|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MI-06486-S 1995 | To Order |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Decision Case:Crossroads in Sustainable Agriculture
|
Part One:
The Decision
Exhibit A: What is No-till? Exhibit B: Estimated Costs of Purchasing 12-row Equipment |
| Jerry and Terry Perkins operate a farm near Worthington, Minnesota that was started on 160 acres in the early 1900s by Jerry's grandfather. Jerry's father farmed 480 acres, growing corn and soybeans and raising beef cattle and hogs. |
| Since 1974, when they assumed management of the farm, Jerry and Terry have tended to purchase land rather than machinery, judging land to be a better investment. Their farm acreage grew from the initial 480 acres to 1200 acres. This expansion in acreage by the Perkins occurred without increases in machinery size or hired labor due, in part, to the time the Perkins saved by using reduced tillage on their farm. |
| Jerry and Terry Perkins place a high value on their time and they are always looking for ways to reduce the amount of time spent on farm work. For a few years, they had been thinking about buying a larger corn planter for their no-till farming operation. Planting more rows per pass would save the Perkins time in the field. Replacing their 8-row planter with a 12-row planter had been a consideration off and on in the past, but they had put off making such a move. In the summer of 1994, the Perkins were again deliberating the decision whether to move to a 12-row planter system for their corn. |
| In his later years of farming, Jerry's father eliminated livestock from the operation and Jerry and Terry continued with a corn and soybean cash crop system. Jerry says, "Our attitude at the outset was to closely follow what had been done here before: to keep up the momentum, because my father had an operation that was successful, and then make changes from that. And what we started to move into rather quickly was to manage more residue for soil protection." |
| The Perkins' management of soil surface residues began in 1976, starting with no-till corn on limited acreage. By 1986 most of their corn was planted using no-till (Exhibit A). Renting a no-till drill, they began drilling no-till soybeans on a small scale in 1990. In 1994 they purchased one-half interest in a used no-till drill with a neighbor and expanded the no-till practice to approximately one-third to one-half of their soybean acreage. |
| However, their farming system had not followed the strict definition of no-till. They continued to row cultivate and rotary hoe their corn and conventionally planted soybeans for weed control to reduce the use of herbicides. |
| Jerry and Terry's financial approach has been to avoid taking major risks such as heavy investment in new, larger equipment. For twenty years they have farmed using an 8-row planter system. |
| In addition to their hesitation to increase expenses, a narrow bridge leading from the county road to their house and machine sheds limited expansion in equipment size. Folding equipment with more than 12 rows had been judged to be too expensive for the amount of acreage they farmed. |
| Two goals for the Perkins' farm include maintaining yields and minimizing costs. They have been successful in achieving them. Their "bottom line" returns ranked in the top 20% for the Southwest Farm Management Association to which they belong. |
| Before returning to farming, Jerry and Terry had been Peace Corps volunteers in South America as well as involved in adult education overseas and in the United States. They remain interested and involved in international development issues. Both have been active members of the sustainable agriculture community and Jerry has served on the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (MISA) board. |
| Terry has played an active role in the farming operation. Jerry describes her as "the computer literate person in the family and very much involved in the operation, both physically and managerially." |
| The Perkins prefer a proactive approach to decision making. Jerry remarks he would rather "be moving in a direction instead of having to be forced in a direction." Decisions are based on profitability, environmental impact, and quality of life for their family and the community. They define quality of life in part by the discretionary time they have — time for their family, their community, and the international projects with which they have been involved. |
| View Part One of the PERKINS FARM video here 'Background on the Perkins and their Farm' |
| One advantage of owning larger equipment would be more timely planting operations. It is eight miles from the two farthest points in the Perkins operation. Since their current 8-row (24 feet wide) equipment needs to be put onto transports, it takes more time to move from field to field than upgraded 12-row (30 feet wide) machinery would. Increased crop quality, yields, and reduced labor costs might all be advantages to having equipment more suitable to the size of the Perkins' farm. |
| However, there are more issues involved with the decision than just purchasing a corn planter. There are considerations about other equipment that would need to be purchased or modified to be compatible with a 12-row planter, such as the row-crop cultivator, sprayer, rotary hoe, and combine head. Changes in sprayer and rotary hoe width are necessary to control wheel traffic. Costs of these items needed to be considered along with the cost of the planter (Exhibit B). |
| But would the larger equipment require further expansion of acreage to justify its cost and use? Larger equipment would increase their planting capacity about 25%, equal to saving approximately 24 hours of their time by making a move to a 30 foot wide planter. They knew they would also save additional time cultivating and harvesting. Although the Perkins had expanded their acreage over the years, they were now thinking that they were close to the maximum manageable size for their farm. They have no desire to spend more time on additional acreage since that conflicts with one of the most compelling reasons for changing to the larger equipment — to create more "free" time. |
| The timing for purchasing the equipment is also an issue. To gain a higher equipment depreciation for tax purposes in 1994, it would be necessary to trade their old equipment before October 1. Only 25% of the first year's depreciation could be taken after that date, whereas 100% could be taken prior to October 1. Already it was summer. Thus, if they wanted to start farming using larger equipment in 1995, they needed to make a decision soon. |
| While they were weighing the equipment size decision, Jerry and Terry were also considering narrowing the row widths in their corn from 36 inches to 22 inches. They wanted to have equipment that could also be adapted to narrower rows. Tires and wheel spacing would need to be changed on tractors and combines to control wheel traffic. The combine head would need to be reworked to suit the row spacing, and Jerry didn't think an air delivery system for dry fertilizer in 22-inch rows was even on the market. |
| Although data was sparse on the practice, 22-inch rows were expected to give increased yields and earlier canopy cover for better weed control. However, the larger number of rows in the field could result in increased herbicide use. The Perkins would have to switch from their current practice of banding grass herbicide in corn to broadcasting. |
| While they weren't yet sure about 22-inch rows, if they did buy larger equipment the Perkins would at least narrow their row widths to 30 inches from the current 36 inches. |
| In addition to these considerations, Jerry is interested in redefining his role in farming as he approaches age 55. "I think that at age 55 you should be looking at a transition out of active farming and moving a new generation in." He is interested in gradually passing the farm on, perhaps staying involved in management, investment, and helping at times of peak labor. He is considering working more in consulting, both on a local and international level. |
| Terry is less enthused about phasing out of farming. Jerry says, "Obviously, anytime you have a family, you have a number of opinions depending on the number of family members. . . . My wife likes being involved with the farm because she can feel that she's making a contribution. If we do move into ag consulting, then her role isn't as active or fulfilling for her." |
| The Perkins are concerned about who might begin to work with them in preparation for taking over the farm. One strong possibility is their 25-year old son, Mike, who rented land and farmed with them from 1990 through 1993. Mike experienced three difficult farming years and in 1994 was taking a break from farming to determine his interest in taking over the family operation. It was possible he could be gone for several years as he considers his options. |
| Another prospect to take over the farm is a young neighbor. This person was renting 145 acres of tillable land from the Perkins in 1994, but also had a full-time, non-farm job. No concrete plans would be made until Mike decided his role for the future. Regardless of who took over, the Perkins wanted a new operator who shared their management philosophy, including support for sustainable approaches to farming. |
| View Part Two of the PERKINS FARM video here 'Beyond the Decision' |
Exhibits:
A. Description of no-till
B. Estimated costs of purchasing 12-row
equipment
Equipment notes from the video
Acknowledgments
Our sincere appreciation to Jerry, Terry, and Mike Perkins. Thanks to Kent Olson for his assistance with the effective field capacity equation. Also thanks to Tim Wagar, Cindy Arnevik, Don Olson, Larry Smith, Vernon Cardwell, Mike Schmitt, and John Moncrief 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
In no-till, the soil is left undisturbed from harvest to seeding and from seeding to harvest. The only "tillage" is the soil disturbance in a narrow slot created by coulters, disk or runner seed furrow openers, or hoe openers attached to the planter or drill. No-till planters and drills must be able to cut residue and penetrate undisturbed soil. Weed control relies on herbicides applied preplant, pre-emerge or postemerge. The type and time of herbicide application depends on the weed pressures and climatic conditions.
Strictly speaking, a no-till system does not allow operations that disturb the soil other than the planting operation. In some cases the basic no-till system is modified by the use of a drag harrow, rotary hoe, row-crop cultivator or knife fertilizer applicator. (Dickey, et al., 1992)
Eliminating primary tillage from fields increases the amount of crop residue left on the soil surface. Benefits of increased crop residue include reduced wind and water erosion. The reduced amount of tillage can result in reduced fuel and time savings to the farmer. However, the reduction in mechanical weed control is often replaced by an increase in the need for chemical weed control. Cultivation in no-till allows a significant decrease in herbicide inputs. Farmers like the Perkins who practice no-till, strive to find a balance between soil conservation and chemical use on their fields.
No-till planting provides higher yields on highly erodible land (greater than 6% slope) than other methods. Yield potential on well-drained, more level land is equal to that of other systems for corn, soybeans, and wheat in the North Central Region of the U.S. Rotation of crops is important in maintaining yields in no-till (Griffith, et al., 1992).
Machinery and labor costs for a no-till system are low compared to other tillage systems. Herbicides increase costs, but total machinery, labor, and herbicide costs for no-till are typically less than those in a conventional system of chisel and moldboard plowing (Siemens, et al., 1992).
| Current Equipment | Proposed Equipment | Approx. Price* |
|---|---|---|
| 1975 JD 4230 – 105 Hp, dual
hydraulics uses: power elevator, cultivate rotary hoe, spray, hauling | ||
| 1976 JD 4430 – 145
Hp, dual hydraulics (has capability of splitting them) uses: planting, hauling | ||
| 1977 JD 4630 – 170 Hp, triple hydraulics uses: primary and secondary tillage | ||
| 1976 JD 7000 Planter (8-row, 36" rows, with dry fertilizer, dry herbicide, & 5 interplant units for skip row soybeans) | Planter (12-row, 30" rows,
no-till) | $15,000 |
| 1978 133 IH row-crop cultivator
(8-row, vibrashank) | Cultivator (new) | $12,000 |
| 1978 Noble
Danish tine (8-row skip-row folding cultivator) | ||
| 1980 'Blumhard' pickup sprayer (45' booms) | ||
| 1980 JD rotary hoe (24' folding) | Rotary hoe (30', new) | $5,000 |
| 1985 JD 6620
Combine (4-row corn head) | Combine (6-row corn head) | $6,000 |
| 1990 'Demco' Sprayer (48' booms) | Sprayer (60' booms) | modify existing |
| 1991 JD 750 no-till drill (15', 7.5" spacings) | ||
| TOTAL | $38,000 |
*All purchase prices are for used equipment with trade-in in 1994 unless otherwise noted.
Source: Jerry and Terry Perkins, 1994
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.