 Next Generation Farming 
Issues focused on farm management, farm business trends and young farmers. |
|
|
 |
|
Paying the Piper in Herbicide Resistant Weeds |
|---|
|
| Posted on August 26, 2011 at 10:40 AM |
|
We've all known for years about how herbicide-resistant weeds have been a growing problem in farming. The past couple of years have been particularly hard with farmers all over the plains going back to tillage, mainly to fight back against glyphosate-resistant kochia marching into their fields. Windmill grass, marestail and other weeds have also been causing a lot of headaches.
Agronomists speaking to farmers at the K-State Southwest Research-Extension Center's field day in Tribune, Kan., last week wasted no time pointing to the elephant in the room: The end of continuous no-till is at hand. If you want to stay in business farming, chances are you'll have to start going back to tillage.
At the very minimum, they argued, you'll have to start doing at least one tillage operation in the spring if you want to have a fighting chance against the onslaught of glyphosate-resistant weeds.
For those no-tillers committed to holding out to the very end, pure chemical-control of weeds still is a possibility, but their future is going to be a lot more complicated and expensive. Farmers standing steadfastly against tilling the soil have to commit to spraying early in the season when weeds are tiny, use more expensive chemical combinations, and constantly be on high-alert with their sprayer ready for battle when weeds return.
More field scouting will also be required in order for farmers to know exactly which weeds are in your fields and which chemical combination is required to keep them under control.
The news was taken silently with no objection from the crowd. It seemed everyone attending the field day at the experiment station, including even the most committed no-tillers, was resigned to the fact that the age of simple and easy weed control was over. Gone are the days of getting all your fields sprayed in an afternoon and heading back to the house to spend the rest of the day watching football on TV. Now, we're all going to have to start going back to work and putting in some serious hours in the field.
No One to Blame But Ourselves
Some might argue this was inevitable and that it was just a matter of time until Mother Nature finally caught up to us. The implication is that farmers could do nothing to avert the loss of glyphosate as a useful technology. So, no one is to blame.
Others see it differently. As one representative from a seed company recently told me, Kansas is Ground Zero for weed resistance. No other state in the country has more chemical-resistant weeds than Kansas. It all comes down to the irresponsibility of farmers and chemical applicators who left the door wide open for weeds to become chemically resistant.
As the reasoning goes, farm size is bigger in Kansas compared to other states in the Midwest, so farmers have more acres to spray. Because of their higher spraying bill, farmers here are more inclined to skimp on their chemical rates to reduce cost, causing weeds to become tolerant and then resistant over time.
Just plain laziness is also a major factor. Rather than being vigilant and spraying fields early in the spring when weeds are small and easy to control, some waited until late in the spring or early summer to take action. At that stage of the game, weeds might be taller than sequoia trees and able to withstand chemical treatment.
Now, all these years of cheap and lazy farming has finally caught up with us. But it's not just irresponsible farmers paying the price for it. Even the responsible ones end up picking up the bill. Weed seeds don't recognize farm borders. |
|
| Add a Comment |
|
| Comments |
|
| Posted by Tanner Ehmke on September 2 at 7:16 AM |
|
|
| Also, you're reasoning on the second ten years makes sense after yields improve and become more consistent, and application rates are reduced. But that first ten years is a loooooong road to travel to finally see the full benefit. That takes a heck of commitment! More on this later. Have a safe drive to Manhatan. TE |
|
|
|
| Posted by Tanner Ehmke on September 2 at 7:03 AM |
|
|
| You've certainly brought up good points worth deeper analysis as I'm looking at the spreadsheet and see how some of the numbers aren't matching up. I'll e-mail you what I've got so far. TE |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on September 1 at 10:58 PM |
|
|
| One final comment is a suggestion to hit the Kansas Ag Research and Technology conference this winter in Salina (www.kartaonline.org). This conference is NOT focused on any specific management approach but rather is focused solely on bring more science into agriculture to increase profits. Part of bringing more science in is focusing on understanding the science, breaking things down, arguing about stuff and finally doing on-farm research in a way that leads to improved confidence in decision making. Ok, gotta run as I've got to be in Manhattan first thing in the morning. Hope I don't run into the EcoKat! Adios Dietrich |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on September 1 at 10:50 PM |
|
|
| The ONE study you pointed to only points to the conclusion you NEED to see under a very unique set of criteria (that I can't even replicate because the paper DOES NOT EVEN TELL THE READER WHAT PRICES ARE ACTUALLY USED IN THE ANALYSIS to calculate gross profit and are reported on Table 1.). I showed clearly that using THEIR stated target prices, THEIR spot prices at the time of the analysis was done, and today's prices that NT BEATS RT economically and by A LOT when one uses modern era commodity pricing. I showed that plugging in the last decade of the same yield data series as opposed to the first decade even further separates the economics between RT and NT because the first decade of the NT data included the tough transition years as one is changing their soils. If you don't like my analysis, build your own spreadsheet Tanner, plug in their costs, and whatever prices you think should go in and see how what the output looks like. It sounds like you are basing the future of your farm on one dated study (which was not a peer-reviewed paper)and whose conclusions were not only barely correct at the time of publishing (using their own data) but miles off when one brings in modern commodity pricing; oh ya, and one opinion piece. Herbicide costs have not gone up for many farmers, in fact with a systems based approach many are slowly reducing herbicide usage and costs; you don't need much herbicide if you have a good crop growing during the growing periods of the year. Soil was meant to grow things during the summer months and if one doesn't have a crop in place, mother nature will put one in there for us. You're are a sharp guy Tanner and in the MAB program so you have the nuts/bolts upstairs to look deeper at the science. Spend some time this winter hitting some conferences (Cover your acres, NTOP and HPNTC are all within a few hours of your farm). I know these conferences are biased towards notill, but I don't know of a single conference out there in the area focused on tillage. I'm not telling you that you need to drink the notill Koolaid but rather go to these events, dive into the science, look more closely at the economics and don't just read the abstracts or conclusions of papers but dissect them to make sure they make sense and are relative in today's world). Visit with folks doing notill that you feel won't just blow smoke but will give you an honest assessment. Notill management is not easy, especially the first 3-5 years, but the long term rewards are huge and there is no debate that the notillers are the ones pushing cash rents and land values in today's world out here on the High Plains. The advantage for adopting CNT today (as opposed to 10 or so years ago when many did it) is that you won't have to make all the stupid mistakes the rest of us did. IMO, the biggest mistake we personally made was thinking that we could take a reduced tillage based rotation (W-C-F) and simply just take the tillage out. It just doesn't work that way and things blow up (like the herbicide resistant Kochia has in summer fallow for many operators). I'd love to visit more with you on this topic but would prefer we take it to email as I hate the limitations of this comment window (I can't even put in paragraph breaks). So if you have a desire to pursue this further, please feel free to drop me a line anytime. Adios Dietrich |
|
|
|
| Posted by Tanner Ehmke on September 1 at 9:38 PM |
|
|
| That’s interesting. One thing to keep in mind is that to compare apples to apples, average costs and average prices need to be used. Spot prices compared to long term averages could be misleading, and the cost structure has also shifted due to weed resistance. Still, the studies at KSU and CSU reach the same conclusion that while wheat yield is indeed higher under NT, RT is more cost efficient and profitable. Helping to distort this economic reality are farm subsidies. TE |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on September 1 at 3:43 PM |
|
|
| Yes, I've seen that page on the CSU website before. I really can't comment on it as they provide zero numbers about how they reach their conclusions, so largely it's just another opinion piece from my perspective. Without knowing how the research was done (the plot work, the costs, what commodity prices were used) it's hard to say much about it one way or the other. Modern businesses can't survive relying on opinion for their decision making; data, science and consensus building is what has to be in the drivers seat. Adios Dietrich |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on September 1 at 3:25 PM |
|
|
| Thanks for the link to this article Tanner. Let's make sure we we are on the same page before we look at this: They used data from 1990-2001, costs from 2007-2008 and a modified price structure to reflect what (at the time) they considered to be more average prices. They never indicate what the actual prices they use to generate the Gross Return numbers on Table 1. When I plug in their indicated target prices of $3.92 for wheat and $2.57 for milo the gross numbers do not reflect what their table shows so I have no idea what the "actual" prices were used for this table. So I put their table 1. data into a spreadsheet just now so that we can look at this deeper. Let's first assume that their cost assumptions are correct (I'll use the exact cost numbers by method), let's also leave their yields alone for now. When I plug in their target prices (shown above) and then calculate net return it shows $146.64 for the RT and $147.61 for NT. Basically a wash between the methods. Now let's plug in the true spot prices at the time of the study (from their paper) of $7.56 for wheat and 4.02 for milo. Now the Net Returns are $398.42 for RT and $421.10 for the NT or a 5.5% advantage to the NT rotation. The 1990-2001 data do not reflect the same spread between yields that the 2001-2010 data due largely because it takes 3-4 years of CNT before things are rolling and 1990 was year 0 for the NT plots (this transition period is something that you and I have talked about in the past). So let's plug the 2001-2010 numbers straight in and see what happens (they are lower overall due to a dryer pattern but the trends are reflected). At the 2008 spot price ($7.56/4.02) provided in the study but now using the last decade of yield data from Tribune (same data series as the project, but the last ten years instead of the first ten years) the RT kicks out a net return of $55.89 while the NT kicks out a $195.18 or a 71% advantage to NT. Now let's plug in today's cash prices ($7.68 for wheat, $7.24 for milo) and we see the RT net about $141.89 while the NT nets about $381.72 or a 63% advantage to NT. In the old price world (and using NT yields that included the transition period), at worst RT and NT were a push. Using the last decade of yields (where the notill is established and not in transition)along with today's prices (and using all the underlying cost assumptions of this study)shows that NT has more than DOUBLE the net returns of RT (a $239.83/ac advantage to NT), which is actually a little more than the $200/ac advantage I was indicating in previous comments. That is a LOT of money and serves as a huge competitive advantage that notillers have over reduced tillers. A notiller can throw twice as much rent out there as a reduced tiller and still pocket a ton of money difference. As we move through time, the yield spread will only grow between RT and NT because with NT soil quality improves over time which consequently improves yields. Unlike with other technologies where one can jump in the game at anytime just by throwing some money at it, improvements in soil quality take time and one can not easily skip over years, regardless of how much money they might have. In other words, if Farmer A is 10 years ahead in NT (in terms of building soil quality), it will be quite difficult for Farmer B who is a reduced tiller to ever catch up. Once long fallow is eliminated in a rotation (fallow is very destructive to soil quality), then the advantage to Farmer A becomes greater yet. Adios Dietrich |
|
|
|
| Posted by Tanner Ehmke on September 1 at 2:05 PM |
|
|
| Dietrich,
The same conclusions were made at CSU that while there is indeed improved water storage and yield potential under NT, it is not cost efficient: "Colorado and Nebraska research indicates that precipitation storage efficiencies of 40 to 60 percent is achieved when tillage is minimized or eliminated. The key to these improvements is maintaining crop residue on the soil surface and minimizing or eliminating soil disturbance. Unfortunately, little added wheat yield results from the additional water stored under no-till compared to mulch tillage systems. In fact, it costs more to save the additional water in a no-till system than the value of the added grain yield. Weed control with herbicides is more costly than with mechanical tillage." You can read their conclusions here: www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00516.html |
|
|
|
| Posted by Tanner Ehmke on September 1 at 12::38 PM |
|
|
| Dietrich,
The latest risk analysis from K-State weighed CT, RT and NT in a w-s-f rotation for 2008 in west-central Kansas following CRP, concluding that “The net return is highest for the RT strategy. The NT strategy is the second most profitable. This result occurs because NT has higher costs than RT. Although NT has higher yields, the additional gross income does not offset the higher costs.”
Net return per crop acre in rotation averaged $68.60/a for RT, and $65.98/a for NT. (Net return for CT was $25.10/a.)
The difference was found in the input. Input costs under RT averaged $124.05/a while NT averaged $154.37/a due to higher fertilizer and herbicide costs. Total operating costs for RT were $192.27/a, while NT was 16% higher at $222.96/a.
You can find their study here: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/45985/2/A%20Risk%20Analysis%20of%20Converting%20CRP%20Acres%20to%20a%20Wheat-Sorghum-Fallow%20Rotation.pdf
|
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on September 1 at 11:00 AM |
|
|
| Tanner, once again you are making declarations without providing details. You say "Agronomists at CSU and KSU agree that tillage mixed with spraying is the best method for growing wheat on the High Plains." Who are these individuals? What research can you point to supporting this claim? I'm more familiar with the Akron ARS guys so perhaps the CSU guys have been doing some research on this topic and I'd very much like to see it. Adios Diet |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on September 1 at 10:22 AM |
|
|
| Tanner, once again you are making declarations without providing details. You say "Agronomists at CSU and KSU agree that tillage mixed with spraying is the best method for growing wheat on the High Plains." Who are these individuals? What research can you point to supporting this claim? I'm more familiar with the Akron ARS guys so perhaps the CSU guys have been doing some research on this topic and I'd very much like to see it. Adios Diet |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on September 1 at 10:02 AM |
|
|
| Tanner you can't just "declare" that a reduced till rotation has higher net returns. Show me the numbers. I'm curious how you are crunching the numbers to show that a reduced till rotation that generates over $66/ac less gross profits annually than a notill rotation can possibly compete when the primary trade-off is herbicide vs. diesel and a few dollars per acre difference in iron custom rates.
Adios Dietrich |
|
|
|
| Posted by Tanner Ehmke on September 1 at 9:50 AM |
|
|
| Mr. Beck, overuse and misuse of the technology resulted in resistance over time. Agronomists at CSU and KSU agree that tillage mixed with spraying is the best method for growing wheat on the High Plains. I’m sure through your studies you’ve learned how goatgrass is escaping Beyond via tillage, which I’d be glad to hear more on. The upside of resistant kochia is that its seed is only viable for two years, after which time you can return to previous technologies such as glyphosate, assuming your neighbor’s weeds don’t tumble across your field. On our farm, we do a wheat-sorghum-fallow rotation for precisely the management reasons you cited below – better weed control with less dependence on tillage. Tanner Ehmke |
|
|
|
| Posted by Tanner Ehmke on September 1 at 7:33 AM |
|
|
| Nathan,
You make a good point. Yes, there is indeed a lot of excellent work being done at Tribune and other experiment stations, especially in regards to rotations and weed control. The scientists and the work they do is critical to the success of farming all over western Kansas and is highly valued. We’ll need them even more in the future as farming continues to evolve. And of course, we'll always need keen farmers like yourself to serve on the boards. My personal opinion is to shift all subsidies out of farming and over to our research stations and universities where we everyone benefits. But's thats for another blog.
Tanner Ehmke |
|
|
|
| Posted by Tanner Ehmke on September 1 at 5:50 AM |
|
|
| Dietrich,
Speaking directly toward the issue of economics, yes, yield and profitability are both higher for milo under a wheat-milo-fallow rotation, according to Tribune data. For wheat, yield is also higher under no-till, but average net returns are highest under reduced till. No-tilled milo and reduced tilled wheat is the most profitable combination, not continuous no-till throughout. Hopefully in time, as other chemistries are more widely adopted and cost comes down, no-till can remain profitable and competitive.
Tanner Ehmke
|
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 31 at 10:16 PM |
|
|
| I would like to invite anyone that belives this horse pucky to visit the Dakota Lakes Research Farm and/or any of the farmers that follow the practices developed there. We predicted the development of glyphosate resistant weeds in 1994 at a Monsanto sponsored Main Event in Denver. That prediction was based on lack of CROP ROTATION not on lack of tillage. ALS resistant weeds developed when EVERYONE was doing tillage. Goatgrass is escaping Beyond under tillage. It is a rotation and management issue. Tillage will actually make it worse. We intentionally developed ALS resistance at Dakota Lakes to prove it would happen and have since cleaned it up. PLEASE GET THE SCIENCE CORRECT IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE IN THE BUSINESS
Dwayne Beck, Ph.D. Manager DLRF |
|
|
|
| Posted by Tanner Ehmke on August 31 at 7:38 PM |
|
|
| Nathan and Dietrich,
My language might have been a little strong in implying “the end is near.” To clarify, the end of continuous no-till is near for those who see spraying as cost prohibitive. The exact words from the station manager (what I have written down in my notepad) were “Tillage may be required” and “Continuous no-till may not be the answer.” Indeed, I’ve put my own spin on that and included my own personal feelings on the matter, as Nathan pointed out, but when you are considering cost efficiency, it is certainly the end as we know it. With Gramoxone at $20/acre, or a pre-emergent like Lumax for $30/acre, these other options add up very quickly and tillage becomes very enticing. But if you’re committed to paying the higher price tag and can pencil it into your budget, continuous no-till can remain viable. High commodity prices may allow that in the future. For other more cost-sensitive producers, continuous spraying may be considered a luxury.
Thanks for your input. You both run top-notch operations and have much to offer.
Tanner Ehmke
|
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 31 at 5:56 PM |
|
|
| Tanner as you might remember when you visited last spring I was very specific in saying that each farmer has to do what they think is most profitable for their "own" farm regarding management (tillage vs. notill). I have no problems with folks farming however they see fit, it's their business and they can run it however they like. However, I do have some problems with misrepresenting information. The topic of your article is an important topic and herbicide resistant weeds are causing folks problems across the whole planet, and yes it is due to overuse and it does need to be addressed. In fact I'd say there might even be bigger problems with glyphosate overuse than just weed resistance, but that can be a topic for a different day. It's when you state as fact that KSU agronomists are telling farmers "The end of continuous no-till is at hand. If you want to stay in business farming, chances are you'll have to start going back to tillage" that I get upset because that is just blatently untrue. I can break this down by each speaker that presented that day if need be, but I won't for the sake of brevity. The KSU-Tribune manager briefly discussed the possibility of setting up a test plot to assess the trade-offs for a single tillage pass in a notill rotation as a means to scientifically get at how much yield we might lose in our whole notill rotation if in fact we do one tillage pass. Possibly a good science based research project of value for some of the folks in the room, but a long ways away from re-focusing the whole farm back to tillage based research which is what would be happening, if in fact what you stated were true. For the sake of disclosure, I too am on the advisory board and perhaps that is why this issue has struck home for me so hard as these are good people and good scientists at KSU-Tribune and I hate to see them mis represented in such a fashion. We've had 20 years of research and data from KSU-Tribune showing that notill adds significant bushels to both the wheat and milo legs of an notill eco-fallow rotation vs. a reduced tillage eco-fallow rotation. Since 2001, the data show an average of a 6 bu/ac gain on wheat and a 31 bu/ac gain on milo. with $6+/bu corn and milo right now there is a ton of money on the table to be spent figuring out how to deal with a few problem weeds and still be economically better off than a reduced tillage approach. I seriously doubt most folks will give up over $200/ac ($66/ac per year) in profits for a notill eco-fallow rotation to move back to a reduced tillage eco-fallow rotation because of one problematic weed. To sum up, I think the overall topic of this article is excellent, important and pertinent to all of Western Kansas but there was no need to bring the tillage vs. notill debate up at all, as the science/economics are pretty clear with over 20 years of research at the KSU stations, the UNL stations, the ARS stations, the CSU stations, SDSU, etc. And the way you did it for this article looks bad for the KSU-Tribune folks and the other excellent speakers because you paint them as telling farmers something that they just flat aren't telling them, nor should they based on the science and data available today.
Adios, Dietrich Kastens |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 31 at 2:52 PM |
|
|
| Tanner: I'd first like to commend you on the article you did on our farm in the recent Kansas Farmer. Many people have complimented me, and I have to remind them that I didn't write it. My brother and I were very impressed with your questions and the entire interview process. You definitely have the ability to report things honestly and fairly. I won't turn this into a discussion on your family, but we were warned by several people to be careful about what we said in our interview with you. These people told us you would twist our words into some anti-no-till babbling. However, I don't think you did that at all. If you aren't aware by now, your dad has definitely associated the Ehmke name with lots of notoriety. I hope you can continue to be honest and fair in your reporting.
I can't comment too much on this blog post, because I wasn't able to attend the Tribune Research field day. I am a part of the advisory board for that research station, and I can guarantee you that nobody at that research station feels that no-till is now a failing technology. I understand that a few no-tillers will probably add some tillage into their rotation, but the majority of the farmers committed to no-till will find ways to deal with kocia. Most no-tillers feel it is worth a little more effort and money to control kocia chemically and through better crop rotations. I don't get the feeling that anybody is giving up on chemical control of kocia in my area.
I realize this is a blog post, and you can be as opinionated as you want, but it would have been nice if you would have presented some of the promising research the Western Kansas research stations have been doing on kocia control (Spartan, Balance Flexx, etc.). Your blog post sort of feels like you are short changing the scientists at these stations by saying that they have given up and are resorting to tillage to control kocia. That just isn't true.
Nathan Pearce |
|
|
|
| Posted by Tanner Ehmke on August 31 at 1:11 PM |
|
|
| Anonymous: As previously stated below, the issue at hand is the loss of a technology we all once benefited from. But due to cutting rates and improper timing of application, we all suffer regardless of whether you are no-till, reduced till or both. Personal attacks reveal how deep this issue goes. It’s gone beyond science and practical application of tools to improve farming as a business and way of life. Is questioning our alternatives in the midst of change dishonest? Is looking toward the future and asking if our current practices are sustainable an indictment of agriculture? Or, is it a dialog necessary for the discovery of new information and ideas where all farmers benefit? It’s terrible that the abuse of a useful technology by the few should leave it relegated to the past and thus rendered useless for the majority who were responsible and worked to keep it around for future generations. I have been open and honest on my position, and forcing public discussion of sensitive issues is the opposite of talking behind other’s backs, as you claim my family is guilty of. I should remind you that intimidation is a weak defense against the facts, which I encourage you to bring forth in the discussion. As a side note, if you have personal criticism of my character, I prefer you put your name on your comment rather than hiding behind anonymity. Tanner Ehmke |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 31 at 12::44 PM |
|
|
| I don't see why both sides (no-till vs. tillage) have to be so defensive about their chosen farming practices. I have a feeling there is a lot of recent finger pointing for various reasons due to the terrible drought in Western Kansas. No-tillers feel tillage is causing blowing and lower yields for crop insurance figures. Tillage guys feel no-tillers are being too aggressive with their crop rotations and hurting crop insurance guarantees. The real story here is why Tanner and his dad, Vance, seem to be on a rampage against no-till. I know Vance has had several public outbursts because he thinks no-tillers are committing fraud by cropping too intensely. If the Ehmke's feel threatened by no-tillers for any number of reasons, they should take their fight directly to their neighbors, or they should talk to their crop insurance agent about the proper procedure for complaining. When they spread the dis-honest "journalism" that they've become known for, it hurts ALL farmers in Western Kansas. People already think we're a bunch of inbred hicks. We don't need them thinking we complain behind each other's backs all the time. I don't even farm near the Ehmke's, but the stories of how they talk behind neighbor's backs while pretending to be friends to their face are spread far and wide. From the various ag conferences I go to, it is apparent that nobody in the industry takes the Ehmke's seriously. My advice to Tanner would be to take the high road and report things a little more honestly. Vance has already lost all credibility. Tanner, you still have a chance. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 31 at 12::25 PM |
|
|
| I don't see why both sides (no-till vs. tillage) have to be so defensive about their chosen farming practices. I have a feeling there is a lot of recent finger pointing for various reasons due to the terrible drought in Western Kansas. No-tillers feel tillage is causing blowing and lower yields for crop insurance figures. Tillage guys feel no-tillers are being too aggressive with their crop rotations and hurting crop insurance guarantees. The real story here is why Tanner and his dad, Vance, seem to be on a rampage against no-till. I know Vance has had several public outbursts because he thinks no-tillers are committing fraud by cropping too intensely. If the Ehmke's feel threatened by no-tillers for any number of reasons, they should take their fight directly to their neighbors, or they should talk to their crop insurance agent about the proper procedure for complaining. When they spread the dis-honest "journalism" that they've become known for, it hurts ALL farmers in Western Kansas. People already think we're a bunch of inbred hicks. We don't need them thinking we complain behind each other's backs all the time. I don't even farm near the Ehmke's, but the stories of how they talk behind neighbor's backs while pretending to be friends to their face are spread far and wide. From the various ag conferences I go to, it is apparent that nobody in the industry takes the Ehmke's seriously. My advice to Tanner would be to take the high road and report things a little more honestly. Vance has already lost all credibility. Tanner, you still have a chance. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Tanner Ehmke on August 31 at 9:46 AM |
|
|
| In regards to my comment on Kansas being "Ground Zero" for weed resistance, Kansas and Arkansas now both lead the nation in chemical weed resistance, based on the number of species that have become resistant. Here is an interactive map where you can see the number of glyphosate-resistant species within each state: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/03/business/weeds-graphic.html?ref=energy-environment. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 31 at 7:32 AM |
|
|
| Regarding the comment about cover crops mimicking what Mother Nature does, all the cover crops in this area look like summerfallow which got away from the farmer. Without rain, these farmers have a zero chance of getting wheat up this fall since the cover crop used up all of the moisture as well as nutrients there. Maybe cover crops work in wet years? In dry years like this, it looks to me like a brick coming through the windshield at 100 mph. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 31 at 12::00 AM |
|
|
| If a guy wants to engage in continuous cropping in semi arid western Kansas, that's fine with me. But as I see it, the problem as well as the incentive for accelerated rotations deals with crop insurance. Since it's possible to insure crops grown in these rotations for unrealistically high yields, some farmers see that as a signal to do the wrong thing.
And ironically, the higher the risk of failure, the greater the attraction to these rotations. Again, that would be fine with me. But my insurance rates go up to cover these losses. In other words, someone else is eating off my plate and I am very tired of it. Federally-subsidized crop insurance is a very valuable program, but with rapidly inflating premiums, the value of this institution to rank and file farmers is clearly threatened.
How much higher are these risks? Just look at Kansas State University data. Or better yet, look at the loss rates from USDA's Risk Management Agency. For instance, continuous cropping in northwest Kansas has 3 to 4 times the loss rates as more conventional rotations. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 30 at 10:35 PM |
|
|
| Thanks Tanner for your re-stating the technology issue.
When technology fails it is time as always to "Adapt or die" as Earl Butz proclaimed. It appears that the comments by some are clear they will only follow one path. On my farm it is reduced till and no till which uses the best of both worlds. Too bad the-only-no-till or-die farmers are so ....nasty to the regular adapt or die guys. No-tillers are sounding kind of like a cult.Too bad as it does a disservice to ag community in general. I vote to get rid of the no-till bulliers. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 30 at 10:19 PM |
|
|
| Regarding the comment about cover crops mimicking what Mother Nature does, all the cover crops in this area look like summerfallow which got away from the farmer. Without rain, these farmers have a zero chance of getting wheat up this fall since the cover crop used up all of the moisture as well as nutrients there. Maybe cover crops work in wet years? In dry years like this, it looks to me like a brick coming through the windshield at 100 mph. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 30 at 10:08 PM |
|
|
| Good job, Tanner, in having the nerve to tackle a sensitive subject which clearly merits further discussion. And, by the way, this is good journalism. We need people who are willing to kick skunks. Without people who are willing to run the risk of asking questions or to present alternatives, we are doomed to ruled by vocal minorities who are paying attention to their own vested interests. Go get 'em tiger!
|
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 30 at 6:42 PM |
|
|
| Since when is K-state on the leading edge of research? Most of K-states research is 5 years behind of innovative no-tillers that are incorporating cover crops into their system to mimic what mother nature does. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Tanner Ehmke on August 30 at 4:32 PM |
|
|
| Gentlemen: Thank you for your comments. No-till is a practice we all depend on, whether you are continuous or not. The issue is not whether no-till is beneficial, which is proven, but that the technology it depends on is failing. The options we all are left with are infinitely more complicated and expensive. No matter your level of management, this is going to complicate every operation on your farm. The agronomists at Tribune nodded in agreement when one presenter said that due to glyphosate-resistant kochia, at least one tillage operation in the spring would be needed for control. It is still possible to control kochia chemically, but that option has become increasingly complicated and expensive for anyone who seeks to reduce or eliminate their amount of tillage. Those who went off label over the years and violated EPA regulations and thus federal law in the process so they could save on their chemical bill are to thank for the position we all now share. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 30 at 2:43 PM |
|
|
| People mock what they don't have the ability to comprehend. It takes a higher level of management to do sustainable no-till. I am not talking about skip a till, or chemical fallowing. Those are not sustainable in the long run. Does anyone think tillage is a sustainable? Anyone can set in a tractor and till. But it takes a system approach to make no-till work. Some just don't have the management skill set to do no-till correctly. That's why they still make disks and undercutters, for the simple folk that don't know any better. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 30 at 12::09 PM |
|
|
| www.5minutefallow.com |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 30 at 9:42 AM |
|
|
| I wasn't at the meeting, but A. Hineman and Dietrich Kastens are accurate in their comments -- I work with some clients in western Kansas, and know a great many others who are continually improving on their successes in continuous (permanent) no-till cropping systems. Glyphosate-resistant kochia has been but a minor bump in the road for the good managers.
To say that the end of no-till is at hand is an absurdity, and reckless journalism at its worst.
Matt Hagny, consulting agronomist since '94. |
|
|
|
| Posted by A. Hineman on August 30 at 9:12 AM |
|
|
| Dietrich is right on. I was at the meeting as well and there was only one mention of tillage when they said 'We are considering some type of tillage in our research as a way of controlling kochia.' The key words being 'considering' and 'research.' By no way was it meant to be a recommendation for farmers. Furthermore, the overall day's message was that no-till has worked long term in Tribune, but we now have new challenges to overcome (i.e. gly resistance)
I guess if some Ws KS farmers want to revert back to W-F rotations and full tillage, that is their choice. But please do not paint all of us Ws KS farmers as throwing out hands up in defeat because we can't progressively adapt and learn new options for crop rotations, cover crops, and herbicide useage/selection. I believe those of us that continue to progressively find solutions will be the ones that are around in 20 years. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 30 at 8:24 AM |
|
|
| Tanner, this article borders on putting out mis-information. I was at the same meeting you were and at no point was there even a hint that the "end of continous notill is near". In fact, quite the opposite is true. The only talk that even hinted at tillage being an option was the one by Thompson; and that was only as a last resort option to deal with Kochia. The rest of the day we saw talk after talk focused on managing crops in notill systems. Tribune's data(20 years now) clearly show the economic and agronomic advantages to notill and they are SIGNIFICANT, with yield increases across the table for all crops grown. To my knowledge KSU-Tribune doesn't have even one set plots focused on using tillage as a viable solution for cropping in Western Kansas.
Kochia is a problem for many (although Kansas is definitely not ground zero for gly-resistant weeds). Gly resistance in weeds has more to do with the systems that we use. Long summer fallow is a big weak component and the overuse of glyphosate is the other (Kansas is not unique in overusing gly). Folks employing systems based approaches aren't having any trouble managing gly-resistant kochia or any other weed species in notill. Using different chemicals, with different modes of control at different times along with continuous cropping (which doesn't allow opportunities for weeds to come in) is the solution many farmers are opting for out here and pretty much all the way to the front range.
With all that said, I will agree with you that folks that desire to farm the old environmentally destructive way (which has been proven for over 20 years now to be inferior both agronomicaly and economically)will most likely be using tillage. Then again, we still had farmers extolling the virtues of farming with horses in the late 1940's; and we know how that turned out for those folks.
Adios,
Dietrich Kastens |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 29 at 9:44 PM |
|
|
| I agree with Tanner. Out here in western Kansas, the most severe wind erosion of the past 3-5 years has ironically been on no-till land where farmers could not get wheat to come up because the soils got so hard and dry. This is just one more reason, in addition to the herbicide resistance issue, why we need to be doing at least a little bit of tillage. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 29 at 9:06 PM |
|
|
| tanner i believe that if we would have had the high winds of the 1930 or the 1950 era in western kansas this spring you and your family would have had some diferent thoughts about no till with a group of weeds |
|
|
|
| Posted by Tanner Ehmke on August 27 at 10:58 AM |
|
|
| Tedd: I hear you on that one. No sense in paying for something you’re not using or isn’t providing you any value. For our seed business specifically, we’re in the small grains seed business where that’s not a huge deal. Royalties on wheat that go to either the seed company or university that created the variety normally only run about $.50/bushel. (That may all change as Monsanto, Syngenta and other companies come out with GMO wheat varieties in the next decade.) But as farmers, we are watching a useful technology go to waste because lots of farmers in our area cut back on their chemical rates to save money or waited too late to spray, which is a cost that gets passed on to all farmers. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 27 at 10:30 AM |
|
|
| Anonymous: I didn’t mean to single out no-till, which has obvious advantages with building organic matter and shading the soil with residue. No-till is just going to get tougher for those farming in areas where chemical resistance is a problem. You make a good point that resistance is a bad problem everywhere, not just Kansas. In terms of the sheer number of weed species that have become resistant, from what seed companies say, Kansas has been the leader. That may be different from where you farm in south-central Kansas. Out here in western Kansas, weed control has become very problematic where kochia has become virtually bullet proof. Lots of our friends in the area have gone back to tilling at least once in the spring just to kill kochia, and then go back to spraying for the rest of the summer. |
|
|
|
| Posted by tedd on August 26 at 9:59 PM |
|
|
| Ditto, or I agree with the previous reply. I have of course seen some abuse of the R.U. technology in Indiana but overall could you not expect any poor practices. We have seen eventual resistance to all of our chemistries over the years and glyfosphate is no different. Regardless of what Monsanto sold us years ago with their claim of not ever seeing resistance.
I can accept that another chemistry is showing strong resistance. The pill for me that is hard to swallow is we are still being charged for this technology in our seed. The seed industry tries it's best to not show the amount tacked on but it's not to hard to figure out with the cost of seed beans. Twenty some bucks per acre is my guess and I would rather keep my twenty in seed cost and spend it on other herbicide technologies. If we are charged for the R.U. gene it is pretty hard not to still use the chemical and in effect accelerate the problem. I see where the writer is in the seed business. May I suggest instead of blaming some farmers for the problem you look in the mirror first. I'm sure you are either still paying Monsanto their royalty or owned by them one or the other. Your the first line of defense. Tell them enough is enough. They have made enough off of their out of date R.U. gene. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Anonymous on August 26 at 11:59 AM |
|
|
| Kansas is not ground zero for glyphosate resistance. I've seen pictures from all over the southern states of resistance issues. Second, its not lazy farming! Its farmers doing what they decided was best. Lastly, I see many acres of notill production in kansas that will be very profitable. We've only had around 8 inches of rain this year. On our farm in central kansas (Hutchinson area) we notill, our fields are clean, our notill has handled the intense summer heat amazingly well, 100bu/ac+ irrigated wheat, 200bu/ac+ irrigated corn, excellent irrigated soybeans, and our notill dryland soybeans and milo still are hanging on. In my opinion we would have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by resorting to tillage. Lack of residue on the soil surface and poor soil structure hurt crops badly.
In my opinion going away from notill is not good business. Weed control is more difficult but when managed correctly it is successful.
In closing, I completely disagree with your stance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tillage Back In Style |
|---|
| Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:51 AM |
| In Kansas, tillage equipment sells out as no-tillers go back to tillage. |
| Category: Machinery |
|
|
| Tillage Back In Style |
|---|
| Posted on July 29, 2011 at 10:51 AM |
| In Kansas, tillage equipment sells out as no-tillers go back to tillage. |
| Category: Machinery |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Glossing Over '9 Billion' |
|---|
| Posted on March 30, 2011 at 1:44 PM |
| Journalist says farmers don't need to grow more to feed ever-growing population. |
| Category: Issues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wheat's Big Problems |
|---|
| Posted on November 30, 2010 at 12:00 PM |
| The Poor Start to this year's wheat crop spells bigger problems this winter. |
| Category: Wheat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| No-Till Wheat a Risky Bet |
|---|
| Posted on October 29, 2010 at 12:31 PM |
| Minimum tillage works best for wheat in extreme drought conditions on Plains. |
| Category: Wheat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| What is Local Food? |
|---|
| Posted on July 19, 2010 at 1:04 PM |
| New-age consumers love the idea of local food but don't seem to grasp how to define it. |
| Category: Issues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Here Come the Woofers! |
|---|
| Posted on May 05, 2010 at 10:01 AM |
| Organic farmers gain cheap farm labor and reconnect with urban America. |
| Category: Issues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cheaper Crop Insurance! |
|---|
| Posted on October 05, 2009 at 12:37 PM |
| Cost of production still keeps us on our toes, but cheaper insurance will give our bottom line some relief. |
| Category: Risk Management |
|
|
|
|
|
| Blog |
|---|
|
|
|
|
| Category |
|---|
|
|
|
|
| Archives |
|---|
|
|
|
|
| About The Writer |
|---|
| Tanner Ehmke is a writer and agricultural producer in Lane County, Kansas, where his family has farmed since 1886. Located in the semi-arid High Plains of western Kansas, he grows dryland wheat, rye, triticale and grain sorghum in reduced-till and no-till systems. Tanner graduated from Kansas State University’s Master of Agribusiness program in 2011 after completing his thesis on seed wheat prices, and is currently in the Kansas Agriculture and Rural Leadership program’s Class XI. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|