|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MI-06485 1995 | To Order |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Decision Case:Crossroads in Sustainable Agriculture
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Part One:
Behind the Eightball Part Two: Complications Exhibit A: Estimated Costs of Equipment Exhibit B: Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Tillage Systems |
| "We weren't at the end of our rope, but we could see it from there." This statement summarized Jim and LeeAnn VanDerPol's concern about maintaining profitability of their 480-acre crop and livestock farm during the 1980s. The 1980s were financially difficult for many Midwestern farmers. Five or six farmers within three miles of the VanDerPol's home in Kerkhoven, Minnesota, were forced out of business during that decade. Jim said, "Our own financial position deteriorated in the 1980s. Whose didn't? We went from about $1,500 or $1,600 an acre for land all the way down to $700. If you had money tied up in land, you were behind the eightball." |
| More trouble came in 1988 when a drought struck the area of western Minnesota where the VanDerPols farm. By July, Jim and LeeAnn could see they weren't going to have much of a crop that year. To save on costs, they omitted their final herbicide treatment and watched the cocklebur weeds "go nuts" in their soybean fields. At the same time, they saw dried soil blowing off fields in the area and it brought back a nagging question about their own farming practices. How well were they treating the land they farmed? The VanDerPols began to think they could be treating their land better and felt a renewed urgency to do things differently. |
| Jim heard a presentation on ridge tillage in 1981. He said, "I liked the concept then and thought it would be a good idea to try sometime." But Jim didn't switch to ridge-till in 1981 or in the following years. He had "a number of pretty good reasons for not doing that." |
| In the early 1980s the conventional equipment owned by the VanDerPols was in good shape. They were hesitant to invest in new equipment for ridge-tilling when they didn't really need it. Jim was concerned about lower yields that he heard could occur with ridge-till, as well as the economic risks involved in buying equipment in the uncertain farm financial climate of the mid-1980's (Exhibit A). Doubts about the amount of chemicals used in ridge-till also made Jim hesitant to change. He didn't want to adopt ridge-till if it would result in increased pesticide use. One study done in Illinois shows a range of possible costs for machinery, labor, and herbicide use. It indicates anywhere from $14/acre expense to $33/acre savings in a ridge-till system compared to chisel and moldboard plowing1. Jim respected some people he knew who used ridge-till. They experienced a 35% reduction in fuel use along with reductions in chemical and fertilizer use. Jim's response was, "I was afraid that maybe there was something special about their farms. Maybe it worked for them but wouldn't work for me." |
| "And what about the hay ground?" Jim wondered. About 25% of the VanDerPol's crop acreage was planted in small grains and alfalfa during any given year. Many ridge-till supporters said equipment savings in ridge-till systems came from not needing implements like a spring-tooth harrow, plow, or chisel plow. However, the VanDerPols were committed to maintaining livestock on their farm and needed to own such equipment if they were to continue planting small grains and alfalfa for feed, hay, and straw. |
| Jim was sure that ridge tillage would help conserve the clay loam soil on their farm, but he was also interested in freeing up time and decreasing costs. He and LeeAnn talked about focusing more of their time on their livestock, and wanted to find extra time to do that. LeeAnn worked four days a week at a nearby nursing home, which took up much of her time. Their three children worked on the farm but only the oldest was old enough to operate large machinery. Jim's father had been helping them with farm chores, but as he got older he was less able to do that. If Jim and LeeAnn's work load wasn't reduced somehow, they would have to hire additional help to maintain conventional farming methods. Eliminating primary tillage in their row crops through ridge-till looked attractive, since it would likely free up some time normally spent in the field. |
| View video here — Introduction to the VanDerPols and Ridge-till |
1Siemens, J.C., and D.H. Doster. 1992. "Costs and Returns." Chapter 8 (p. 37). In: Conservation Tillage Systems and Management: Crop Residue Management with No-till, Ridge-till, Mulch-till. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
| Jim VanDerPol's father wasn't enthused about the ridge-till concept, and neither, for that matter, were most neighboring farmers. Jim knew that the traditional preference of farmers and townspeople in his area was to have clean black fields with the crops in perfect, straight rows. Since most farmers in the area used conventional tillage, adopting ridge tillage might appear foolish or radical to some. LeeAnn, on the other hand, felt strongly that they should work toward making their farm "greener instead of blacker." |
| The VanDerPols started band spraying to cut down on costs during the 1980s, but weren't happy with the results. They realized that the weed problem was due to the poor performance of their cultivator, not their band sprayer. By 1987, Jim told LeeAnn that he "didn't think he wanted to use that cultivator another year." |
| A semi-retired neighbor had a ridge-till cultivator that he wasn't using that year. He hadn't farmed using ridge tillage, but had merely liked the way the cultivator worked and bought it. Jim borrowed that cultivator from his neighbor in the summer of 1988 and was also impressed with the job it did on the mature weeds in his soybean fields. He wondered if it might be possible to borrow the cultivator again if he decided to use ridge-till planting. |
| The cultivator wasn't the only piece of equipment the VanDerPols needed to replace. The tandem disk and planter tractor would probably also need to be replaced within a few years. However, if they adopted ridge tillage, Jim thought they might only need one tractor, compared with the two used with conventional farming techniques (one for planting and one for tillage). |
| In the fall of 1988, the VanDerPol's grain combine broke down while harvesting. Jim said, "I'd had the combine for 13 years and I knew the engine was getting weak. We made it through the beans and halfway through the corn and then it quit. I knew it was going to happen, but I was hoping it was going to wait until the last day. We had 80 acres of corn left and we hired the neighbor to combine those." Jim didn't think the combine was worth fixing, so there was another piece of equipment that needed replacing. |
| Maybe there were other options to cut costs or free up time. Jim and LeeAnn wanted to increase the width of their planter and cultivator to speed up their field operations. They were planting six rows per pass and changing to 8- or 12-row equipment would save time in fieldwork. |
| Also, ridge-till wasn't the only conservation tillage option they might try (Exhibit B). For example, they could rent a no-till row-crop drill and try no-till drilled soybeans in 1989. They could cut back on the acres they farmed, but perhaps they should do just the opposite — rent more land to generate higher income for their farm. |
| At times Jim and LeeAnn even questioned the fundamental assumption underlying their approach to farming. Maybe it was just too much to think they could raise both livestock and crops. Perhaps they should become cash crop only farmers like some of their neighbors. However, the VanDerPols liked livestock and wanted to focus more on that aspect of their farm. |
| Jim and LeeAnn wondered if changing tillage methods now would be cost effective. Would planting their row crops with ridge-till perform as promised and save money and time, or would it push their operation to the "end of the rope?" |
Exhibits:
A. Estimated costs of equipment
B. Advantages and disadvantages of
different tillage systems
Acknowledgments
Our sincere appreciation to Jim and LeeAnn VanDerPol. Also thanks to Tim Wagar, Cindy Arnevik, Don Olson, Jeff Gunsolus, Mike Schmitt, John Moncrief, and Kent Olson who gave feedback on the written and/or video portions of the case.
Funding for this project was provided by an Innovative Grant from the Minnesota Extension Service
Developed by:
Denise Taack, Case Developer, University of Minnesota, College of Agriculture Program for Decision Cases.
Advisory Committee:
Dr. Phil Larsen, Coordinator, Sustainable Agriculture Initiative, Minnesota
Extension Service, University of Minnesota
Dr. Steve Simmons,
Professor, Dept. of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota
Tammy
Dunrud, Coordinator, College of Agriculture Program for Decision Cases,
University of Minnesota
Dr. Helene Murray, Coordinator, Minnesota
Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, University of Minnesota
Anita
Dincesen, Minnesota Extension Service, Educational Development Systems
To get started in ridge tillage, the VanDerPols needed to purchase some equipment and modify other existing equipment. Listed below are the VanDerPols' current equipment in 1988, and 1988 estimates on prices for a used combine and used equipment they thought they would need to purchase if they did adopt ridge tillage. Wheelwork would be necessary on the combine so it could operate between the rows, keeping off the ridges.
| Current Equipment | Proposed Equipment | Approx. Price* |
|---|---|---|
| 1970 JD 4020 (95 Hp, dual wheels, single hydraulic, 8000 hours) uses: planting, cultivating | ||
| 1971 JD BWF disk (20') | ||
| 1971 JD 6600 combine (4-row, with 3 heads, 2900 hours) | Med-large combine (6-row, with
3 heads, 2000 hours or less) Wheelwork on combine | $13,000 - $20,000 $2,000 |
| 1974 JD 1100 field cultivator (6-row, 30" rows) 1976 JD 1100 field cultivator (20') | 8-row 'Buffalo' cultivator | $5,525 |
| 1975 'White' 5400 planter (6-row, 30") | 8-row planter | $2,000 - $8,000 |
| 1978 JD 1600 chisel plow (12') | ||
| 1980 'White' 588 plow (5 bottom plow with 18" bottoms) | ||
| 1981 'White' 135 (135 Hp, dual wheels, dual hydraulic, 2800 hours) uses: tillage | ||
| TOTAL | $22,525 - $35,525 |
*Used price estimates reflect variance depending on brand and condition of the used equipment. They do not reflect trade-in values of the current equipment.
Source: Jim and LeeAnn VanDerPol, 1994
Back to Table of Contents
Advantages, disadvantages and typical field operations for selected tillage systems* System Typical field operations Major advantages Major disadvantages Moldboard
plowFall or spring plow; one or two spring diskings or field cultivations; plant; cultivate. Suited for poorly drained soils. Excellent incorporation of residues. Well-tilled seedbed. Major soil erosion. High soil moisture loss. Timeliness considerations. Highest fuel and labor costs. Chisel plow Fall chisel; one or two spring diskings or field cultivations; plant; cultivate. Less erosion than from cleanly tilled systems and less wind erosion than fall plow or fall disk because of rough surface. Well adapted to poorly drained soils. Good to excellent incorporation. Little erosion control. High moisture loss. Medium to high labor and fuel requirements. Disk Fall or spring disk; spring disk and/or field cultivate; plant; cultivate. Less erosion than from cleanly tilled systems. Well adapted for lighter to medium textured, well-drained soils. Good to excellent incorporation. Little erosion control. High soil moisture loss. Ridge-Till Chop stalks on furrow irrigation; plant on ridges; cultivate for weed control and to rebuild ridges. Excellent erosion control if on contour. Well adapted to wide range of soils. Excellent for furrow irrigation. Ridges warm up and dry out quickly. Low fuel and labor costs No incorporation. Narrow row soybeans and small grains no well suited. No forage crops. Machinery modifications required. No-till Spray, plant in undistributed surface; post-emergent spray as needed. Maximum erosion control. Soil moisture conservation. Minimum fuel and labor costs. No incorporation. Increased dependence on herbicides. Some limitations with poorly drained soils, especially with heavy residue. Slow soil warming. *Dickey, E.C., et al. 1992. "Conservation Tillage Systems." Chapter 16 (pp. 89-92) in Conservation Tillage Systems and Management: Crop Residue Management with No-till, Ridge-till, Mulch-till.Reprinted with permission from Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa.
Produced by Communication and Educational Technology Services, University of Minnesota Extension.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this material is available in alternative formats upon request. Please contact your University of Minnesota Extension office or the Distribution Center at (800) 876-8636.
University of Minnesota Extension is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.