April 2005
Is Your Land Lease Profitable?
Herb Hinman, Farm Management Extension Specialist Aaron Esser, Lincoln-Adams Area Extension Educator
Approximately one-half of all grain producing acreage in the dry land production area of eastern Washington is leased under some sort of landowner-lessee agreement. Crop-share leases tend to be the more popular type of lease, however, cash leases are becoming more and more common. Most landowners and lessees want a lease agreement that is economically sound and equitable to both parties. Consequently, a desirable lease is designed with two objectives in mind: (1) obtaining optimum economic efficiency in the use of resources, and (2) equity in allocating returns between the landowner and lessee. Generally, there is a mutual desire by the landowner and lessee to do what is fair in negotiating a land lease agreement. Often this means determining what is customary for the surrounding area. However, customary rental practices may not accurately reflect the contributions of resources made by the landowner and lessee. This follows from the considerable variation often found between farms in land productivity, land value, production technology, and labor, management, and operating capital contributions by the landowner and lessee. Thus, even though both parties may want a fair lease, use In This Issue of customary rates may result in an unconscious transfer of income from one party to the other. The best way to resolve this potential problem is for the Is Your Land Lease Profitable landowner and lessee to periodically review their Page 1-2 lease agreement as to respective contributions and Alfalfa’s Potential in Dryland adjust the lease agreement accordingly. Crop Production Page 3-18 One tool developed for reviewing lease agreements Chemical Fallow Systems for from both the landowner’s and lessee’s perspective is Small Grains Page 18-22 the Land Lease Analyzer Workbook. The Land Lease Analyzer computerized Workbook is an Excel spreadRain Report Page 23 sheet and can be downloaded from the WSU Farm
Cooperating Agencies: Washington State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Eastern Washington Counties. Extension programs and employment are available to all without discrimination. Evidence of noncompliance may be reported through your local Extension office.
Ag Horizons
April 2005
2
Management web site free of charge at http://farm.mngt.wsu.edu/ . Click on “Workshops Offered.” The land lease material is presented as shown below.
Workshop Material 1. Are Your Land Leases Profitable? •Handout for Land Lease Analysis - includes instructions •Land Lease Analyzer 3- Excel spreadsheet (read only) ?LL_A3 Wheat - Excel spreadsheet ?LL_ A3 Wheat-Lentils - Excel spreadsheet ?LL_ A3 SFWW - Excel spreadsheet
Handout for Land Lease Analysis contains an introduction, general instructions and a series of examples. By clicking on this file, the handout will appear where it may be read from the screen or printed to a hard copy. To download the Land_Lease_Analyzer3 workbook, click on the respective Excel file. Let the workbook come up and save this workbook in a specified file on your hard drive. Do the same to download the other Excel workbooks that are relevant to your area. Once these Excel workbooks are downloaded, you can go to the folder in which you stored these files on your hard drive and use them. It is recommended, however, that you make the Land_Lease_Analyzer 3 workbook a read only files by right-clicking on the Land_Lease_Aalyzer3 Excel workbook file name, then left-click on “Properties,” “General,” “Read-only,” and “Ok.” Making the file a “read-only file” will preserve the workbook in its original form. If you want to save new data loaded into this workbook, simply save it under another name. Within the spreadsheets, yellow boxes are numbers you provide and the turquoise boxes are calculations that are protected and readonly. It is best to save the Excel spreadsheet as you make changes and to remember the results of these calculations are only as good and accurate as the numbers you have inputted. If you have problems downloading or using the Land_Lease_Analyzer file contact Herb Hinman at email address hinman@wsu.edu or phone number 509-335-2855, or contact Aaron Esser at email address aarons@wsu.edu or phone number 509-659-3210.
Ag Horizons
April 2005
3
Alfalfa’s Potential in Dryland Crop Production
By Tom Platt, WSU Area Extension Educator, Davenport
Alfalfa is a nutrient rich forage crop that is productive and beneficial agronomically and environmentally in the Inland Empire. There are adapted varieties for all but the driest areas, and alfalfa performs even better under irrigation. Because most alfalfa literature and variety testing done in the West pertains to irrigated alfalfa, this article attempts to extrapolate that information in order to estimate alfalfa’s potential as an alternate or longer term rotation crop in the three-year rotation, dryland grain producing area of the Inland Empire. Here, yields range from one to three tons of alfalfa per acre in areas receiving 14 to 17 inches of precipitation. One cutting is the rule except on good soils in the higher end of the precipitation range where a second cutting can occur in wet years. Multi-cutting alfalfa production in sub-irrigated meadows, or in the higher rainfall area of northeastern Washington near the Washington-Idaho border, is more akin to production under irrigation and is not the topic of this article. History. Alfalfa is an ancient crop. Charred seed has been found in archeological sites in Iran dating back 8000 years, and charred seed from small seeded legumes and grasses collected by people 12,000 years ago in present day Syria has also been unearthed. It is speculated that alfalfa was used as a forage crop and its seed eaten by humans. By the first century, alfalfa had migrated along war and trade routes from the mid-east to the Mediterranean and to China. The Conquistadors brought alfalfa to the Americas in the 1500's, and settlers in the American colonies brought or ordered seed from Europe. Both Washington and Jefferson experimented with alfalfa, but neither had much luck growing it because of their wet, acidic soils. These alfalfa’s from Europe were called Lucernes, bluepurple flowered plants (Medicago sativa) of Mediterranean origin. South American alfalfa, known as Chilean clover, was found to be well suited to the calciferous soils of the west, and spread from California to the mid-west in the mid-to late 1800's. These early alfalfas were poorly adapted to the colder parts of the US. One exception was a variety later named Grimm after its developer, a Minnesota farmer who selected winter hardy plants from seed furnished by his Swiss neighbors in the post-Civil War period. Grimm was apparently a cross of the two species, M. sativa and M. falcata. But the success of this variety was not widely known. So, USDA’s first agricultural explorer, Niels Hansen, was sent to Russia and Siberia to collect cold hardy, yellow flowered alfalfa seed (Medicago falcata), which he did during three trips around the turn of the 19th century. Figure 1. depicts the historic, world-wide paths of alfalfa migration.
Figure 1. World-wide alfalfa migration (from Russelle, 2001)
Ag Horizons
April 2005
4
For the first quarter of the 20th century, winter hardiness was bred into alfalfa varieties. Then, up into the 1950's, bacterial wilt resistance was added as a selection criteria by alfalfa breeders. In the second half of the 20th century, many varieties were developed with multiple pest resistance, production traits including vigorous recovery after cutting, and multi-foliate characteristics intended to (but not proven to) improve nutrient content. Today, alfalfa varieties contain germplasm from a number of sources. The relative importance of these sources in the genetics of fall dormant alfalfa varieties is illustrated in Figure 2.
Germplasm in Fall Dormant Type Alfalfa Cultivers (1986-1999) 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0 Ladak Falcata Varia Turkistan Chilean Others Flemish Peruvian
Figure 2. Germplasm sources. Adapted from Proc. N. American Alfalfa Improvement Conf., 2000.
Agronomic benefits. Alfalfa improves and protects the soil as a result of its robust and perennial root system, fast growing protective canopy, and ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen. It requires no nitrogen fertilizer. Alfalfa has a nitrogen replacement value in succeeding grain crops of about 65 pounds of nitrogen (Soil and Water Quality, 1993). Its deep and extensive root system reduces erosion by holding soil together, improves tilth and water infiltration, and contributes to a rhizosphere conducive to growth of beneficial microorganisms. Because of its perennial nature, annual tillage is reduced. Its vigorous growth combined with annual harvest during the growing period provides excellent weed control. In Canada, reduction in herbicide use in flax production following alfalfa netted an additional $22 per acre (Martens, 2001). Alfalfa’s pesticide requirements are much lower than for other crops (often none). Alfalfa’s residual benefit to succeeding corn crops, probably from disease suppression and fixed nitrogen, has been shown to range from 5 to 13 percent (Peel, 1998), although this benefit may not translate directly to small grain crops if adequate soil moisture recharge does not occur following alfalfa which depletes deep soil moisture reserves. Ecological benefits. Reduced erosion and chemical use are obvious ecological benefits of alfalfa production. Carbon sequestration is a less obvious, but important one. Wildlife enhancement goes hand in hand with alfalfa production. It provides direct feed for deer, upland birds, and rodents. It also provides protective habitat for these wildlife, and as a con-
Ag Horizons
April 2005
5
sequence, it provides hunting opportunity for predators. Alfalfa is a productive insectary, providing feed and habitat to honey bees and other beneficial insects as well as insects that provide feed for birds, reptiles, bats and other small mammals. Economics. For alfalfa to be a viable rotation crop, it must perform economically and agronomically. Since we in the PNW have the capacity to easily overproduce alfalfa hay, driving hay profit margins into the red as we have done with other commodities, look before you leap. All of you cannot start rotating to alfalfa. Nevertheless, the following budgets are intended for guidance and planning for those who might. Be forewarned: farmers' actual costs and returns from alfalfa will vary widely from those in these budgets depending on their individual circumstances. These include cost of land, equipment, and purchased inputs, their land’s inherent production capability, and their local market opportunities. Consequently, readers are cautioned to examine the assumptions carefully in evaluating just how these budgets should be used and modified to reflect actual operations on their farms. Budget 1 shows the cost of establishing dryland alfalfa as a rotation crop following grain, and Budget 2 shows the cost of producing dryland alfalfa as a rotation crop. Assumptions are that alfalfa is established in a spring crop or summer fallow year, there is no harvest during the establishment year, subsequently there are three harvest years followed by fallow or spring crop, establishment costs are amortized over the three harvest years, and yield averages 2.0 tons of hay per acre. This yield assumption is based on a first harvest year yield of 2.25 tons hay per acre followed by an annual yield decline of ten percent per year as the stand ages. Dryland alfalfa yield potential in our area is limited by precipitation. It takes roughly 6 inches of available soil moisture to produce one ton of alfalfa. Using Davenport as an example, there is about 7 inches of effective precipitation (available for storage in the soil) during the non-growing season, and additionally about 2.25 inches from the beginning of the growing season until hay harvest, for a total of 9.25 inches effective precipitation in an average year, enough to grow approximately 1.75 tons alfalfa. Three harvest years were used in this analysis because of the increasing need for additional inputs (fertilizer, weed control, gopher control) beyond this time with diminishing yields expected from these inputs as the alfalfa stand ages and any residual soil moisture reserves are depleted. Profit potential for alfalfa under the budget assumptions in this article depends on whether the grower harvests alfalfa for hay or sells standing alfalfa to someone else for harvesting. Hay is projected to return $1.02 per acre, and standing alfalfa is projected to return $16.52 per acre. Although no one is going to get rich on these margins, alfalfa as a rotation crop may be competitive with spring grain which currently projects only break even or negative returns (Platt et al., 2003) Furthermore, alfalfa provides an excellent opportunity for substantial, low cost inroads in combating weeds because of its competitiveness coupled with the fact that it is mowed annually before most weeds go to seed. Alfalfa’s future contribution to soil nitrogen, reduced herbicide use, and boosted crop yield have been discussed previously in the section on Agronomic Benefits. For those not owning hay equipment, there are several alternatives. First, don't make hay. Sell standing alfalfa to someone in the hay making business. Standing alfalfa generally sells for 50 to 60 percent of the price of field stacked, baled hay. A second alternative is to hire a custom operator to make hay. Budget 2 shows costs for producing standing alfalfa and for producing big bale hay using a custom operator. Cost of producing hay with farmer owned equipment is similar when all costs of equipment ownership are considered. A third alternative is to have hay made on shares. The grower’s share of the split generally ranges between 50 and 60 percent.
Ag Horizons
April 2005
6
Budget 1. Cost of establishing dryland alfalfa as a rotation crop following grain, $/acre Operation Materials Equipment and Operator $ 2.50 $40.00 $ 7.88 $ 4.00 $ 2.50 $ 6.51 $20.00 $ 7.50 $ 12.00 $ Total
Harrow Chisel/fertilize Cultivate Harrow Pack Seed Weed control Taxes and overhead Total establishment cost per acre
2.50
$ 47.88 $ $ $ 4.00 2.50 6.51
$ 27.50 $ 12.00 $ 4.00
$106.89
Operating Assumptions: Two ton per acre yield Alfalfa rotation will last for 4 years, establishment year plus 3 harvest years. No harvest during establishment year Cost of establishment plus interest amortized over 3 harvest years Fertilizer is applied during establishment. Fertilizer cost is amortized over 3 harvest years Seeding rate, 8 pounds per acre planted with a grain drill. Seed mixed with rice hulls as a carrier Weed control occurs only during the establishment year by mowing or herbicide application having approximately the same cost No gopher control is utilized Cost of field operations adapted from Platt et al., 2003
Ag Horizons
April 2005
7
Budget 2. Cost of producing dryland alfalfa as a rotation crop, $/acre
Operation Materials Equipment & Operator Total
Establishment a Harrow Land b Taxes and overhead Per acre production cost for standing forage Per ton production cost for standing forage Swath Rake Bale Field Stack Load Out Land
b c
$41.48 $2.50 $ 2.50 $21.50 $ 4.00 $69.48 $34.74 $17.00 $ 8.00 $30.00 $ 8.00 $ 6.00 $ 17.00 $ 8.00
$ 30.00 $ $ 8.00 6.00
$ 40.00 $ 6.00
Taxes and overhead Per acre production cost for hay Per ton production cost for hay
c
$158.98 $ 79.49
Operating Assumptions: • Alfalfa rotation will last for 4 years, establishment year plus 3 harvest years a Cost of establishment (Budget 1) plus interest amortized over 3 harvest years b Land cost is 25% of the crop sold. Assumed sale price is $43/t for standing crop (hay equivalent basis) and $80/t for field stacked, big baled hay c Two ton per acre yield of hay or equivalent standing alfalfa (based on a first harvest year yield of 2.25 tons per acre and a 10% annual decline in yield • Harvesting costs are for custom swathing, raking, big baling, field stacking, and load out • Fertilizer and weed control occurs during the establishment year and is amortized over the 3 harvest years of crop production • No gopher control is utilized • Totals in shaded cells for standing alfalfa were not double counted in totals for alfalfa hay • Cost of field operations adapted from Platt et al., 2003 and current custom harvest rates
Ag Horizons
April 2005
8
Timeliness of harvest operations and adverse weather risk must be considered when deciding whether to sell standing alfalfa or baled hay, and both should be evaluated in relation to the hay’s market potential. For example, a week to ten day delay in harvest because a share or custom operator was unavailable could easily result in a 10 to 15 percent loss in the hay’s market value because of advanced crop maturity, and even more value loss if rain damage occurred during that period. Farmers undertaking a new haying operation themselves might experience similar delays because of inexperience, equipment problems, and unanticipated time and equipment conflicts with other late spring farm operations. Loss in alfalfa hay’s value because of untimeliness depends on how important alfalfa crop maturity at harvest is to potential buyers. If hay is sold on a USDA hay quality designation basis, maturity is a very important anti-quality factor. This topic is discussed later in the section, Hay Quality. Who bears this market risk of untimeliness? If the alfalfa is sold unharvested as standing crop, the purchasing hay operator bears it. If the alfalfa grower undertakes the harvest operation or has the hay harvested on a custom basis or on shares, the grower bears the risk. However, when others are responsible for harvest, the grower has little control over its timing and consequently has little ability to manage risk of untimeliness. This can be an untenable situation. Varieties. Alfalfa varieties are classified by their tendency to go dormant in the fall as opposed to growing throughout the winter. This classification is called fall dormancy rating. Fall dormancy is related to winter hardiness; the stronger alfalfa’s tendency to go dormant in the fall the more winter hardy it is likely to be. Although controlled by separate genes, it is thought that the two traits of fall dormancy and winter hardiness co-evolved. Fall dormancy is triggered by decreasing daylight. It is unrelated to temperature. Strongly fall dormant varieties tend to produce lower yields in multi-cut production systems because they begin growth later in the spring and begin to slow growth earlier in late summer and fall as a result of their sensitivity to shortened day length. However, strongly fall dormant varieties also tend to be drought hardy and tend to be good, single cut producers–just what we need for a dry land rotation crop. Alfalfa breeders recognize that the traits fall dormancy and winter hardiness can be separated, and they are beginning to offer higher yielding, multi-cut winter hardy varieties that are only moderately fall dormant (Busbice, undated). Unfortunately, winter hardiness is not one of the characteristics used by the National Alfalfa Alliance (formerly Alfalfa Council) in classifying varieties. Rather varieties are characterized by fall dormancy and pest resistance. Most alfalfa yield trials also characterize varieties by fall dormancy and pest resistance. Consequently, fall dormancy remains a useful, although imperfect tool for evaluating both drought hardiness and winter hardiness. The National Alfalfa Alliance is an alliance between segments of the alfalfa and alfalfa seed industry: growers, genetic suppliers and universities. The Alfalfa Council’s Fall Dormancy and Pest Resistance Ratings for Alfalfa Varieties (the industry standard) is available on the web at http://www.alfalfa.org/falldormancy.html . Private seed companies generally offer additional information on their varieties’ winter hardiness and drought hardiness, but this information needs to be evaluated carefully, because it is difficult to ascertain from promotional information whether testing was done under climatic conditions even remotely similar to those found here. Fall dormancy is rated on a scale of 1 to 11, with 1 being the most fall dormant and 11 being non-dormant. Research in Montana (Cash et al., 1993) indicates that alfalfa varieties with fall dormancy ratings (FD) 1-4 are suitable for production there, and it is a reasonable assumption that varieties with these FD ratings are also suitable for dryland production in
Ag Horizons
April 2005
9
eastern Washington. In the absence of other information from on-the-ground testing or local experience, varieties with FD ratings of 2 or 3 should be selected. For reference, the old standard varieties commonly used in the past in eastern Washington have the following FD: Ladak 65, 1; Vernal, 2; Ranger, 3; and Saranac, 4. Although there are only a few commercial varieties with FD 1, including Ladak 65, there are many with FD’s 2-4. In addition to FD ratings, alfalfa varieties are rated by their resistance to disease and insect pests. Although selected for uniformity, most alfalfa varieties are cross pollinated populations of plants with a variety of genetics. Consequently, there are differences in disease and insect resistance among plants comprising a variety. A variety is considered highly resistant to a pest if greater than 50% of plants show resistance. Forty percent resistance is considered adequate for field protection (Cash et al., 1993). Forage agronomists recommend that farmers seek multiple pest resistance in selecting alfalfa varieties, with special attention to verticillium wilt, bacterial wilt, fusarium wilt, and pea aphid. Table 1 describes alfalfa variety pest resistance ratings commonly used by seed dealers and reported in variety trials.
Table 1. Alfalfa pest resistance ratings
Resistant Plants, % 0-5% 6-14% 15-30% 31-50% >50% Resistance Class Susceptible (S) Low Resistance (LR) Moderate Resistance (MR) Resistance (R) High Resistance (HR) Adapted from Alfalfa Council, 2002.
In the absence of dryland alfalfa variety tests in eastern Washington, the experience of local alfalfa producers and seed dealers serves as the best guide for variety selection. Visit with your neighbors and seed dealers for their experience with different varieties. Ask seed dealers for names of local growers you can contact. If you are tempted to plant a new variety without any local experience, don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Use it sparingly. In fact, planting several varieties in different fields or portions of a field has important advanstages. One, you can readily evaluate performance of different varieties on your farm, and two, differences in maturity date can spread out workload at harvest, which has advantages in maintaining hay quality and in dealing with adverse weather. Establishment. Spring planting alfalfa is recommended. It is easier to establish into spring grain stubble rather than into heavier, winter grain stubble. The soil must be free of residual broadleaf herbicides used in previous small grain crops. Prepare the seedbed as you would for a spring grain crop using care not to overwork and dry out the soil surface. Fertilize according to soil test. Established alfalfa fixes its own nitrogen, although 20 pounds N is often recommended for new seedlings. Alfalfa is a heavy user of phosphorus
Ag Horizons
April 2005
10
(P), using about 10 pounds of phosphate (P2O5) per ton of alfalfa produced. Phosphorus incorporated into the soil before planting is approximately two times more available for plant use than is top dressed phosphorus. Phosphorus is not mobile in the soil profile, and alfalfa’s roots are not able to extract phosphorus from dry soil. So, phosphorus applied to the soil surface isn’t available once the surface dries out. If one anticipates a two ton yield annually for 3 years, then 60 pounds of phosphate will be extracted by the crop over the life of the stand. WSU’s fertilizer guide, FG-30 Non-irrigated Alfalfa in Eastern Washington, calls for incorporation of 60 pounds of phosphate if soil test is less than 4 ppm P (using the Olsen-bicarbonate laboratory phosphorus extraction method) . The rule of thumb: apply enough pre-plant P to last the life of the crop or until your wallet says ouch, and then reapply as necessary according to soil test when the stand is mid-life. Alfalfa is also a heavy user of potassium, but eastern Washington soils generally have adequate levels. If soil test indicates otherwise, potassium can be top-dressed. Sulfur is also required by alfalfa, and about 15 pounds of S is required per year. Several years worth of sulfur can be applied at one time. Boron deficiency is common in eastern Washington. Three pounds of boron should be applied if soil test B is below .5 ppm (two pounds in sandy soils). Boron is toxic, so do not apply excess or in bands. Seeding. Alfalfa should be planted shallower than grain, because the small seed has less stored energy to push the seedling from great depth. Most recommendations are to plant alfalfa at a depth of 1/4 to 1/2 inches. Although this shallow depth accommodates the seeds’ energy reserves, under dryland conditions, it does not assure that the seed will remain in contact with soil moisture. Seeds that dry out before they germinate or seedlings that can’t sink their roots fast enough to follow the moisture won’t grow, so don’t gamble. Plant a little deeper, up to one inch, in a firm seedbed. Using a drill with good depth control is desirable. Packing, either with the drill or prior to or after seeding, helps maintain seedsoil-moisture contact. A good spring rain prior to seeding and after seedbed preparation will also firm up the seedbed. Research from Wisconsin (Undersander et al., 2000) shows that there is very little difference in emergence between alfalfa seeded at 1/2 inch or at one inch, but there is a great difference in emergence from seeds planted at 1 inch versus 1 ½ inches. No-till drills are used successfully to seed alfalfa, but, as with all drills, time and care must be taken to ensure seed placement is proper and soil moisture contact is maintained. Don’t assume drills are calibrated and seeding properly. Plan on taking the time necessary to calibrate and check out your drills prior to and during seeding. This could easily take a full day with drills not previously set up to seed alfalfa. What is the proper seeding rate? Under normal conditions, 50% to 60% of planted alfalfa seeds emerge and 60% to 80% of emerged seedlings die the first year. A reasonable goal for alfalfa plant density in a year old stand after the first winter is 12 plants per square foot. If you do the above math on survival rates, this translates to a seeding rate of about 15 pounds per acre, more than is needed for dryland eastern Washington. Research in Wisconsin (Undersander, personal communication) found that under good seeding conditions there was no advantage in stand establishment to planting more than six pounds of alfalfa seed per acre. So, the general recommendation there, taking into consideration that not all seeding conditions are ideal, is to plant 12-18 pounds per acre. In dryland eastern Washington, drilling six to 12 pounds of alfalfa seed per acre is adequate. Interestingly, drills set at the same setting will seed different varieties of alfalfa at greatly different rates. Undersander (1999) found that actual, on-farm seeding rates varied from 14 to 19 pounds per acre using different varieties of alfalfa seeded with the same drill at the same setting. The
Ag Horizons
April 2005
11
point is, calibration is essential every time a new lot of seed is used, because differences in seed size and weight will affect seeding rate. Alfalfa fixes atmospheric nitrogen through a symbiotic relationship with Rhizobium bacteria which create nodules on its roots. To assure adequate amount and proper species of Rhizobium, all alfalfa seed must be inoculated before planting, either by using pre-inoculated seed or by mixing inoculum with the seed before planting. When to plant. Alfalfa seedlings are very cold tolerant at emergence, but become sensitive to freeze damage by the time the second true leaf emerges, which is generally about 2 ½ weeks (Undersander et al., 2000). Then, four hours at 26 degrees will kill seedlings. Generally, when soil conditions allow field work in the spring, alfalfa can be planted, but frost pockets remain susceptible to damage. However, waiting too long before planting can also result in a dry seedbed, so date of seeding is a trade off. Washington Climate Summaries for Harrington, for example, show a 70% chance of 24 degree frost on April 15, dropping to 50% on May 1, and 20% on May 15. These probabilities indicate that alfalfa seeded around the first of May would be susceptible two weeks later to injury by frost one year out of five. Unfortunately, these climate summaries do not indicate duration of the freezing temperatures, although freeze damage occurs from the combination of freezing temperature and its duration. Nurse crops or companion crops are sometimes seeded with alfalfa to boost hay yield in the establishment year. My advice is forget both the companion crop and the first year hay crop. The companion crop will compete with the alfalfa seedlings for moisture, and on a dry year, this can result in a seeding failure. In any case, even with a companion crop, establishment year hay yield will still be low. Because of the high cost of establishing alfalfa, it is better to establish a healthy stand than to plant a companion crop and gamble on a wet spring, risk damaging your alfalfa seeding, and still harvest a small grain companion crop at yields near or below breakeven cost. The only crop you should plan on harvesting during the establishment year is weeds. Mowing once or twice is often necessary if herbicides aren’t used, and mowing provides effective weed control. Pests. Once established, a healthy stand of alfalfa is very competitive against weeds. Mowing also helps keep many weeds in alfalfa from going to seed. As the stand ages and declines, weeds increase, especially mustards, cheatgrass and bulbous bluegrass. Gophers become problems in most alfalfa stands, also as they age. A three year productive life for alfalfa used in rotation with small grain was used in the budgets discussed previously in order to reduce added costs of pest control, additional fertilizer application, and normal stand decline. Insect pests generally are not a problem in single cutting, dryland alfalfa. Your approach to managing pests should depend on your goals for hay quality. Don’t use pest control designed to produce dairy quality hay if producing hay of that quality is unlikely because of excess cost, inexperience, drought hardy varieties with high stem to leaf ratio, adverse weather, timeliness of harvest operations, equipment problems, weeds, or other factors. Know your market and your quality potential. Producing “premium” alfalfa hay in a single cut, dryland operation is unlikely. However, desirable “feeder” to “good” quality hay can be raised with minimum pesticides (see section on Hay Quality). In dryland alfalfa production, herbicides are used in three different situations: 1. Pre-plant, soil incorporated herbicides are sometimes used where direct seeding does not provide enough mechanical weed control. Products contain benefin (Balan
Ag Horizons
April 2005
12
DF), EPTC (Eptam); or triluralin (Treflan HFP). With a few exceptions, these herbicides are effective against annual grassy weeds and also against kochia, pigweed, and lambsquarter. For a detailed discussion of herbicide effectiveness on specific weeds, see Parker, 2003. 2. Post-plant herbicides for seedling alfalfa are available both for grassy and broadleaf weeds . The following are registered for broadleaf weeds: 2,4-DB (Butyrac and Butoxone) and bromoxynil (Buctril). These herbicides can be mixed to broaden the range of weed families on which they are individually effective. Timing is important to minimize damage to seedling alfalfa. For grassy weeds, sethoxydim (Poast or Poast Plus) and cethodim (Select) are registered. Some herbicides have effectiveness on selected grassy and broadleaf weeds. Imazethapyr (Pursuit) and imazamox (Raptor) fall into this category. For these two chemicals, long re-cropping and pre-harvest restrictions apply, so give this careful consideration. You may view labels for these herbicides on-line at Crop Data Management Systems (see references). 3. For established alfalfa, and in addition to several of the herbicides discussed above, the following are registered: pronamide (Kerb) for grassy weeds, applied to dormant alfalfa in fall or winter; contact herbicides paraquat (Gramoxone Extra) for annual broadleaf and grassy weeds, applied to dormant alfalfa in fall or spring, and diuron (Karmex or Direx) for annual grasses and broadleafs, applied at start of fall dormancy; metribuzin (Sencor), terbacil (Sinbar), or hexazinone (Velpar) for selected broadleaf and grassy weeds, applied to dormant alfalfa; and norflurazon (Zorial), a soil active, pre-emergence inhibitor of annual grassy and broadleaf weed seedlings. The reader is referred to Parker, 2003 for more detailed information on use of these herbicides. Remember, alfalfa herbicides have specific time windows for application as well as postapplication haying, grazing, and plant back restrictions. Study the label carefully and consult with your agri-chemical supplier. Although small grains do not produce an environment favorable to gophers, alfalfa does. Eventually, they will find their way to their new home, your alfalfa! Gophers love alfalfa; they will eat the roots, killing some plants, and their mounds cause dirty hay when hit by the mower. Since gopher populations increase in alfalfa gradually, normal rotation back to small grains often provides adequate control. However, if control is needed during the life of the alfalfa stand, your options are limited. Trapping with body gripping traps, a time consuming but effective control, was banned in Washington State by initiative several years ago. Of the many other methods and gimmicks for controlling gophers, underground poison bait applied with a three point, tractor mounted, artificial burrow builder is the most commonly used. This device deposits about two pounds of bait per acre in artificial burrows made with a below ground opener. Gophers find the bait when the artificial burrow intersects their natural burrow. Alfalfa growers can become obsessed with gophers, like Bill Murray in Caddyshack. However, some growers choose to live with gophers. As an alternative to control, mowing height can be increased to avoid gopher mounds. Increasing mowing height decreases yield 15 to 25 percent, but it also increases hay quality by about 30 Relative Feed Value units (Meyer, 2002). Hay quality parameters will be discussed in more detail in the section entitled Hay Quality. Badgers feed heavily on gophers. Although they make a few mounds
Ag Horizons
April 2005
13
themselves, some alfalfa growers think a few badger mounds are a good trade off for lots of gopher mounds. Badger mounds can be staked and flagged so that they can be avoided at harvest. Female domestic cats make great gopher hunters. I have a mental image of an alfalfa field with cat houses placed out every 4 acres, complete with self-waters and feeders. All the cats, of course, are sleeping on the front porch of the farm house. Deer are attracted to alfalfa and feed on it periodically throughout the growing season, but their preference for alfalfa seems to increase as the season progresses beyond midsummer. For single cut, dryland alfalfa, this isn’t much of a problem, because the alfalfa is already harvested by the time deer start feeding more heavily on it. But for irrigated alfalfa, deer damage can be substantial late summer. Alfalfa weevil is the insect most likely to be a problem on dryland alfalfa because the larvae begin feeding in the spring, first on alfalfa’s growing tips, and then shred the foliage, giving the field a grayish hue. However, alfalfa weevil populations high enough to economically warrant control are not common in our dryland production area. Hay Quality. Standing alfalfa is a perishable commodity. When you make hay for sale, you need to get it right. Producing quality alfalfa hay is an art based on timely harvest operations; clean, healthy stand of alfalfa; well operating equipment; cooperative weather; and experience and judgment of the hay producer. Timely harvest and baling operations are critical. Delays caused by equipment malfunction, too many acres, family obligations, or weather can quickly translate into loss in hay quality and value of $15-$30 per ton. Since hay prices reflect hay quality, a basic understanding of hay quality is important for anyone raising and marketing alfalfa hay. This section provides background information to help hay growers interpret terminology used in classifying and marketing alfalfa hay in the PNW. USDA compiles weekly hay market reports for the PNW and California from its office in Moses Lake. In addition, USDA also compiles monthly and annual hay market summaries. This information is available in several agricultural publications, and it is also available online at USDA Agricultural Marketing Service Livestock and Grain Market News Branch (see References).
Ag Horizons
April 2005
14
Table 2 specifies USDA’s alfalfa and grass hay quality designations for western hay market news reporting, revised in March of 2003.
Table 2. Alfalfa Hay Designation (domestic use, not more than 10% grass)
QUALITY DESIGNATION
(Acid Detergent (Neutral Detergent Fiber, %) Fiber, %) (Relative Feed Value) (Total Digestible (Crude Protein, %) Nutrients, %)
ADF
NDF
RFV
TDN
CP
Supreme Premium Good Fair Utility
<27 27-29 29-32 32-35 >35
<34 34-36 36-40 40-44 >44
>185 170-185 150-170 130-150 <130
>62 60.5-62 58-60 56-58 <56
>22 20-22 18-20 16-18 <16
Grass Hay Designation
Premium Good Fair Utility >13 9-13 5-9 <5
Quantitative factors are approximate, and many factors can affect feeding value. Values based on 100% dry matter. End use may influence hay price or value more than testing results.
Hay quality designation’s and physical description: Supreme. Very early maturity, pre-bloom, soft fine stemmed, extra leafy. Factors indicative of very high nutritive content. Hay is excellent color and free of damage. Premium. Early maturity, pre-bloom in legumes and pre-head in grass hays, extra leafy and fine stemmed-factors indicative of a high nutritive content. Hay is green and free of damage. Good. Early to average maturity, early to mid-bloom in legumes and early head in grass hays, leafy, fine to medium stemmed, free of damage other than slight discoloration (reasonable target quality designation for dry land alfalfa hay). Fair. Late maturity, mid-to late-bloom in legumes, head-in grass hays, moderate or below leaf content, and generally coarse stemmed. Hay may show light damage. Utility. Hay in very late maturity, such as mature seed pods in legumes or mature head in grass hays, coarse stemmed. This category could include hay discounted due to excessive damage and heavy weed content or mold. Defects will be identified in market reports when using this category. Most single cutting, dryland alfalfa hay that is properly harvested will fall into the USDA hay quality designation Fair or Good, with Good being a reasonable target. Over the last few years, the reported difference in average price for “Good” versus “Fair” quality designated hay is about $8.35 (Alfalfa Hay, 2002). All other things being equal, the difference between “Good” and “Fair” alfalfa hay is crop maturity at harvest. Harvest delay of one week could
Ag Horizons
April 2005
15
push what would have been “Good” hay into the “Fair” designation. If hay is sold on a quality designation basis, this delay would result in a substantial loss to the producer. Following is a discussion of terms used to describe the nutrient content of hay as determined by laboratory analysis. Dry matter. Moisture content of hay varies, from extremes of about 7% on the low side to about 17% on the high side. In our area, properly cured hay contains about 12% moisture. So that the nutrient content of hay having different moisture content can be easily compared, laboratories generally report nutrient content of hay on a 100% dry matter (DM) basis, although some laboratories standardize nutrient content to a 90% DM basis (10% moisture) to approximate the nutrient content in farm stored hay as it is fed. Fiber is mostly found in the cell walls of forage plants. The fiber content of forage is related to the digestibility of the forage and also to the amount of forage livestock will eat before they become full and stop eating. NDF. Neutral detergent fiber (the name refers to the laboratory analytical procedure) contains most of the plants’ fiber, both digestible and indigestible. NDF predicts, and is negatively related to forage intake: the higher the NDF the lower the forage intake. ADF. Acid detergent fiber separates the more indigestible fiber components from the NDF. ADF predicts, and is negatively related to digestibility of forage: the higher the ADF, the lower the digestibility of the forage. RVF. Relative feed value is a comparison of the overall feeding value of different forages. It is not measured in the analytical laboratory; rather, it is calculated from NDF (a prediction of feed intake) and ADF (a prediction of digestibility). Mid-bloom alfalfa hay is the standard, having a RFV of 100. RFV has no units of measure; it is just a number on a scale with a range of about 50 to 190. Alfalfa hay with high nutrient density harvested in the immature stages has RFV’s in the 180's, while wheat straw, a mature forage with low nutrient density has a RVF of about 50. In order to improve the predictive value of RFV, forage scientists have developed an alternative estimate called RFQ (relative feed quality), and there is an effort underway to replace RFV with this new tool. CP. Crude protein is calculated from nitrogen content of forage, which is measured by the forage testing laboratory. On average, protein contains 16% nitrogen. TDN. Total digestible nutrients describes the calorie or energy content of forage. TDN is expressed in percent, since it represents the percentage of the nutrients in a forage that are digestible. Like RFV, TDN is not measured directly by the analytical laboratory. It too, is calculated from one of several equations developed from feeding and digestibility trials conducted in various parts of the country over the last 50 years. Consequently, TDN values calculated by different analytical laboratories differ significantly, because different formulas are used. For example, calculated TDN of hay with USDA designation “Good” having a crude protein of 19 percent and an ADF of 30.5% ranges from a low of 59.5% to a high of 66.1% using the commonly used TDN formulas. Further complicating the matter, my survey of PNW forage testing laboratories found that there was no consistency in the formulas used to calculate TDN, and the range in TDN noted above would be apparent if this hypothetical sample was sent to all of those labs.
Ag Horizons
April 2005
16
It is also noteworthy that USDA hay market reports, despite specifying that TDN was calculated by the “western formula,” in fact have not established that the reported TDN was actually calculated by the “western formula. ”Rather, the TDN value given the reporter by the farm submitting the report is used regardless of the laboratory having done the analysis or the formula used. By the way, TDN calculated by the “western formula” is on the lower end of the range of TDN’s calculated by other formula’s commonly in use. You might ask why TDN calculations aren’t standardized. The simple answer is that there are practical pros and cons for using the different formulas as well as sound nutritional reasons, and different people weigh these factors differently. So, the bottom line is that one needs to use a grain of salt (perhaps a rock) in evaluating TDN values reported by USDA or anyone else, for that matter, if the TDN formula is not also reported. Aside: soil testing laboratories also use several different analytical procedures for determining soil phosphorus. Based on the procedure used, phosphorus fertilizer recommendations differ, even if the different procedures find the same level of phosphorus. Crazy? No, similar to the case with TDN, regional soil differences and different weighting given to various factors that complicate phosphorus analysis give rise to this anomaly. TDN 90%. This is the standardization discussed above under Dry Matter. TDN calculated for hay containing 90% dry matter (10% moisture). Mixed Hay vs. Alfalfa. The demand for mixed hay (grass-alfalfa) is strong, especially for those willing to bale conventional small bales and cater to the horse hay market. Production potential of alfalfa-grass mixed hay (50-50) is similar to straight alfalfa, however nitrogen fertilization for the grass component is required, and the selection of herbicides is limited. Properly put up, mixed hay in conventional small bales commands about a 20% premium over fair to good quality alfalfa in big bales. However, additional cost of producing and handling mixed hay in conventional small bales for the horse hay market will eat up at least half of this premium, perhaps all of it. And, in the horse hay market, quality is everything; there is a low tolerance for weeds, dust, mold, shatter, and inadequate weather protection. Nevertheless, the strong demand for mixed hay provides marketing opportunities at times when demand for straight alfalfa hay falters. Conclusion. Based on limited experience in this area and research information extrapolated from other growing regions, alfalfa projects to be an agronomically and ecologically valuable rotational crop for some grain producers in the conventional three year rotation crop production area. Economic modeling suggests that leaving alfalfa in production for 3 to 4 years is optimal. Net profit margins are projected to be small, but comparable to spring grain. Profit potential is projected to be greater for those selling standing alfalfa to a hay harvester rather than undertaking the haying operation themselves. Mixed hay has greater market demand and value than straight alfalfa, but it has additional expense in production and management.
Ag Horizons
References
April 2005
17
Alfalfa Council. 2002. Fall Dormancy and Pest Resistance Ratings for Alfalfa Varieties 2002/2003 Edition, http://www.alfalfa.org/falldormancy.html . Alfalfa Hay 2002: Washington–Oregon–Idaho market summary. 2003. USDA AMS Livestock and Grain Market News, http://www.ams.usda.gov/LSMNpubs/PDF_Monthly/ WOIHay2002.pdf . Barnes, Donald K. 2001. My observations about a century of breeding and selection in the alfalfa genome. Medicago genetic reports. Volume 1, http://www.medicagoreports.org/ . Bauchan, Gary and Stephanie Greene (eds). 2000. Report on the Status of Medicago Germplasm in the United States. Alfalfa Crop Germplasm Committee. 37th North American Alfalfa Improvement Conference Madison, WI, July 16 - 19, http://www.naaic.org/Publications/2000germplasm/cgcreport2000.htm . Busbice, Thad. Undated. Breaking the Link. Great Plains Research, http://greatplainsresearch.com/Features/Breedingbetter.html . Cash, Dennis, Raymond Ditterline, and Robert Dunn. 1993. Alfalfa variety selection. Montguide MT 9303, Montana State University, http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/pubs/mt9303.pdf . Crop Data Management Systems. http://www.cdms.net/manuf/manuf.asp . FG-30. Fertilizer Guide, Non-irrigated alfalfa in Eastern Washington. 1975. Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service. Martens, Gary. 2001. Economics of rotations. Proceedings from the 13th annual meeting, conference, and trade show of the Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association, http://ssca.usask.ca/2001proceedings/01-proce.htm . Meyer, Dwain. 2002. Stubble height effects in alfalfa. NDSU Crop and Pest Report, Issue 5, May 30, http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/entomology/ndsucpr/Years/2002/May/30/ psci_30May02.htm . Parker, Bob. 2003. Forage alfalfa. Pacific Northwest Weed Management Handbook, pp125131, http://pnwpest.org/pnw/weeds?13W_GRAS13.dat . Peel, Michael. 1998. Crop Rotations for Increased Productivity, EB-48. NDSU Extension Service, http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/plantsci/crops/eb48-1.htm . Platt, Tom, Herbert Hinman, and Aaron Esser. 2003. 2003 enterprise budgets for summer fallow-winter wheat, spring barley and spring wheat using conventional tillage practices, Lincoln County, Washington. Washington State University Cooperative Extension Bulletin EB1964E, http://farm-mgmt.wsu.edu/PDF-docs/nonirr/eb1964.pdf . Proceedings of the 37th North American Alfalfa Improvement Conference. 2000. Report of the Crop Germplasm Committee, http://www.naaic.org/Meetings/National/meeting2000/ summarypage.html . Putman, Dan, Michael Russell, Steve Orloff, Jim Kuhn, Lee Fitzhugh, Larry Godfrey, Aaron Kiess, and Rachael Long. 2001. Alfalfa, wildlife, and the environment. California Alfalfa and Forage Association, http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/subpages/Wildlife/BrochureFINAL.pdf . Russelle, Michael P. 2001. Alfalfa: After an 8,000-year journey, the "Queen of Forages" stands poised to enjoy renewed popularity. American Scientist On-Line, 89(3) May-June, http://www.americanscientist.org/template/IssueTOC/issue/390 .
Ag Horizons
April 2005
18
Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture. 1993. National Research Council. National Academy Press, pp 440, http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309049334/ html/440.html . Undersander, Dan. 1999. Seeding Rate of Different Alfalfa Seed Lots. Agronomy Advice FC 12.2.1 Aug. University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension.
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/pubs/seedrate.html .
Undersander, Dan, Neal Martin, Dennis Cosgrove, Keith Kelling, Mike Schmitt, John Wedberg, Roger Becker, Craig Grau, Jerry Doll, and Marlin Rice. 2000. Alfalfa Management Guide. NCR547, American Society of Agronomy. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service Livestock and Grain Market News Branch Hay Commodity Reports, http://www.ams.usda.gov/LSMNpubs/Hay.htm . Washington Climate Summaries. Western Regional Climate Center. Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmwa.html .
Chemical Fallow Systems for Small Grains
By Aaron Esser, WSU Extension Agronomist, Ritzville, Joe Yenish, WSU Extension Weed Specialist, Pullman Dennis Tonks, WSU Dry land Farming Specialist, Davenport Frank Young, USDA/ARS Weed Scientist, Pullman
Chemical based fallow systems are not a new concept to dryland winter wheat (WW) producers in the Pacific Northwest (PNW), however, many questions remain regarding the application and usefulness of this practice. Why Chemical Fallow? New technology such as herbicide chemistry and developments in spray equipment are just two factors that have changed since chemical fallow was first introduced and evaluated in the PNW. The primary reason for incorporating chemical fallow into a cropping system is to reduce wind and water erosion while controlling weeds. It also has the potential to reduce production costs such as tillage and diesel consumption. It may also provide a valuable tool for increasing diversity and managing the intensity of direct seeded cropping systems. Weed control and the potential to reduce herbicide resistant weeds and rhizoctonia are also benefits of chemical fallow. Incorporating chemical fallow into rotation helps manage production and economic risk as it reduces the reliance on spring cereals and increases WW acreage while maintaining production flexibility. With small windows of opportunity to seed in the spring, coupled with timely burn-down herbicide applications for green-bridge management, one needs the flexibility to diversify with fall and spring seeding. Seeding acres too early in the spring or too late in the spring decreased the profit potential of spring crops and increased the risks of frost, high summer temperatures, and below average summer precipitation. Figure 1 is one example of a grower’s ability to establish a spring crop in a timely matter as it estimates the days needed to completely establish direct seeded spring crops utilizing the growers current operations, efficacies, equipment, and labor.
Ag Horizons
April 2005
19
Area Research: Herbicide Efficacy Research: Proper weed control is important not only to reduce costs, reduce weed supply but also to help maintain seed zone moisture. A series of small plots were established at four locations ranging from low to high precipitation examining 21 different herbicide combinations to determine the efficacy of various herbicides in a chemical fallow system and the feasibility of utilizing residual type herbicides. If Russian thistle was not a problem such as the location at Pullman where Mayweed chamomile was predominantly the weed species, multiple applications of glyphosate was the best option. At the locations where Russian thistle was the predominate weed species such as Ritzville, Wilbur, and Davenport, Valor plus Spartan or Spartan plus Balance Pro followed by a glyphosate application were the best treatments. Overall the same or better weed control was achieved with residual herbicide application of Valor or Balance Pro plus Spartan however glyphosate remains a critical component of chemical fallow systems. It is possible to achieve effective weed control with fewer glyphosate applications when combined with residual herbicides and the cost difference between treatments, although more expensive with residual herbicides this year, does not appear to be very limiting. Herbicide Efficacy Research: A large on-farm trial near Ritzville was established in 2002 examining glyphosate applied in early March tank mixed with Clarity, Spartan, or Valor. The Spartan and Valor treatments had fewer weeds during the fallow year (2002) than Clarity treatment. The Valor treatment had fewer weeds in crop (2003) than both Spartan and Clarity treatments. There was no WW yield difference between all three treatments, averaging 50 bu/A. One caution is that scouting in the spring for broadleaf weeds needs to be done multiple times, because they emerge later in the season than growers are accustomed to in their wheat-fallow systems. Chemical Fallow Efficacy Research: A large on-going on-farm test is examining the feasibility of chemical based fallow vs. conventional or tillage based fallow WW system. In this study WW on chemical fallow is seeded early, which is at the same time as the conventional fallow-WW, and late which is about one month later than the early seeding. Yields were similar for both WW seeded into chemical fallow early and conventional with an average of 82 and 81 bu/A (Table 1). Delayed or late seeding reduced yield to an average of 67 bu/A. All three treatments had very good grain quality. Returns above costs were similar for WW seeded into chemical fallow early and conventional with an average of $165 and $160/A respectively. Delayed or late seeding averaged only $127/A return above cost. The gross return per acre and cost associated with each of the treatments are provided in the appendix. Overall there was little difference in cost of production between the chemical fallow early treatment and conventional treatment. The cost of the chemical fallow late treatment was lower primarily because of reduced land costs associated with a crop share lease.
Ag Horizons
April 2005
20
Current Research: A small plot experiment was initiated this fall examining the benefit of phosphorous fertilizer in chemical fallow WW systems. The goal is to better understand phosphorous fertilizer in WW production and the impacts it plays in helping plants overcome deficiencies due to small plants in the fall because of potentially less than ideal seeding conditions on any given year. This study includes an early and late seeding date, two seeding rates (40 and 70 Lbs./A), and five phosphorous rates ranging from 0 to 80 Lbs./A. A similar study is being carried out in a recrop WW system at three different locations in Adams and Lincoln Counties.
Appendix:
Table A-1. Winter wheat yield, market price and gross economic return of conventional and chemical fallow seeded both early and late in an on-farm test near Wilbur, WA in 2003-04.
Treatment Conventional Chem Fallow E Chem Fallow L
a Gross
Yield (bu/A) 81 82 67
Mkt Price a ($/bu) 3.60 3.60 3.60
Gross Economic Return ($/A) 291 294 243
return was calculated using the F.O.B. on September 15, 2004 at Ritzville Warehouse.
Table A-2: Conventional tillage based fallow date, operations, costs of each operation, input costs associated with each operation and total costs in an on-farm test near Wilbur, WA in 2003-04.
Operation Date Operations Costs a Spray Input Costs Fertilizer b
a
Total Seed Costs
--------------------------------------- $/A --------------------------------------8-May -03 15-May-03 4-Jun-03 15-Jul-03 5-Sep-03 15-Sep-03 Spray Harrow Sweep cultiweed cultiweed/fert Seed $2.17 $2.50 $4.91 $5.09 $7.40 $6.09 $4.65 $12.60 $5.63 $7.50 $6.82 $2.50 $4.91 $5.09 $20.00 $19.22
Land cost
b
$72.71 $131.25
Total Costs
a
Operation and input costs were established utilizing the 2003 Enterprise Budgets for Summer Fallow-Winter Wheat and Spring Wheat Using conventional Tillage Practices, Lincoln County, Washington. EB1964E. b Assuming a ¾ -¼ crop share where the landowner pays ¼ of the fertilizer and receives ¼ of the crop.
Ag Horizons
April 2005
21
Table A-3: Early seeded chemical based fallow date, operations, costs of each operation, input costs
associated with each operation and total costs in an on-farm test near Wilbur, WA in 2003-04. Operation Input Costs a Total Date Operations Costs a Spray Fertilizer b Seed Costs
--------------------------------------- $/A --------------------------------------8-May -03 15-May-03 15-Jul-03 17-Sep-03 Spray Harrow Spray Seed/fert $2.17 $2.50 $2.17 $13.27 $4.65 $4.65 $18.23 $7.50 $6.82 $2.50 $6.82 $39.00
Land cost Total
a
b
$73.49 $128.62
Operation and input costs were established utilizing the 2003 Enterprise Budgets for Lincoln County, Washington, EB1964E and EB1963E. b Assuming a ¾ -¼ crop share where the landowner pays ¼ of the fertilizer and receives ¼ of the crop.
Picture 1. Early seeded winter wheat on chemical fallow on the left and winter wheat seeded into conventional tillage based fallow system on the right at in an on-farm test near Wilbur, WA.
Ag Horizons
April 2005
22
Table 3: Late seeded chemical based fallow date, operations, costs of each operation, input costs associated with each operation and total costs in an on-farm test near Wilbur, WA in 2003-04.
Operation Date Operations Costs
a
Input Costs a Spray Fertilizer
b
Total Seed Costs
--------------------------------------- $/A --------------------------------------8-May -03 15-May-03 15-Jul-03 22-Oct-03 Spray Harrow Spray Seed/fert $2.17 $2.50 $2.17 $13.27 $4.65 $4.65 $18.23 $7.50 $6.82 $2.50 $6.82 $39.00
Land cost Total
a
b
$60.70 $115.82
Operation and product costs were established utilizing the 2003 Enterprise Budgets for Lincoln County, Washington, EB1964E and EB1963E. b Assuming a ¾ -¼ crop share where the landowner pays ¼ of the fertilizer and receives ¼ of the crop.
Ag Horizons
April 2005
23
August 04-January 05
NORTHEAST REGION PRECIPITATION (INCHES)
Key N-1 N-2 N-3 N-4 N-5 N-6 N-7 N-8 N-9
Location Wellpinit (BIA) Colville (USFS) Peone Prairie (Scott) Northport (LeCaire) Chewelah (City) Deer Park (Gibson) Newport (USFS) Sullivan Lake (USFS) Hunters (Overmeyer) Average(N2-N8)
DRY REGION
Cur Yr NA 12.11 8.78 NA NA 13.66 14.30 15.24 NA 12.82
Lst Yr NA 6.87 9.06 NA NA 11.88 14.25 14.30 NA 11.27
10 Yrs 11.45 9.90 11.02 10.02 12.71 14.87 14.30 14.55 9.50 12.04
PRECIPITATION (INCHES)
Key Location D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 D-7 D-8 D-9 D-10 Almira (Kiner) Wilbur (Lincoln Mutual) Schrag-Moody (Schell) Lind (Dry land Exp. St.) Hatton (Hudlow) Odessa (Miese) Rattlesnake Flats (Allen) Carico Hills (Goodwater) Sprague (Bourne) Ritzville (Galbreath) Average
Cur Yr Lst Yr 10 Yrs 5.03 5.86 3.88 6.45 4.29 4.39 4.10 4.61 4.22 4.01 4.68 4.45 3.98 5.10 4.33 4.95 3.46 2.62 5.45 5.10 NA 4.38 6.99 7.37 6.17 5.66 6.30 6.73 7.89 7.56 7.58 7.78 7.00
PALOUSE REGION
PRECIPITATION (INCHES)
INTERMED. REGION
PRECIPITATION (INCHES)
Key I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 I-5 I-6 I-7 I-8 I-9 I-10 I-11 I-12
Location Benge (Honn) Davenport (McGregor) Long Lake (Wollweber) Rocklyne (Mielke) Hooper (Rumiser) Dusty (Moore) Reardan (Carstens) Tucker Prairie (Valley) Lamont (Morton) Lancaster (Smith) Pine City (Dowling) Spokane Int. (NWS) Average
Cur Yr Lst Yr 10 Yrs 5.26 4.76 7.36 5.59 5.38 7.65 5.21 5.45 8.94 5.81 6.38 8.46 5.38 7.71 9.10 4.01 7.75 9.16 NA NA 8.83 8.97 8.79 10.72 6.75 6.75 9.00 7.17 7.69 10.08 7.62 6.76 9.92 7.25 6.71 9.12 6.27 6.74 9.03
Key P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 P-10 P-11 P-12 P-13
Location Oakesdale (Goldsworthy) Plaza (McGregor) Hangman Hills (Taylor) Mt. Hope (Cornwall) Colfax (Bannister) Fairfield (Wilbur/Ellis) Colton (Druffel) Diamond (Klettke) Belmont (Peringer) Rockford (Wigen) Pullman (Guettinger) Palouse (McGregor) Tekoa (McGregor) Average
Cur Yr Lst Yr 9.33 8.05 8.73 8.01 7.41 7.35 8.70 7.58 10.16 10.48 NA 10.46 9.81 10.01 8.27 8.99 8.19 10.40 10.16 10.30 NA NA 9.01 9.75 10.05 8.12 9.07 9.13
10 Yrs 10.32 9.89 10.42 9.65 11.07 10.95 11.76 10.94 11.87 11.73 13.52 13.36 13.32 11.45
Ag Horizons
April 2005
24
Agricultural Horizons is published by WSU Extension. The purpose of this newsletter is to foster an understanding of the agronomic, economic, and social impacts of agriculture and to promote the adoption of practices that sustain the natural resource base for continued use by future generations. The information given herein is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by Extension is implied. It is the responsibility of the user to read and carry out label instructions. Tom Platt (5099)725-4171 Livestock & Range Davenport, plattom@wsu.edu Dennis Tonks (509)725-4171 Dryland Crop Systems dtonks@wsu.edu Aaron Esser (509)659-3210. On-Farm Testing Ritzville aarons@wsu.edu R. Dennis Roe (509)335-2916 Conservation Tillage Pullman rdroe@coopext.cahe.wsu.edu
Darla Rugel (509)725-4171 Agricultural Research Technologist rugeld@wsu.edu