CQ Perspectives May 2006

8/4/2019 CQ Perspectives May 2006

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cq-perspectives-may-2006 1/4

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF CROP QUEST AGRONOMIC SERVICES, INC

C r o p Q u e s t P e r s p e c t i v e s

Volume 16 • Issue 3 • May 2006

Common

sense dictates

that going the

extra mile to putin a doublecrop

of soybean or

even milo, corn

or cotton in a

year plagued

with a pattern of

moisture decits

is more risky

than in an ‘ordi-

nary’ year.

“Doublecropping is increasing all across our area and certainly

helps spread some risks and provides another avenue of prot-

ability to our farmers,” observes veteran Crop Quest agronomistRoger Unruh. “Doublecropping offers the farmer a means of produc-

ing two crops per year on the same unit of land. In many instances,

net yearly income can be increased signicantly and seasonal cash

ow can be improved. Nevertheless,” Unruh advises, “those farmers

need to think more carefully this year about how they might proceed

if doublecropping is part of their strategy after wheat.

“Any good crop requires adequate moisture, energy and nutrients

to be successful,” Unruh notes. “It is especially hard to get every-

thing just right to be successful at doublecropping soybean, espe-

cially in a dry year.”

Unruh adds, “There are many questions on ‘what kind of a rota-

tion do I need?’ Farmers want help from our agrono-

mists on helping them make that decision. Doublec-

ropping is a means to fulll a crop rotation sequence.

“In a normal year, a successful doublecrop relies

primarily on maximizing the growing season for

the second crop. A sufcient growing season is

typically a combination of good management, prepa-

ration and planning. A timely wheat harvest alone

is not enough. There must be sufcient soil

moisture to start the crop and, hence, to

start the growing season.”

Unruh admits there are more risks in

doublecropping, but there are also some

very good reasons to doublecrop. “You are going to have to contr

weeds in a summer crop anyway. For example, if you doublecrop

soybeans behind wheat, you can use a less expensive glyphosate

herbicide to control weeds. I advocate this practice on irrigated laand especially on dryland farming operations. Erosion control is

another advantage of doublecropping. If you do not have that muc

residue on top, putting out a doublecrop could greatly assist erosio

issues.”

According to veteran Crop Quest consultant Farrell Allison, som

additional issues must be reviewed prior to doublecropping. The

answers to each of these questions could make the difference in a

successful doublecrop.

• Do you have an opportunity to make some money?

• Do you own the land?

• What is the prospect of the wheat crop?

• Will the wheat crop come off in time to get adoublecrop established?

• What is your labor situation?

• What is the commodity price after harvesting wheat?

Allison, who has been an agronomist for nearly three

decades, stresses the point that it costs just about the

same amount of money to put in a doublecrop as it

does a full-season crop. “You still have to buy seed,

fertilizer, handle weed control, water management

issues, etc.,” he outlines. “You have to look at

how much water was pumped on the wheat crop

and if there is enough to water a doublecrop. If

you are short on water, you may need to look atsunowers instead of soybeans or milo or corn

for a doublecrop.”

Three years ago, it was costing Kansas

farmers nearly $2,500/circle to pump water.

This year it is going to cost nearly $9,000/circle. This cost to

irrigate would certainly be a detriment to doublecropping a crop

that requires much water.

In conclusion, Unruh adds, “In 2006 there are so many critical

input issues to consider – energy costs, seed prices, fertilizer

decisions, labor, etc. This is when a Crop Quest agronomist can

be an especially valuable management partner.”

Economic Sense in 2006?Does Doublecropping Make

Roger Unruh

Farrell All


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cq-perspectives-may-2006 2/4C r o p Q u e s t P e r s p e c t i v e s w w w . c r o p q u e s t . c2

There has been

some concern in recent

years that a farmer’s

expectation of what

agronomists can really

provide is greater than

reality. Due to the very tight ag economy, farmers are looking for

ways to lessen their risk, while at the same time earn a positive

net income. Shifting some of the economic responsibility to others

involved in helping make cropping decisions, such as the crop

consultant, seems to be one way some farmers are using to lessen

this burden.

There are many things that an agronomist can provide to a

farmer, such as assisting in helping to make decisions regarding

the potential outcome of their cropping plans. But the one thing

agronomists cannot provide is yield guarantee. There are so manyvariables that have an inuence on the nal yield, an agronomist

can only hope to improve the odds of overcoming all the negative

inuences affecting the yield with the decisions and recommenda-

tions they make regarding the crop.

Crop consultants are trained in many different aspects of crop

production, calibrations, scouting techniques, pesticide labels

and efcacies, water management and crop budgeting in order to

broaden their knowledge to assist their farmers/clients in making

those tough decisions regarding their crop management plans. A

agronomist can walk a eld looking for insects, weeds, diseases,

nutrient problems, compaction, and soil moisture status and then

recommend to a farmer certain actions that may be taken if there

are problems that are present. The consultant is there to offer

advice and recommendations regarding many of the aspects of

crop production, but ultimately, it is still the farmer’s decision as

to whether to follow their advice based upon their own knowl-

edge, experience and nancial situation.

The agronomist always has the responsibility of making the

best observations and recommendations based upon their trainin

education and experience. However, there is no way they know

what may happen in the future that can be counter to the decision

that were made on the information in the present. This is just parof the risk a farmer has always had as a part of farming.

The Crop Quest consultants are there to provide another set of

eyes, ears, peace of mind and advice for the challenges and

opportunities that a farmer faces daily. The agronomists are there

to assist farmers in the tough decisions that have to be made, but

not to replace them as the manager of their farming operation.

By: Ron O’Hanlon,President

Member, National Alliance

of Independent Crop

Consultants, CPCC-I

Certied

Your C rop Ques t Agronomis t . . . A Proven Partner In Risk Management

Biotechnology has become a household

name for almost every farmer in the country.

We are all familiar with terms like ‘GMO,’

‘BT,’ ‘RR,’ ‘Cleareld,’ etc. Adding biotech

traits to plant genetics has probably led to

more increased yields and efcient use of inputs quicker than

any other technology developed prior to their release more than a

decade ago. Looking forward, it is easy to see that we are closer

to the beginning of this biotech revolution than we are to the end.We are going to see some great advances in genetically modied

crops in the future that will affect more and more crops, and more

and more plant traits. It is exciting to be a part of this revolution.

At the same time, these traits force farmers to make some very

rened management decisions to best utilize the technology that is

available. These traits are not free, and there must be a reason for

a farmer to justify purchasing them. It is a real challenge to keep

up on the traits available, the nomenclature, the genetic events,

the stacked traits and the resistance issues that have been trig-

gered by the onset of the use of GMOs. It is also very important

to understand that certain traits affect pesticide applications and

use. We need to avoid mistakes that can lead to disasters from an

inadvertent application. These are areas where a consultant bring

great value to their customers.

The consulting business has evolved along with the biotech re

olution. Consultants are challenged more and more with plannin

and managing farms and elds and scouting elds with biotech

traits in mind. Consultants are in a position to help farmers place

traits in proper situations that will allow success without wasting

money on unnecessary traits.

When BT corn was rst introduced, it was thought that this

technology would devalue consulting. In fact, it has had just the

opposite effect. Every new genetically modied trait that is introduced increases the need to rene our crop management skills, a

the trend toward stacking traits together further enhances the nee

for a high level of management. Farmers and consultants are com

municating more often and better today than any time in the past

We at Crop Quest will continue to keep up with all the new

technology that is being developed for agriculture, and will alwa

help our customers utilize these innovations for the betterment

of their operation. If you have any questions whatsoever on wha

biotech traits will benet your operation, and even more impor-

tant, where to place these traits, please contact your Crop Quest

agronomist.

The Influence Of Biotechnology On Farmer

And Consultant RelationshipsBy: Dwight Koops

Regional Vice President

Ulysses, Kan.


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cq-perspectives-may-2006 3/4C r o p Q u e s t P e r s p e c t i v e s

r r i g a t i n g i n 2 0 0 6 C o u l d

C h a l l e n g e P r o f i t M a r g i n sVeteran Crop Quest agronomist Harlan Bartel, Cimarron, Kan.,

ms up sprinkler irrigation management quite simply – “Do not

rn them on unless your crop can benet from it.” He adds,

he days of watering because your neighbor’s sprinklers are on

e over. Besides, you would not take heart medicine just because

ur neighbor did, so why copy their management practices.”

Bartel’s approach to water management is concise, based on

ence and ts his customers’ budgets and expectations. “We have

ent a lot of time working on watering budgets in 2006,” admits

artel. “Even with the higher energy costs, we are still (especially

here we still have enough water to irrigate corn or soybeans)

anning on doing a full irrigation program.“If we are going to irrigate, we have to go for the highest yield,”

artel believes.

Even though corn prices have moved up a bit and natural gas

s come down some too, Bartel is advising his clients continue to

ater as efciently as possible. This means that where economics

ctate, Bartel is moving many of his clients to no-till management

conserve water utilization.

“In this part of the county, no-till and crop rotation management

an excellent means of conserving and utilizing water to its

timum benet,” Bartel notes. “We have quite a few acres

at are strictly no-till with wheat and corn or wheat and soybeans

tation. With wheat in the rotation, it maximizes the water ef -

iency because we end up with good subsoil moisture, which re-lts in minimal or no preplant irrigation if we are planting corn or

ybeans no-till into wheat stubble. Somewhat less efcient from

water utilization standpoint is rotating corn with soybeans. Most

my producers, with smaller irrigation wells, are heading towards

-till and getting a crop rotation of wheat and corn or wheat and

ybeans.”

Bartel points to another scenario where his clients are signi-

ntly cutting back on the irrigation water by going to a rotation of

lo and soybeans. “This is the next step down from full irrigation

at is looking very promising,” Bartel adds.

“If water is an issue in your area in 2006, the nal step before

switching to dryland may be doing a preplant irrigation or

fall irrigation to replenish subsoil moisture and leave the

sprinkler off,” the agronomist suggests. “In all my

budgeting to date, the success rests with making sure you

have good subsoil moisture prior to planting. So far, our

water management is keeping options open for 2006.”

Prior to joining Crop Quest, Doug Moyer,

Plainview, TX, was a farm manager for 12 years. He

has seen all sides of the equation and, from

experience, states, “As any input cost increases

– water, energy, seed, fertilizer, etc. – we haveto be as efcient as possible.

“We do not see many changes in our

irrigation recommendations in 2006,” Moyer

notes. “Our traditional corn producers know, and we

continue to preach, we cannot cut back on our water and expect to

make the kind of yields that make the crop protable. Even though

energy prices are high, they are committed and we do not want

them to skimp on inputs.”

Moyer admits they have not really been able to cut much,

primarily because the area has only had 1 inch to 2 inches

of rain since August 2005. “This has some of our clients

working with us to change from water-dependent corn over

to less-dependent sorghum silage and cotton to reducewater dependency,” Moyer states. “If the bottom line

looks good, it can be a good alternative. We have

many new dairies in the area, so silage is in need

and that has opened the silage market for many of

our growers.”

Moyer adds, “As dry as it has been this

year, even though we may get some rain soon, the

wells will probably not be turned off. As energy costs

increase, monitoring soil moisture is critical and should be

considered a high priority.”

Doug Moye

Harlan Bart


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cq-perspectives-may-2006 4/4

Mission StatementCrop Quest is an employee-owned company dedicated to providing the highest quality agricultural services for each customer. The quest of our network o

professionals is to practice integrity and innovation to ensure our services are economically and environmentally sound.

PRSRT STD

US POSTAGE

PAID

DODGE CITY KS

PERMIT NO. 433

“Employee-Owned & Customer Driven” Crop Quest Agronomic Services, Inc.

Main Ofce: Phone 620.225.2233

Fax 620.225.3199Internet: www.cropquest.com

[email protected]

Crop Quest Board of Directors President: Ron O’Hanlon

Director: Jim Gleason

Director: Dwight Koops

Director: Cort Minor

Director: Chris McInteer

Director: Rob Meyer

By: Jim Gleason

Regional Vice President

St. John, Kan.

I Sprayed My Wheat This Winter. Can I Plant Something

That depends on which chemi-

cal was used. Chemicals have

different recropping restrictions.

Some chemicals don’t have any

restrictions, which means you can

plant any crop without having to

wait. These are generally contact

herbicides that are inactive soon

after coming in contact with the

soil. 2,4-D, MCPA and the Dicamba products are some that

have very short to no recropping restrictions.

Another popular class of chemistry that is used on a lot of

wheat acres for broadleaf control is the SUs. The sulfanyl-

urea class has varying lengths of residual control against the

weeds we are trying to control. This persistence affects what

we can plant back on those treated acres as well as when.

Compounds, like Express or Harmony Extra, have a 45-day

recropping restriction to any crop. You would be pretty safe

to plant a crop if it has been more than six weeks since you

sprayed the eld with one of these chemicals.

With the other chemicals in this class, it is not as simple

to say when it is safe to replant the eld. The waiting period

ranges from one month to two years, depending on which

chemical was used, the rate that was used, the crop that is

to be replanted, the pH of the soil and the amount of rainfall

that fell during the waiting period. This information is listed

on the label for each chemical. Grain sorghum, proso millet

or STS soybeans can usually be rotated back sooner than

corn, sunowers or non-STS soybeans.

If the eld was treated for cheat or downy brome with

Maverick®, Olympus® or Olympus Flex®, the recropping

interval to STS soybeans is three to ve months. There is a

wide difference in the interval to grain sorghum; it is from

nine to 22 months depending on the product used. It may

be too restrictive to attempt to doublecrop back to milo this

summer, regardless of the product used.

The decision to planting a second crop after wheat harvest

usually is made based upon available soil moisture. Don’t

forget to think about what chemical was applied to the eld

last winter as well.

®Maverick is a registered trademark of Monsanto Company.®Olympus and Olympus Flex are registered trademarks of Bayer CropScience.

On That Field After The Wheat Is Harvested?

Documents

CQ Perspectives May 2006