unless you have receipts showing seed sales. Bayer reps have always told me that they're aren't worried about home grown, because farmers will try it and find out it doesn't work, then come back to certified. My question to you guys is if Bayer says it won't work why are they so concerned were're doing it? [because it won't work right?]. Thanks saskfarmer I could really use more experienced advice like yours.

[waller]

Great topic and discusion. I agree with what most of you who have been saying if we don't control our costs we will be done. Especially with with input costs the way they are not just for canola but all crops. I have read this with great interest but am not sure if the original topic question has been answerd or not. Can you grow binvigor succesfully? From what I have read only a couple on here have tried it. Anyone looking at some summerfallow this yr. I know I am.

[kotyjo]

wild tomato cost for fert on 3000 acres of canola 80lbs x .32 last years price =25.6 cost an acre and then add phos 4.75

Bin Vigor works so does all other varieties, pursuit, -----up etc.

[kotyjo]

Also wild tomato you probably live in Alberta have a Superior CASIP program than the rest of canada have production insurance and price insurance. In the rest of the world with minimal coverage on gov programs one has to watch all costs.
Land values are higher in Alberta due to Oil thats it Oil either its speculators buying the land or farmers figuring if land is available I have to pay above market to get it and the land values escalate.
Simply what I am trying to say Canola was born in Saskatchewan and works well in the melfort tisdale area it isnt known as the land of **** and honey for nothing.
Now again if you are a farmer who has oil wells gas wells daddys fortune won the lottery lucked out in 1979 etc. Real costs you are not familiar with to all the other farmers watch your costs the chem fert etc are there to make a buck not lose like a farmer.