018: Hybrid and Variety Selection Using Data

planting

Today we are talking with Dan, Renee, and Tony about hybrid and variety selection using growers field data.

DAN FRIEBERG: I always think, from a grower’s perspective, that the first analysis that you do is your own. It’s what your own results were from that crop year. What worked and what didn’t? It’s understanding analytics by hybrid or variety across their operation. The reason that it’s really great at a grower level is that, sometimes, a hybrid or variety in data shows up having done really poorly at a grower level, but the grower knows where it was planted. They have the benefit of knowing that the reason that number did badly, or looks bad, was because I planted it on my three worst fields. It may have been that they picked the number intentionally that had more defensive characteristics because those are really difficult fields. So, I think just looking at how your numbers did on your own operation is maybe a starting place.

TONY LICHT: Maybe to build off of that, Dan, from there, once I do the analysis on my own operation, then I want to think about: “How did it do for others around me in a like environment, somewhere pretty close to me?” Because if it happened to do poorly for me, but I find out it did well for others, where did it do well for others? How can I correct that?

use data to select seed hybrid

DAN FRIEBERG: Amen. Every grower in the system has the option of whether they want to be part of seeing anonymously beyond their own operation. Today, they all want that. Part of the value of what they get in the program is being able to see beyond their own operations. A lot of times, hybrid and variety is the very first thing they look for. They want to see beyond what their own experience was.

TONY LICHT: And depending on the number of hybrids or varieties they’re planting, sometimes if it’s planted on a small amount of acres, they completely forget about it. I mean, you think about the larger-acre hybrids, and it’s like: “Oh, I forgot about those new ones I planted. How did they shake up against the rest of my line?”

RENEE HANSEN: I mean, you’re talking about expanding beyond the operation, in a sense benchmarking against other areas or like areas. Can you explain or elaborate a little bit more about how Premier Crop utilizes the hybrid and variety selection with data? What does that potentially look like? Or what is the conversation with the grower?

DAN FRIEBERG: Renee, it’s kind of unlimited sorts. Initially, a lot of people might focus on soil types. If they have dominant soil types, it might be just hybrid and variety performance on different soil types. In some markets, for example, pH can be a huge driver on soybeans. High-pH areas or low-pH areas can have a huge swing, and varieties respond differently in those environments. Those are two examples of how people get started, but they probably don’t stop there.

They look at things like planting date or harvest date. So, if you’re a large operation, what inevitably happens is you end up with some fields that you know are going to be harvested last. They might drill down on late-harvest data. They’re trying to pick numbers that they know will stand and hold the ear late into harvest because some field has got to be harvested last, and a lot of growers literally plan.

They plan their harvest by the way they plan they’re planting. There are certain fields that are always going to get planted first. In the case of harvest, there are certain fields that are going to be taken out first. It might be the ones that are closest to the bin site. They want to get the bins. They want to get the dryer going, and so there are certain fields that will come out early. A lot of times, those fields that come out early will probably get more of a racehorse number that doesn’t have to stand. It’s the highest yield potential because they know they’re going to get it before they get very far into harvest.

profitability by hybrid or variety

TONY LICHT: As-applied fertility can also be another environment they may want to look at, as well. How did I treat this group of corn hybrids differently on as-applied nitrogen, maybe split treatment or in-season treatment, versus just “all in the fall” kind of a concept? Are there differences amongst the hybrids and varieties now? How did they react to the environment they were in, whether it be as-applied fertility or soil test fertility?

DAN FRIEBERG: What we do is just adding another source of analysis to what a grower considers. Their decision is if something did exceptional for them, they’re probably going to plant it again. They’ll look beyond their own operation to see and make sure it wasn’t a fluke, or see how it held up in other environments. One of the advantages we have is that we can tend to see the hybrid and variety performance in different growing environments in the same year. This means that you might’ve been in a really dry area, but you can go look and see how it did in a normal area.

Or, you happen to be unfortunate and you got hit by the wind. Sometimes, you want to jump out of your area because your own data isn’t as meaningful. Something might have happened that made your data not quite as useful.

TONY LICHT: I was just going to say that’s a great point. Case in point: the wide area this year that got hit by the derecho. Those folks don’t lose data for a year. They still have the ability to build on data, albeit from a little bit further than their real local geography. It might be from 20 miles away in an area that was not hit. It could still be considered a like-agronomic environment.

DAN FRIEBERG: There are really big dollar swings because we’re measuring the economics and the agronomics. The reason people focus on it a lot is, at the end of the year, there are just really big dollar swings on a per-acre basis. It could easily be a 100 dollar-per-acre swing in return to land and management or what we call yield efficiency. You can just see really large swings. When you start analyzing that way, from my perspective, it probably leads to having a strategy where you call more aggressively.

I grew up on a livestock farm and the term “cull,” “culling the herd.” In the livestock industry, you’re just constantly eliminating the low producers. When you’re making genetic selection, you’re eliminating the bottom 20 percent or whatever. In the case of hybrid and variety selection, I think, sometimes, we need to be more aggressive about calling some of the poor performers out if we’re really focused on trying to drive the highest returns.

Yield Efficiency Score

RENEE HANSEN: You both were talking about data. Can you elaborate a little bit more on the data features that Premier Crop measures hybrid variety with?

TONY LICHT: Everybody always thinks of just yield by hybrid and variety. But, there are a lot of other attributes that come along with that hybrid. Some examples are: relative maturity on the chemical resistance or the seed disease resistance, as far as rootworm traits, non-rootworm traits. All those things come along with it. So, the conversation goes beyond not just a yield by hybrid. Maybe there was a specific trait that really helped drive yield, or a certain plant date helped drive yield. What are the trends I can see across my farm from a given year? Then also across a series of years, as well?

DAN FRIEBERG: Over the years, you’ve lived through some of the trait issues, just where we had areas where the rootworm trait wasn’t holding up. We ended up going through several years where needing a rootworm insecticide was a big part of the strategy and a big return for growers.

TONY LICHT: Absolutely. As a grower, do I need to do a double approach here? Not just the trait, but seed-applied insecticide, and where? And what can I expect from those people that have been utilizing that? What has the success rate been for them, to determine immediately, like: “Okay, well, here’s kind of a return on investment I can expect to get back out of this.”

DAN FRIEBERG: The trait thing probably also comes up as people shift in herbicide strategies. Renee, people would use the data to try to quantify differences in herbicide if they’re considering Liberty or if they’re needing to rotate strategies from any kind of a pest management or weed management strategy. That’s another piece where they drill down in data a lot. They try to find the best performing genetics, as they’re switching strategies.

RENEE HANSEN: So, what would you say is the benefit to having all of this data to a grower who is utilizing Premier Crop Systems versus somebody who isn’t?

DAN FRIEBERG: It’s even the growers we work with, Renee. We are one part of how they make decisions in the seed world. A lot of times, they have seed sellers who they really trust. They have long-time relationships in local communities with seed advisors. So, a lot of times, the seed advisor is there, too. Most growers will want to plant 20 percent of their acreage to something that’s new. Every year there are new genetics coming out. Unless it’s been planted commercially, we don’t have any data on the new numbers. A lot of times, that’s what happens. Their local seed advisor or seed seller is positioning what they know about the new genetics from plots and what they’ve seen in small quantities as it got planted in the pre-commercial years.

TONY LICHT: A team can definitely help that grower out. We’ve always say that agronomy is local. So, that local knowledge with that seed advisor, combined with a lot of data points from a given area, can just help amplify the value proposition for the grower in getting the right seed on the right acres.

RENEE HANSEN: Yeah, and since we have a lot of data in our system, we clearly have seen. Over the years, with all of the data in our system, have you seen trends? And what are they?

TONY LICHT: There have definitely been trends in certain geographies of a stronger yield correlation by later maturing hybrid. But within that, there are all these “gotchas,” where there are a few early-season hybrids that perform within those environments very, very well — whether it be later maturing hybrids going further north or earlier maturing hybrids going south. So, definitely looking at not just a multi-year, but looking within and across those different years individually, trying to pull out those trends of what hybrids can be moved around either north to south to accommodate diversifying a grower’s portfolio.

DAN FRIEBERG: In the early years, you could literally see in the data. Sometimes, when companies had trouble with trait insertion, the non-traited versus the traited, you could actually see a yield decrease. I mean, companies are getting way better at that. I don’t think it’s as big an issue as it might’ve been in the early years.

TONY LICHT: When new traits come to the market, growers will definitely want to ask the question: “How do the new traits compare to my existing operation? Or how much more do they bring to the table for me?”

DAN FRIEBERG: Growers drill down on that really quick because what tends to happen is new traits come at a price. Usually, the company is wanting a premium for them. They’re trying to weigh that. Is that extra seed investment worth it? Am I actually getting a higher return?

RENEE HANSEN: Can you talk a little bit about yield efficiency — and Dan, you did elaborate on it a little bit — and how developing and making a selection for your hybrid or variety, how that can attribute to your yield efficiency score?

DAN FRIEBERG: Yield efficiency is just the dollar-per-acre return to land and management, meaning, after you’ve paid for the seed and nutrients and crop protection and field operations, what’s left. From a seed perspective, Renee, it comes down to: “What was the price point? How much did I have to pay for the seed?” And then, probably, the next piece is: “How could I manage the seed?” There are some numbers that just have a lot of flex, meaning they’ll flex ear size as based on population.

So, in a highly variable field, that might be a great strategy, just something that will really change. In other words, you can plant at a lower population, and if it’s a good year, you won’t take a yield hit. Versus a fixed-ear number, they’re really responsive to populations. It’s just even a bigger factor. Some numbers just require more. In order to produce at the top end, in general, you need more. You need more plants, but some numbers seem to be able to flex more than others. So, that goes into yield efficiency because if you can plant a number at a lower rate and still achieve the same yield, you could potentially add 10 or 15 dollars an acre in return.

TONY LICHT: To build off of just reallocating your rate around the field, as planters become more sophisticated, we can reallocate which hybrids go on which part of the field, assigning hybrids to zones or soil types and at different rates, as well. We’ve got a different cost point of the hybrid and a different rate to maximize the ROI.

DAN FRIEBERG: We have a lot of growers in the system that are doing multi-hybrid or multi-variety planting. Do you think that’ll continue to grow? Where do you see the trend on it?

TONY LICHT: We continue to be in a discovery phase with that. We try to figure out the best placement of hybrids, the different rates of hybrids. ELBs accelerating the learning of rate and also placement of hybrids helps us versus single-rate testing year over year. We definitely continue to try and find the bottom of the soybean population. The issue with that is, it becomes an unemotional decision. That’s at times looking at data points in January, February, March. All of a sudden, it becomes a little bit of an emotional decision in season.

If I feel confident in the data in January that I can drill down a seeding-rate population to 120 or 110 or 100 thousand, and, all of a sudden, I might get cold feet in April. If it happens to be a really great spring, and we can get out and plant early and do everything we want to do early, all of a sudden, it may be an uncomfortable situation of: “Boy, I don’t know if I have enough. I don’t know if I have enough information on planting this lower rate this early. Maybe for safekeeping, I should just turn the population back up just a little bit.”

So, it’s trying to balance the emotional decision versus the data decision back in the couple previous months to really drive and find the bottom of where we can go on populations. It’s just the same way in corn, in soybeans and corn. As far as wheat, how much we want to sow. I think everybody kind of knows where the optimal rates are, but where are the extreme rates, the highs and the lows that really maximize that yield efficiency?

seed yield efficiency

DAN FRIEBERG: I get copied in on a lot of the trial results. I see some 80,000 seed drops on soybeans that do exceptional, and they are learning blocks or replicated trials. It really gets your attention because if you start trimming 50,000 seeds, get a higher yield. It really drives the dollars really fast.

TONY LICHT: Seed treatments and soybeans have really, really helped us drill down, I think, our populations, as well. We’re better protecting that seed to ensure that every one of them matters more to get up and out of the ground in a timely fashion.

RENEE HANSEN: Yeah, ultimately, driving up that yield efficiency score, helping growers profit more. Thank you guys for joining us today. So great to see you, so great to have you, and we’ll be back again. Thanks for listening to the Premier Podcast, where everything agronomic is economic.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Free Resources:

017: The State of Ag and Business

damian mason speaking

Today we will be discussing the ag industry with ag author, speaker, comedian, and personality – Damian Mason. Damian speaks on topics surrounding ag and business to keep audiences up to date with a touch of humor.

RENEE HANSEN: Damian, welcome to the Premier Podcast. So glad to have you here. You have a wonderful background as a businessman, an agriculturist, a speaker, a podcaster, an author and a consultant, but also, I think, importantly for our listeners is that you’re also a farmer. So, can you just tell our listeners a little bit about your farm?

DAMIAN MASON: Yeah, so I was raised on your basic Midwestern dairy farm. We milked about 60 cows and farmed 500 acres, most of it rented. My grandfather came to this country as a herdsman, and my father was raised milking cows for other people on their farms. My father lost his arm as a little boy and got an insurance settlement. And when he was 21 years old, he put that down on a chunk of ground — not a very good piece of farm ground, the kind that nobody else wanted, which is why the Masons ended up with it. So, that’s a neat story.

I live a couple miles north of the home place, where I was raised. It is a 200-acre chunk of ground that my wife and I bought in 2006 and renovated. My ground is rented out to a large-scale dairy operator now. I travel around the country working with corporations and associations. I have a degree in agricultural economics from Purdue and I went into corporate sales in 1994. That all changed. I quit my corporate job to pursue a career in political comedy. I turned that into a business and then built on that and sort of created the next thing and the next thing. And here we are now. It’s been 26 years, almost 27 now, that I haven’t had a real job. I tend to still carve out a niche in the business of agriculture.

RENEE HANSEN: Pretty well rounded.

DAMIAN MASON: Yeah, and as you said, I spent six months taking improvisational acting and scene-writing classes at Second City Chicago. There was a time when I thought I might end up on Saturday Night Live, but maybe I’m too conservative. But it didn’t happen, and that’s the way this thing goes. But it’s been an interesting ride. As a comedian with an ag background, I tell my ag people I work with now the benefit is comedy teaches you to be an observer. Because comedy’s very first thing is observation. You begin with observing, and then you put your point of view and perspective on that observation, and you deliver it with a punchline. Easy to explain, hard to actually execute, and certainly even harder to turn into a business.

Comedy is just observation, point of view and perspective to deliver the punchline. Now, I do that about the business of agriculture as an ag commentator. I say, here’s the observation: “Oh yeah, I guess I heard something about that.” Now, here’s a perspective you haven’t considered. Here’s a juxtaposition: “Oh.” And then instead of a punchline, here’s the results. So, that’s kind of what we do now. That’s a big part of what I do. It’s sort of bringing the ag thing back to you with a different perspective.

RENEE HANSEN: Yeah, and that’s really why we wanted to have you on the podcast today. I think you offer a different perspective, and you also talked about execution. And I think that’s partially where Premier Crop is. We’re really trying to help growers with how they execute the way they do their business. And we’re trying to change the narrative a little bit of how they can be more efficient in farming. And I think you’ve got a really great perspective of being in the business of agriculture, talking about agriculture, farming. Can you tell and share with our listeners some of the trends that you’ve seen over the years?

DAMIAN MASON: Trends that I see: obviously, the trend to consolidation. That’s been going on forever and ever. 200 years ago, somebody sold their 10 acres and went and got a job at the textile mill along the river and handed their hoe to the neighbor and said: “Here. You go out there and hoe those plants.” So, that’s been happening forever. What I see as a trend that a lot of our ag people are kind of seeing but not fully embracing or accepting it as a reality or, worse yet, understanding what it means to them is a consumer-driven marketplace. All businesses are consumer driven. This idea of: “Oh, you work for yourself. You’re a farmer.” Well, that’s complete nonsense. If you work for yourself, you run out of your own money. You work for consumers. We all do. Premier Crop Systems works for its customers.

You, Renee, do not work for Dan. You work for those customers that pay for your product. We all work for customers. Ag works for consumers. 100 years ago, we did not have surpluses. That’s when we started having surpluses. For 9,900 years of agricultural evolution, we had food, but we still didn’t have very good food or very much food. Now, we have surplus food, and we have Whole Foods. We have Amazon and Uber Eats. We have good food in copious quantities.

In agriculture, we still think it’s 1900. We say: “We went out there and produced a whole bunch of corn. What the hell more do you want? Now, eat it.” And the consumer’s saying: “I can make a lot of different selections here. I can just get on my app and order up anything.” So, we probably need to catch up with them because forever we thought: “Hey, we produced this amazing amount of product. Now, just be happy.” Well, they’re not unhappy. They’re just more selective. Because if you give a child that’s never had a toy a block of wood, he’s got a toy. Now, if you give a child in America a block of wood who has every toy conceivable, they’re going to say: “What am I supposed to do with this?” That’s our consumer when it comes to food.

DAN FRIEBERG: Hey, Damian, I know this may be too raw to talk about right now, but what are we going to change? What’s going to change because of COVID in food and ag? And maybe we’re too much in the throws, and it’s too early or whatever. It seems like that’s one where there are probably insights that you might have that others haven’t even thought about.

DAMIAN MASON: COVID did a few things for every consumer in America, and I’m talking about North America. I’m not a consumer in Australia, although a lot of the exact trends extrapolate. First off, the American consumer has not ever — at least the ones that we’re talking about that are 50, 60, 70, 80 years old — has never gone to the store and seen barren shelves. That put the fear of God into people. So, that made there be a certain appreciation for food supply, but it also illustrated the food ignorance.

Then, you had people taking to social media, saying: “Those farmers in Wisconsin who are dumping milk should be criminally prosecuted because there are people who can’t get milk.” And, of course, I go on social media and say: “Because you can’t take 8,500-gallon tanker trucks of raw milk to a food bank.”

They don’t understand the supply chain, which brings us, then, to what else it revealed. It revealed to us that our supply chain was amazing, it was tight and efficient. But just-in-time manufacturing, the Japanese concept that created their efficiency — if you look up “just-in-time” and do the research, and I took some economics classes and loved to study it — it really came to the United States in the 1990s. It’s like, why did Japan kick our butt on auto manufacturing? Because they had so little supply and so depleted capital after World War II that the Japanese country said: “For us to get our economy going again, we’re going to have to be very lean, very efficient and maximize what we have.”

They invented this concept of just-in-time manufacturing: getting a fender for a car one-and-a-half hours to the factory before it gets put on the car, meaning we didn’t have a warehouse sitting over here with fenders in it for 90 days, holding up our capital. We extrapolated those concepts to our food supply and said: “Let’s get those hogs to this facility, and they’re going to walk off that trailer. And within an hour that they walk off that trailer, they’re going to come out as pork chops down at the end of this plant.”

I might be off by a couple of hours, but the point is we got real, real lean. Well, that’s good and efficient for meat processors. But also, then, when we started having meat plant closures because the workers were infected with coronavirus — that plant got shut down in Sioux Falls that is five percent of our nation’s pork processing quantity — then, all of a sudden, there are people that are saying: “I’ve got to run and grab pork.” And then, we said: “Man, we’ve got some meat shortages.” And then Costco puts out signs that say: “No more than two packages of meat.” And everybody says: “What the heck is going on?”

We’ve got about 14 days of cold storage in the United States of America per my research. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago that said, right now, cold storage is a hot investment. Companies are going to buy and build more cold storage. And you say: “Well, that hurts efficiency. It’s going to drive up prices.” I think what we learned was food is so cheap in the U.S., with only 6.4 percent of our income being spent on food. We can probably throw a few more nickels per pound at pork chops to make sure we have them.

I believe that we’ll probably build up a bigger supply, and we’ll put a little more slack in the system — a little less J.I.T. and a little bit more slack. That’s my observation. However, we always, then, in food production, get back to: “How cheap can we make it?” And I think we should probably get more of: “How much can we build some slack in the system or put more supply in there, should we have more of these disruptions?”

DAN FRIEBERG: And to your point, Damian, there’s a lot of the commodity grains that have been what the U.S. has exported around the world. It seems like world trade is going to be redone, and I don’t know what we become. There’s a lot of talk about manufacturing being brought back to the country and that, post-COVID, every country might become less dependent on other countries.

DAMIAN MASON: Yeah, well, what happens? You go through a big scare, and then you say: “What did we learn there?” It’s a little bit like: “huff and puff and blow your house down.” I’m never going to be dependent on somebody else. I’m going to be more prepared. It takes a big scare to, then, say: “What are we? The three little pigs?” Remember, everything in life goes back to the three little pigs: the straw house, the twig house, the brick house.

The better you can build your brick house, the more you can, then, be insulated from foreign shocks, from derechos, from trade wars, from threats of war, whatever that should be. The thing is, over time, you tend to let your guard down. We probably, as the United States of America — this is one thing that I’ve been saying to my audiences for a long time — we are an export-driven ag because we’ve got 330 million people. There are 7.7 billion people on Earth. For years and years and years — centuries, in fact — we saw that we could make more food than we could ever use here, for the last several years anyway, and there are other countries that can’t.

Renee, Dan, let’s face it: Ukraine learned how to grow corn, and Brazil learned how to grow soybeans. So, the idea that we’re always just going to be able to put stuff on a barge and find somebody that’ll give us money for it is, frankly, a little short-sighted. And so, that’s where I say: “Let’s embrace the idea that our consumers will pay more and will want a more diverse product and possibly will, after things like this and threats of war and trade strife, buy an American product and pay more for it.” Now, will they pay more for an American soybean versus a Brazilian soybean? They don’t know the difference. So, it’s going to have to be the next thing beyond that, the value-added product that we can pitch and push and promote as an American value-add.

RENEE HANSEN: So, if there’s going to be so much surplus, farmers now are trying to be more efficient. They’re trying to grow more. They’re trying to get higher yields. What do you see happening? Do you think that farmers are going to start creating more diversity with the farms that they currently have? Because it’s hard to grow. And in this age right now, too, farmland is very expensive — unless you’re a large operation or you have the funds. You are able to purchase more land. What is your perspective on growing more with what you have or becoming more diversified?

DAMIAN MASON: The future is two things: it’s specialization — a niche product — or it’s a commodity, big-scale commodity. But to your point, using your product: precision agricultural data analysis. More output per acre through good data, right? That’s what your product is. That’s what your company does. It helps a farm operator get more out of the inputs, the nutrients and the dollars that they put into each acre. They get out of it. What is probably going to happen with an environment of environmentalism — and this is only going to steep up, and I’m not getting into political stuff, but I keep up — certain forces that are political want to be more involved in agriculture, more of a thumb on us to be what we’re allowed to eat.

Remember, there’s a certain young congresswoman from New York who preaches about cow farts and how there should be rations on how much burger we should be allowed to eat. So, if that’s the case, agriculture has a real opportunity. Your customers and your prospect of customers have a real opportunity here, Renee and Dan, to say: “Listen, here’s my environmental story. I took 10 percent of my most environmentally-sensitive acres out of production, and I enrolled them with the government conservation reserve program. And I could do that because my 90 percent more productive acres that are less environmentally sensitive are more maximized. In fact, I’m getting the exact same output off of all of my properties, all of my operation, as I did with 100 percent just with 90 percent because I am maximizing the output using better precision ag and data analysis and better practices.”

There will be less acres cultivated moving forward in the United States of America because of the environmental lobby, but also those lobbies, then, do tend to get government action. About two months ago, I got a solicitation from the government, NRCS, saying that if I had any land along a creek or river, I could put it in a 30-year conservation program. Now, up until now, Dan and Renee — you probably know this — it’s generally been a 10-year enrollment or maybe a 15-year enrollment. There is now a 30-year enrollment for certain environmentally-sensitive acres that also has rent escalators built in. Just like if I owned a shopping mall or a strip center, there would be rent bumps after a certain period of time. So, I think we’re going to see more of that.

DAN FRIEBERG: Damian, a part of your business is really focused on audiences and meetings. So, how do you adapt? How do you adapt, and how soon do you think you’ll be back on the road?

DAMIAN MASON: Yeah, it’s tough because one of my big things I was talking about is reinvention, and I know you’ve got to always do what you can to stay relevant to your customers. You’ve got to meet them where they are, not where you are. That’s one of my big points to agriculture. Again, they’re at Whole Foods. They’re at farmer’s markets. They’re at the Kroger still, but they’re not there just saying: “How cheap? How cheap?” American agriculture tends to think that because we’re cheap, we think our customers are cheap or whatever. They think we value production and quantity and how many bushels per acre we think they do. Well, they don’t care. They don’t know what a bushel even is. They don’t know that at least 56 pounds for No. 2 yellow corn and all those kinds of things.

I’ve got to meet my customers where they are. So, right now, my people still want me to deliver my commentary, my future, my outlook, my business ideas about the business of agriculture in a comedic fashion. I’m doing it sometimes on Zoom calls. I’m doing it virtually, and I’m doing less of it. We will get back to having live meetings because there is a human thing. An article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday talked about the “pandemic fatigue,” as much as the scared class wants everybody to stay home and stay scared. I’m sorry. Stay home and stay tuned. Oh, I’m sorry. Stay home and stay safe. See, that’s really what I think it is.

Their idea I hear is people saying: “We’re never going to have meetings again.” Well, the Marriott still thinks there’s going to be and the Hyatt and the Hilton and the Westin. The corporate audiences are still going to do that. That will come back. Will I do as many meetings, one year from now, as I used to do? Probably not, but we’re still going to do some online stuff, and I’ve got a few other ventures that I’m dabbling into because that’s the reality. You’ve got to move. You’ve got to change, and the more important thing is you’ve got to meet the customers where they are. I started by saying that with our recording, that we’re a consumer business. All businesses are.

I tell everybody the best thing to remember is every dollar you’re going to make the rest of your life is someone else’s dollar right now. And so, be adaptive. It is a challenge. It’s been a challenge for me because, also, the rug got pulled out in a very quick fashion. We woke up on March 13th, and my wife said: “Did you check your email?” I said: “No, I’m making you coffee.” I had just gotten home the evening before from South Dakota. And she says: “The next five events are all canceled.” And then the next five after that, and the next five after that.

So, the rug got pulled up pretty promptly, and that’s an extreme situation. My sister-in-law owns a gym with her husband, and their business got rocked. Imagine if you were in the movie theaters business. 7,800 movie theaters, according to an article I read — two-thirds of them might reopen. Think about that. One-third of movie theaters are never going to reopen, according to what the predictions are, maybe less.

We’re all in a predicament, in terms of that. Now, the good thing about agriculture? Acres still get planted. In places like where you are, in Iowa, and Indiana, where I am, we get adequate precipitation. We still are probably going to be okay. We still have a certain demand. Our challenges are usually more about managing low prices and overproduction. That’s not all bad. It beats the heck out of the alternative, as we saw. We’re all dealing with some of the adaptations. I used to make a living dressed up as Bill Clinton, going to corporate events and standing on stage, saying: “How y’all doing? How y’all doing? I feel your pain. Hey, darling, let me show you what I do like to feel.” Anyway, I’ve made changes before to my career.

DAN FRIEBERG: Well, I think there could be a boom in meetings. I mean, just a pent-up boom because you go a year-and-a-half — or whatever we’re going to, a year — without it. I think people are going to be anxious to get back.

DAMIAN MASON: Now, I wondered that also. I said 2021. There’s enough scare, and I’m not altogether convinced that it’s pure. I think that there’s a certain amount of posturing and power grab going on to keep the electorate scared. But, yeah, what you’re talking about is pent-up demand, and there’s one thing we know about humans. They’re saying: “Oh, there’s pandemic fatigue.” Or: “Oh, I want to go see grandma.” Well, we’re worried about getting grandma sick. Well, grandma finally says: “I’m going to be dying in a nursing home. One of these days, I’d rather let my grandchildren come and see me at the risk that I get coronavirus.” So, there’s that reality.

You talk about pent-up demand. We’ve seen this before. In times of austerity, then, there’s that pendulum swinging back. You can remember this because we’re all old enough to remember this. There was a time when red meat consumption kept declining, and it was the scare tactics. It was probably not completely scientific. There was always a group. Remember, if there’s a crisis, there’s usually a group that’s profiting by perpetuating the crisis.

We were never going to eat steak again. And then, fast forward to things got really good. Remember the dot-coms and all that stuff? Late nineties? Every city in America opened up three new steakhouses, and I’m going: “Wait a minute. In the eighties, they told us we were never going to eat steak again.” Now, there’s a Sullivan’s and a Ruth’s Chris and this one in every town — Des Moines, Indianapolis, you name it. So, I’ve seen the pendulum swing before: austerity for very long, then, creates this thing where, then, people are like: “No. Done.” And then, it’s the other way around.

You’re right. We could end up, by a year or so from now, with people like: “Screw it. I participated in the pandemic. I’ve been through enough Clorox wipes to fill a landfill. I’m going out, and I’m going to have us a meeting.” Your customers want to get together. Your employees probably would like to do that. So, there’s a human factor, too. There’s no question that people want that. I remember, after 9/11, I saw it. With 9/11, people did not want to get on a plane. They did not want to be in a building that was of any size. And then, eventually, they said: “I’m not going to live in fear.” Now, some still did, but not the bulk of the people. They said: “Yeah, we’re not going to live like this. I still want to be a human.”

RENEE HANSEN: That’s kind of the pendulum swing with commodity prices, too.

DAMIAN MASON: We saw the swing where, probably — and I’m not a grain marketing person. I got a C in Ag Econ 320, which was grain marketing. I find it to be hideously boring. If you give me economics stuff, consumer outlook stuff, that’s my real direction. Sitting and staring at a computer screen all day and then getting excited over a three-cent move in the soybean markets? I’ve pointed it out before. These people that do that? I’d have to have some sort of pile of drugs right here just to make my life interesting if I had to sit and look at a screen all day and manage three-cent moves in the soybean market.

Being that said that I’m not a commodities marketing guy, we just ran up 10 percent and 25 percent on the corn, right? You can sell corn for 25 percent more, roughly, than you could just in July, let’s say. How would you think that it’s going to go that much again? If it were me, and I had an operation to run, I’d be looking at trying to forward contract everything for next year, also, because a long time ago, somebody smart told me: “You don’t go broke. Your business doesn’t go under by taking profits.”

So, I think that we’re probably where we’re going to be. Also, what fundamentals are going to change? Are we going to have another billion people on Earth? That’s been a prediction I’ve been hearing my whole life. No. Did the pandemic create a baby boom? No, actually divorce rates are up 34 percent. Divorce filings are up 34 percent in the United States. People didn’t stay home and make babies. They stayed home and decided they didn’t like each other.

We’re not going to have a population boom in the whole globe. In fact, for the next year, the economic devastation will cause us to eat less meat because in my book, “Food Fear,” I talk about this. The last time we saw meat declines in developed countries was during the recession between ‘08 and ‘12 to ‘14. Meat consumption went down by 10 percent here in the United States. If meat consumption goes down 10 percent here, what’s it doing to a lesser developed country, a country that’s more harmed economically by the pandemic, that didn’t have a government throw $6 trillion of relief at it?

Let’s say their meat consumption goes, and they don’t eat but half of what we eat anyhow. Let’s say their meat consumption goes down by 20 percent, and they only eat half as much meat as us anyhow, but it’s a country like India, let’s say. Now, corn and soybeans become meat. If those countries are eating less meat, why would corn and soybean prices remain high?

So, I believe that, if it were me and I was a commodity producer, I would take advantage of this marketplace to sell as much stuff forward as possible because I’m looking at it. Again, I’m an observer. Comedy taught me to be an observer. I know what meat consumption does, and I know these economic situations we’re living in right now. They keep saying a “V-shaped recovery.” We’ve been saying that since March. How can that be? A “V” doesn’t go from March until Halloween. I think that we’re going to have economic hardship, globally, for quite some time.

People are saying: “Yeah, but why would that hurt meat consumption?” Well, beef, for instance — most beef is consumed away from the home, not in the home, and that’s in the United States. Presumably, it’s that way in Ireland, as well. That’s why meat consumption patterns are going to change a bit. That’s my observation. Every observation, I can give you a reason for “why,” the data behind it. That’s what I always tell everybody. You can disagree, but don’t think that I haven’t at least pulled the data.

RENEE HANSEN: Well, and I would agree. I do agree with that because you do. And you reference it a ton in your book, “Food Fear.” So, I’d love for our audience to check out Damian Mason’s book, titled “Food Fear.” And Damian, why don’t you just tell our audience how they can get ahold of you?

DAMIAN MASON: All right, they can go to damianmason.com. If they happen to be watching, it’s on the screen right behind me. But if they’re not watching, they’re just listening, it’s Damian: D-A-M-I-A-N. Damian Mason, like a bricklayer: damianmason.com. I’m on every social media format. That’s not true. I don’t do Tik Tok. I’m on Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook. I got a fan page there. Check it out. I’ve got LinkedIn, the whole deal, but also my website. I put up videos on YouTube. You can go to YouTube, Damian Mason channel, and hit subscribe. And you’ll see the videos that I put out with various commentary and whatnot. I would love for you to do so, and I very much appreciate you having me on today.

RENEE HANSEN: Yes, we really appreciate your time today, too. Thank you so much for all of your information and trends and knowledge that you continue to share.

DAMIAN MASON: Thanks.

RENEE HANSEN: Thanks for listening to the Premier Podcast, where everything agronomic is economic. Please subscribe, rate and review this podcast, so we can continue to provide the best precision ag and analytic results for you. And to learn more about Premier Crop, visit our blog at premiercrop.com.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Free Resources:

016: Examples of Agronomics and Economics

grower and advisor

In this Premier Podcast episode, we’re talking with Matt Bowers, Premier Crop’s Eastern Strategic Account Manager and Kimberly Beachy, with ProTech Partners in Indiana. Matt and Kimberly discuss the top three examples of agronomics and economics.

MATT BOWERS: I am the Strategic Account Manager for the eastern business unit for Premier Crop Systems. I recently joined the Premier Crop team earlier this year after working in the seed industry. I grew up in western Ohio on a family farm and currently reside in central Ohio with my family. And today, I’m speaking with Kimberly Beachy from ProTech Partners in Indiana.

KIMBERLY BEACHY: I am an agronomist at ProTech Partners. I work with growers mainly in southern Michigan and northern Indiana. I’ve been with ProTech just over four years and have previous experience in seed production and product stewardship. I grew up on a corn and soybean farm in Newton County, Indiana. Nice, good, black dirt like they have out in Iowa, I found my love of agriculture there. I went to Purdue and got a bachelor’s degree in agronomy and then continued my education at Iowa State. I have a master’s degree in seed technology and business through their online program. My family enjoys spending time outside. We spend a lot of time outside on the playset with my husband and my daughter.

MATT BOWERS: Good. Well, I don’t have as much black dirt where I’m at in Ohio, but it sounds like a good background of growing up on the farm. Today, Kimberly and I are going to discuss examples agronomics and economics.” And I was wondering if you could start out with telling us how ProTech Partners help their growers focus on the agronomics, as well as the economics.

KIMBERLY BEACHY: Let’s first define those two things. What is agronomics? That’s everything that we do in the field that’s making good management decisions. It’s deciding how much fertilizer to apply and where we’re going to put it, planting rates, crop protection, tillage systems and how we incorporate all of this into the farm. All of those things is how we grow our crop. The economics side of it is the money. I mean, farming is a business, and just like any other business, you want to make sure that the money coming in is greater than the money going out so you get to farm again next year. That’s the goal for the farmers that I work with. They just want to do it again next year.

So, how does ProTech focus on agronomics and economics? We do that by analyzing their data. And we use that knowledge to help them make decisions on their farm. We’ve been collecting data on the farm for years, not just in spatial data like yield files or with prescription mapping, but through grid sampling. It’s another spatial data collection, and also record-keeping.

Knowing what we’ve done on the farm in the last five, 10, 15, 20 years can be really valuable knowledge as we plan into the future. But if we never take that data and use it to make decisions, then it’s not doing us any good. It’s important to take the time investment of collecting your farm data and made a return using your data. Our ProTech advisors work with the growers to analyze the farmers field data. We add their costs to the layers of data including their product cost, operations cost, management cost if they have any land-specific cost, and tie that to their yield file so we can really see what is making sense on the farm from an agronomics and economics standpoint.

It’s really pretty easy to tell if something yields better, right? You see a bump on your yield monitor, but it’s a lot harder to know if that yield bump also had a little bump in the pocket book. I mean, if it paid for itself or if a decision we made is a cause to the yield bump, maybe we didn’t produce enough bushels to offset the cost. That’s where ProTech can step in and really drive that home, making sure we’re making economic decisions, not just sound agronomic decisions.

MATT BOWERS: Okay, so we’re not necessarily all about the bright green or dark green, I should say, spot in that yield monitor. We’ve got to see what’s tied behind there and what’s backing that up, right? It sounds like ProTech has a nice program to help growers really look into their farm as a business because that’s what farming is. It’s a business, right?

What I hear you saying, though, is that every pass across the field matters agronomically, but it also has a cost associated with it. And that’s something that we need to manage and look throughout the year. So, can you give me maybe your top three examples of  agronomics and economics in your opinion, when you’re going out and you’re meeting with your growers?

DSC_7460


PLANTING

KIMBERLY BEACHY: I think the best way to look at it and take us through this process is to think of the growing season. I want to touch on planting, fertilizer and also a crop protection fungicide pass. We’ll hit those in the order that they happen. So, first off, let’s talk about planting. That’s when we take the seed out of the bag. It has the highest yield potential that it’s ever going to have.

So, everything that we do is to try to protect that yield potential. Planting population is a big part of that. If you overcrowd your plants, you’re going to make them compete for resources, and you’ll reduce your yields because they’re competing with each other. There are not enough nutrients out there and not enough food to feed those plants, but on the flip side, if you have too low of a population, then you’re reducing your yield potential by not having enough out there in the first place. You can’t produce bushels of corn if you never plant the seed to begin with. So, with the planting side of it, tying agronomics to economics is about finding that right rate in the right part of the field, and we do that with management zones.

Within ProTech, a management zone is not just a seeding rate like it is in a lot of other places. We truly manage the field and the operation off of those zones. So, we break our fields into high-producing areas, which are A zones, and lower-producing areas that just don’t do as well, maybe it’s a wet spot, or it’s shaded by trees, or there’s a family of deer that lives next door and likes to eat it all the time.

MATT BOWERS: You must be talking about Ohio there, then, because we have the deer spots, and every field is ringed with trees.

KIMBERLY BEACHY: Yep, and that’s why you just have that C zone around the outside of your field, then. But we have those areas, and then the middle, kind of those average-productivity areas, we’ll label as a B. It’s pretty consistent. Year in and year out, it does pretty well, but it doesn’t have the capability to be those rockstar areas of the field, where we’re going to see maybe even 400 bushels on a yield monitor when we go through them. So, we break our field into management zones, and then we manage nearly everything we do based on those zones. So, in an A zone — those are our high-producing areas — we’re going to push our planting populations in those areas. We’re going to plant more seeds because those parts of the fields have the capability to produce more bushels.

In the C zones, we’re going to pull back our population. We know those spots, whether it’s animal feeding or shading, or it’s a wet spot or a sand hole, something causes it to not have the yield potential. It’s something that we can’t fix. If we can get a part of the field from a C zone to a B zone, or a B zone to an A zone, with fertilizer or any management practice, we will do that. Those C zones are C zones because that’s just what they are. That’s the best they can do. So, by labeling it a C zone and understanding that part of the field is not going to produce as well, we can manage our risk there by lowering our planting population.

That will save us money on seed cost. To tie it back to the economics, by lowering our population, we have reduced seed cost, which helps our bottom line.


FERTILIZER

MATT BOWERS: The fertilizer ties along with that, then, if we’re lowering our population where we’re lowering our fertilizer. Maybe we’re not lowering all-over cost, but we’re translocating those to the A zone, right?

KIMBERLY BEACHY: Yes.

MATT BOWERS: And moving those over and spending where our bang for our buck is more beneficial, right?

KIMBERLY BEACHY: Yeah, and I’ve had that conversation with a lot of growers. When variable-rate technologies came out, the discussion was: “Oh, it’s going to save you money. We’re going to reduce your fertilizer usage.”

We found that’s not the case. What we’ve done is we’re better investing that planting dollar or that fertilizer dollar. We’re putting it in the areas of the field where it needs it, where we can get a return on that investment. So, we’re really driving farming into that business idea, where we want to see a return on every dollar we spend. With farming, in general, if we’re doing a straight rate across the field, we’re treating every acre the same, and we know that that’s not the case. Every acre is not the same because when we drive through the field, even if you don’t use a yield monitor, you can see variation in the amount of loads you’re taking off. I mean, you can tell how good the corn is or how bad it is as you’re driving across the field.

So, why would we treat that the same on our input side if we’re not taking the same amount off of it at the end of the day? And that’s how variable-rate technology lets us do that. And that’s why it’s so important to tie it into not just planting but also into your fertilizer, and that’s how we really do tie the agronomics and economics in agriculture.

MATT BOWERS: So, your second reason — you’ve kind of got into that there because you’re tying it with the population, with your fertilizer and variable rate and our fertilizer rates, as well. Is that also — for you, with your growers — is that also with nitrogen in how you handle nitrogen?

KIMBERLY BEACHY: Yes. I started talking about it because it all ties together. You do need to factor in your planting population when you’re determining your nitrogen rates. If you invite more plants to dinner, you have to have enough food to feed them. So, if we have a higher population in our A zones, we need to account for the added food that they’re going to need, the added nutrients and dry fertilizer and nitrogen, especially. We need to increase that nitrogen rate in those A zones. And I think we can also push the nitrogen rates a little higher in the A zones because we have the capability to produce more bushels, not just because of the higher population but just because the ground is better. By pushing that, yes, you’re taking a little bit more risk, but it’s a smart risk.

By pushing your nitrogen rates in your A zones, you have a better opportunity to have a return on that nitrogen dollar than you would if you were pushing nitrogen rates in your C zones. So, that’s really how we focus on it. It’s looking at our nitrogen, how our nitrogen is used in the field. We could go out and apply at a straight rate, but we’re going to be overfeeding our poor-production areas and underfeeding our high-production areas. Really, if we feed to the average, then we’re missing out on high-end yields, and we’re overspending on those low-end yields.


CROP PROTECTION OR FUNGICIDE

MATT BOWERS: Great. Now, you had mentioned fungicide passes and looking at fungicides. And I know you and I have had some conversations based around fungicides and timing in years and how the weather is that year and what stage the corn or the soybeans are at. So, why don’t you touch on a little bit of that, as far as electing that pass and the cost and the benefits of what that would be.

KIMBERLY BEACHY: And I have a great example of that from this year. Where I’m at in northern Indiana and southern Michigan, we’re kind of in that epicenter of tar spot. It started here a few years ago. We’ve had really high infection rates in fields the last couple of years, and we can really see the value of fungicide. But we have to make sure we’re spending that money wisely, that we have to look at the year.

So, to have a disease infect — I mean, in college, we learn about the disease triangle or, in a plant pathology class, you learn about the disease triangle — you have to have the host and the pathogen. Up here, we have that. We have corn, and we have tar spot. We have that pathogen, but what we don’t always have is the right environment. There are instances where applying just a plant fungicide pass is the right way to go. And I had plant fungicide passes in my high-production corn, especially with the high-production fields that are irrigated, because they’re going to have more leaf wetness from that irrigation water.

But where it’s a little harder to make those calls is on your tougher acre. I have a grower that has some high-production irrigated fields that his yields can be, I mean, phenomenal, averaging 250 or higher across the field. But he also has some ground where, if it doesn’t rain, he’s going to be happy to hit 100-150 bushels per acre because it’s really sandy, dry soil. And those are the acres that you don’t always think about as being important when it comes financially. But if you’re not making as much money off of it, then you can’t treat it. You can’t spend as much money on it, either.

For the tar spot this year, one of those tougher fields that he has was planted at the end of May. When I did my last fungicide check on it, it was the end of July. We didn’t have any disease out there. We, were looking at what’s in the field and looking at the weather that we had up to that point. It’d been a dry summer. It’d been kind of hot, so he’d already lost some yield potential there. Looking at the forecast, it was supposed to be hot and dry. We weren’t going to have the conditions that were necessary for tar spot to really take off. So, we decided that it wasn’t economical to make that fungicide pass.

Well, fast forward a few weeks, he sent me a picture from a leaf in that field, and it had tar spot on it. And the weather changed, and it got a little cooler. It was rainier. We had some leaf wetness, extended periods of leaf wetness in that field, and the tar spot that was in the area took off on his corn. But at that point, it was too late in the season to make a fungicide application. So, that’s where, working with an advisor, it’s not just thinking about the agronomics.

If I was just thinking about selling a product, I would say: “Yes, spray the fungicide.” If I was just thinking about what’s best for that corn, the fungicide is good. But, we have to also think about what’s best for that farmer. What’s best for that farm as a business? And that’s where, this year, that fungicide application just didn’t make sense. And yes, we did have the disease come in, but we’re going to manage. Now we know that it’s in the field because tar spot does live in the residue. The spores can overwinter in the crop residues, so we know what we have to do to manage that for future seasons.

MATT BOWERS: And because it came in so late. And, yes, it was there, but economically, even if you sprayed at that time, you probably weren’t going to see the benefits of what you usually would, had that infection come in earlier in the season when that plant wasn’t already headed to maturity, right?

KIMBERLY BEACHY: Yes.


ANALYTICS HELP 

MATT BOWERS: Looking at these examples, why are analytics so important to dive into once we’ve finished out the year? The combines run through. We’ve got some results coming in. Tell me about that.

KIMBERLY BEACHY: Analytics is how we look at that data. We pull your yield monitor data off. We look at everything you’ve done through the year. Whether it’s fertilizer, lime, your planting, any other nutrients you put down or crop protection products. We really dig in and see what the economic benefit was of that, if you had check blocks out there.

For planting, built right into my planting maps, I’ll put in little test plots for the grower. It’s built right into the prescription, called a learning block. And we use that information to check higher and lower populations within a management zone to see if we have the right rate. I can go out and tell you: “You need to plant 35,000 under the pivot. That’s what you’re going to do, and I’m right because I’m right.” But we need to prove that we’re right. And we need to prove that what we’re doing is the best thing that we can do. There’s a lot that goes into agriculture. I mean, weather is a huge factor, and we can’t control everything.

Even if you are pretty locked in on what that population is, having different checks in a field through different years, you can use that historical data, then, to check and say: “Yeah, in this year, if we’re looking at a cold, wet spring, this is the best population for me to go with.” And we can learn that and look back on that data. Even if we don’t use it the next year, we still have that historical information.

The nice thing about the learning blocks is it’s not just going to tell us what yielded better. I mean, it will tell us what had a better yield, the high or the low population, but it’s also going to tell us which one had a better return on the investment. So, did we produce enough bushels with a higher population to offset the added seed cost? We can find that out. Really, on our end, it does take some work, but it’s a lot easier than piecing through all of your data and trying to do it on your own.

MATT BOWERS: So, with that in mind, growers are busy. They are going from one thing to the next, and there’s always something to do, right? With analytics, sometimes, going through the data and sifting through it can be a headache and something that is so tedious that they’ve got better things to spend their time on out on the farm. So, is that something that ProTech Partners and yourself, that you guys can help manage and pull out the things that the farmer needs?

KIMBERLY BEACHY: We go get the data. We clean it up. We put it in the system. They just need to hit “record” when they’re running through the field and let us know what they’re doing. And then, I ask my growers. I have an idea of what I want to show them at the end of the year. Once I’ve analyzed their data, I want to know what they want to learn from it, too. So, I ask them throughout the season: “What do you want to learn? What questions do you have?” Because we have the tools within our system to ask any question we want, really. Any question that we ask we can find an answer to.

It’s not just about figuring out what I think is best or my decision about: “Well, I think this is what we should do. I think this is the best option going forward.” That’s part of it, but there’s also teamwork with their grower there to decide what’s important to the grower. And they tell me what’s important to them, and then the best part is I go find the answers for them. And I come back with a nice, little, concise report and show it to them, and then we chat and make decisions from there.

MATT BOWERS: That sounds great. Yeah, not every operation is the same. Not every operation has the same goals. Everybody thinks everybody is after max bushels, and that’s not always the case. It depends on the grower, right? So, if you could take and tie this all in a bow and explain how it all comes together for planning for next year, how does that look?

KIMBERLY BEACHY: We start planning for the next year’s crop. We’re already doing that. As we start seeing harvest data, we’ve already put all of the other activities from the year into our system. So, once we get that yield file, we’re able to get it entered and go and really start help driving decisions. I’ll look at things and make sure that we’re doing the right thing with our fertilizer. That’s a big part of my responsibility with my customers. It’s giving them fertilizer recommendations, giving them seeding recommendations. So, those are the questions I’m really making sure I want to answer. If I didn’t have the best rate, well, what’s the best rate going forward for next year, so we can make changes into our crop plan for 2020?

It’s a “do it and check it” process. We go out and do something, and we check our work, and then we make corrections for the following year. And we try new things if we have something out there. As an example, I have a low-productivity field. One of those ones on the sand that didn’t yield 100 bushels this year on it because it was tough ground. It’s like a beach. And we had some low, what I felt was pretty low, populations. The field average was right around a 20,000 planting population. I put some learning blocks in there for checks down to 16,000. Though I want to take that a step further next year.

Just by being in the field and looking at the crop, I could tell that we were over. Our population was too high for a dry year. So, what can we do? We’ll lower it a little bit on our prescription next year, but we can then add in more learning blocks to test it even lower. And depending on how crazy the grower wants to get, we’ll maybe test the limits of his planter and see how low he can go.

MATT BOWERS: Right.

KIMBERLY BEACHY: Because that learning block is a small area. It’s a small area too, and it’s built right in. So, they just have to okay it on the front end when I create the map. Once that prescription is in their monitor, they just have to go. It’s very little thinking on their part, but we’re constantly checking our work. ProTech is different in the fact that our agronomists — we go in the fields. Most of our ProTech programs include scouting. The agronomists are the ones going out in the fields doing the scouting.

We’re also doing the soil sampling, creating the recommendations. And we’re not just seeing what’s happening on paper or on the computer screen. We’re out there living it in the field with the crop. And we do take pride in being able to check that for the grower. ProTech is different from other precision ag companies because we truly manage by our management zones.

It’s not just a seeding rate. So, when I talked earlier about how we tie our planting rates to our nitrogen rates, we’re also doing that with our dry fertilizer. We manage our dry fertilizer based off of those management zones, as well. We’re pushing fertilizer rates in the A zone, maybe looking for higher soil-test levels, reaching for higher soil-test levels. But in the C zones, where we’re not going to produce as many bushels, we don’t need as much. We don’t have as much crop removal, so we don’t need as much fertilizer in general. And that’s one of the things that sets us apart. We don’t just go out there and make a recommendation based on a country’s worth of knowledge.

ProTech believes that agronomy is local. And what we do here in Indiana and Michigan is a lot different than what guys do in Iowa. Go further out west into Nebraska and Kansas. There are different crops, different amounts of irrigation, different soil types. We do what’s best for our growers here because that’s what’s best for our growers. We know that based on our experience in the field, in this area.

MATT BOWERS: So Kimberly, what I hear you saying about ProTech is that you guys work on a sub-acre level. You’re not just looking at an entire farm’s collective yield data and results at the end of the year, or even just that field. You’re looking at the results in each management zone that you guys set up. Is that what I heard you say?

KIMBERLY BEACHY: Yes, that’s correct. When we really dig into the data, we’re not looking at it by the home field versus the back 40. We look at the A zones across those two fields or across the fields on the whole operation and compare those A zones. We also compare the B zones and C zones because we want to do apples-to-apples comparisons. If you’re comparing a whole field against another whole field, there could be differences. One could have irrigation. Soil types could be drastically different. Then you’re not comparing apples to apples. So, by comparing those management zones to each other within a field, you really can narrow in on what is best for those particular acres.

MATT BOWERS: Great. Well, Kimberly, we’ve had some great information that you’ve provided us today. Hopefully, the growers have some good questions that they might be asking themselves about their own operation. How and where can growers find you and get ahold of you?

KIMBERLY BEACHY: Well, I am on Twitter @Kimberly_Beachy, but I’m not very active. So, it’s probably easier to get ahold of me by email. That is kbeachy@frickservices.com. And then if you want to learn more about ProTech, you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Our Twitter handle is @ProTechAgronomy, and we have a website at protechpartners.net.

MATT BOWERS: Great. Well, thanks, Kimberly, and thanks, everyone out there, for listening. And, as always, remember to be safe out there and make it home tonight.

Thanks for listening to the Premier Podcast, where everything agronomic is economic. Please subscribe, rate and review this podcast so we can continue to provide the best precision ag and analytic results for you. And to learn more about Premier Crop, visit our blog at premiercrop.com.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Free Resources:

015: Utilizing Your Yield Monitor and Yield Data

yield monitor
Today we are talking with Dan and Renee about the significance of using a yield monitor in the field to gather your yield data. 
About Dan: Founder and current VP of Technical Services. Since founding PCS in 1999, Dan has witnessed many changes and transitions in the ag data industry.
If you are enjoying the show, tweet us using #PremierPodcast.

RENEE HANSEN: Today, we’re talking with Dan Frieberg, and we’re talking about yield monitors and how Premier Crop can help support a grower while utilizing their yield monitor. Dan, can you just explain a little bit about how growers can notice differences in the field, whether it’s a good spot or a bad spot?

DAN FRIEBERG: What’s happened over the last 22 years, since we’ve been in business, is yield monitors have become really commonplace. Almost every combine now would have a yield monitor, but a lot of growers don’t really use them very effectively. It’s almost like some people use it just as a way to measure moisture, to keep track of moisture and direct grain. It’s where the grain is going based on moisture. Somebody else described yield monitors as “Harvest TV.” It’s just something they look at as they go through the field. I would tell you that every grower has seen 90-bushel beans, and every grower has seen upward to 250-bushel to 300-bushel corn in some part of the field. They’ve seen those numbers flash in good years.

For me, if I’m a grower, what I want to do is, if I had the time — I mean, if it weren’t so rushed in harvest — I would love to stop the combine and figure out what in the world is going on in that part of the field. What makes that part of the field so much more productive than the rest of the field?

When they go through the really low-yielding parts of the field, generally, they have an idea already. They remember the growing season. They saw that area. It had weed escapes, or it was moisture-stressed. So, a lot of times, they know because of soil differences. They know the lower-yielding areas. Sometimes, though, with the super high-yielding areas, they’re unsure. They know their sweet spots in the field, but they don’t know what makes them a sweet spot.

So, one of the foundation pieces that we like to do with yield monitor data is just put that data file, the yield monitor data file, together with a whole bunch of other layers of data and really try to help the grower see the differences in the field beyond. The yield monitor tells a story, but you really don’t get the complete story until you combine it with the rest of the data. So, for us, it’s a big foundational piece, but a lot of growers aren’t using their yield data. I think it’s just because nobody’s ever led them to understand how they could use it, all the different ways they could use the yield data to their advantage.

RENEE HANSEN: I was riding in the tractor earlier this fall with my husband, and his dad was running the combine. His dad was seeing 90-bushel beans, and the field actually ended up doing record-high soybean yield in his lifetime. And he’s 73, and he’s never seen beans that high. And so, you mentioned you would want to stop. What would you do if you weren’t so rushed? What would you do to stop and look at, when seeing the yield monitor hit 90 in beans?

premiercrop in the tractor

DAN FRIEBERG: For me, Renee, a lot of times, it’s what’s below ground. I want to know what is different about that area. And, most of the time, that difference is underground. It’s a combination of what you might learn off of a soil test. It could be soil-type related. Sometimes, it’s really hard to understand. What we try to do, though, is identify those consistently high-yielding spots.

Year after year, there’s something about that area. A lot of times, Renee, the topsoil is deep there. What’s called the A horizon, the very first layer of topsoil, that is really deep there. The reason I know that is because, in a dry year, they have enough topsoil that they have enough water holding capacity in that area of field to carry it through a dry year. They also tend to be well-drained because, in a wet year, the water is not going to stand there. So, they’re well-drained because of natural slope, or they’re well-drained because of soil structure. Or they could be well-drained because of tile, but they tend to be well-drained, as well. So, I automatically know those two pieces usually fit together. In those areas, you’re not hitting the clay layer right away. You have enough topsoil to carry it through the dry year.

For us, those areas just beg. They beg to be managed more aggressively. There’s a lot of growers who — just in general, we climb, in yield, a couple of bushels on corn, maybe a bushel on soybeans. Just nationally, we tend to be on this upward trend over the last 20 years. We try to talk to growers about how, if you’re going to take the next leap, if your farm average — let’s say your farm average on soybeans this year is 65, and you want to move your farm average to consistently above 70, don’t the best areas of your field have to get in the 90-bushel range? If you’re going to climb five bushel across your entire operation, I’m guessing the best areas have to do more than five bushel because the worst areas, they may be maxed out already.

So, climbing up, being able to continue to climb overall yields, it probably means the best areas have to do even better. We just love to use the yield file as a way to quantify those areas. And then those become areas that we’re just much more aggressive, much more aggressive with everything, to try to take them to that next yield plateau.

RENEE HANSEN: You also mentioned utilizing more than just this year of yield files and using more historic yield to layer more years of yield and data. So, why would that be so beneficial to utilize your yield monitor, to continue to put in all these years of data? Because the grower already has it, they have years and years of data, probably on a jump drive or maybe in the monitor. What can they do to utilize all of those years, and how easy is it to get it into a system like Premier Crop?

DAN FRIEBERG: We try to make it as easy as possible. We love to grab that historic yield data. If there’s one piece of data that growers have a lot of, it’s historic yield data. It’s on thumb drives in a desk drawer. Who knows where it is, but the grower knows. It could be in a Ziploc bag, and it’s just a combination of all these different devices they’ve had over the years. But we just love to grab it because it starts to let you see spatial differences, differences within the field and consistent differences. If you have more than one year, the reason you want to look at more than one year is just to be able to see consistency over different weather patterns.

There are always outliers in data. Yield files aren’t perfect because there can be man-made differences in a yield file, meaning, for example, you could have a hybrid or variety change that creates an artificial. Like one variety fell out of bed and just didn’t do well, and that area of the field looks bad, but it had nothing to do with the area of the field. It had everything to do with the genetic issue. There’s always an outlier, so the more years of yield data, the more you can sort out the outliers. You can sort out the year that had the windstorm or the year that had the hail event or whatever. It lets you have more — the more years, the more confidence.

premier crop actual yield history

RENEE HANSEN: Yeah, you make a great point. It’s not only about the yield monitor, but it’s also about what you can visually see. Can you talk about a little bit of the myths of the yield monitor? I feel like some growers just may not trust what is coming off of their yield data.

DAN FRIEBERG: I imagine if I’m a grower, and I’m 10 years into this yield monitor thing. I’ve never used my yield data to make a decision, pretty soon I quit caring. Why would I calibrate my yield monitor when I’ve never used it? I mean, I’ve never really used it.

RENEE HANSEN: It’s like not having a score at a sporting event. Who’s going to care who scores next if you can’t see the scoreboard? Nobody knows. You need that score.

DAN FRIEBERG: That’s where we’re at. Once we start working with a grower who hasn’t cared about his yield data, and he actually start seeing why it matters, then, all of a sudden, he cares a lot. And then they calibrate, and then they really do pay attention. Then, it’s almost is like the switch goes on, and they want everything to be perfect. If the grain cart scale says that field did 83 bushels, they expect us to adjust the yield file to an average of 83 because that’s what the grain cart scale said. Once they start actually using the yield monitor to make decisions, then they care a lot about data quality. It’s just getting it right, getting all pieces of it right. Making sure that everything is right is a big deal.

So, yield monitors, once they start understanding that, then one of the things that I love is, with yield monitors, we’ve entered this era. It’s no longer: “Trust me, this works.” If you’re a grower, you get sold a lot of stuff. Somebody is always driving up the driveway to sell you stuff. It’s different hybrids or varieties. Crop protection plans, nutrients, additives, micronutrients, and biologicals too. It’s always this one — here’s the next thing that’s going to be this magic bullet.

And now, because of a yield monitor, you don’t have to just trust that it works. You can actually do trials in your own fields. One of our sayings is: “Growers say local data is best, but you can’t get more local than my fields.” And that’s what you’re capable of doing now. You’re capable of using your yield monitor to measure. To do trials and measure whether each of those things actually worked. It’s so much easier than it used to be. I grew up in the day of weigh wagons. You’d go measure out a strip in the field and grab a weigh wagon comparison. That was the early years, but now it’s just so easy to do the same thing at the speed of farming.

RENEE HANSEN: You said that was the early years of weigh wagons. I don’t feel like I’m that old, Dan, and I feel like we were just using them 20 years ago. It doesn’t feel like it was that long ago, hauling them around in the pickup. But you also talked about it with yield monitors. And, like I said, my husband, when we were farming his field, his overall field had a record soybean yield. But why is it so important to not look at the whole field average and look deeper? I mean, you talked about it a little bit before in those parts of the fields, and I feel like that’s where Premier Crop really differentiates itself.

DAN FRIEBERG: Growers are seeing really huge swings between fields, right? So, one field does really great, and another field doesn’t. You can start to use your data to sort out why, but, even within fields, within a field, most of the time, there are just pretty dramatic differences.

Another way we use the yield file is we use the yield file as part of future nutrient applications. You can calculate nutrient removal off the yield file and build that in. It’s not the sole — we’re not talking about using the yield file as the only source of how you do nutrients, but it can be another layer of data. And growers are really in tune with this. You’re putting back what you took off, right? If you use the yield file, instead of treating the whole field — like if you know the field average was 85 bushel of soybeans, instead of just putting back removal for 85 bushels on every acre, using the yield file, some of the field will get 60-bushel removals, and another part of the field will get 100-bushel removals.

That’s really important because those high-yielding areas are removing more nutrients. And so, you need to be able to capture that in some way to make sure that you keep pace with just how much they’re removing.

RENEE HANSEN: Because, ultimately, that helps them profit more because they’re applying nutrients in parts of the field where they need to apply them more and less, therefore, generating consistently higher yields. Like you said, what was the percentage year over year?

DAN FRIEBERG: What we try to do is we try to put people on a steeper curve. Across U.S. agriculture, we continually step up yields every year. If you do a trend line, there are ups and downs within the trend line. The trend line might be two bushel per acre per year on corn, or three bushel per acre per year on corn. And we’re just trying to be on a steeper trend line. We’re trying to use data. Instead of two-and-a-half bushels per acre per year, can we make it a consistent six bushels per acre per year?

It’s not about higher yields. It’s about higher profit. Yields are a huge piece of that. It’s hard to improve profitability without doing better, yield-wise. It’s just about investing every input dollar within the field to try to get a higher return.

premier crop yield monitor

RENEE HANSEN: Yeah, try to get a higher return with what they already have, with what growers already have. With what I have, I need to make more. I need to profit. I need to make more margin. Utilizing that yield monitor a little bit more than just, like you said, watching it throughout the field can really be beneficial to a grower’s operation.

DAN FRIEBERG: I always want to know “why.” Like when I see differences, I want to know what can explain the differences. There’s some reason why parts of the field are better and parts of the field are worse.

The quicker we can define “why,” or the better we can understand “why,” if we can, then that leads us to be able to develop a plan on how to do it better. We talk all the time about “we.” What we do is we analyze. We analyze data, and then we turn that into advice. And then we act on the advice the next crop year. It’s this constant cycle of driving for improvement.

RENEE HANSEN: Well, thanks, Dan. In closing, what would you say to a grower who isn’t utilizing some kind of system like Premier Crop with their yield data? What would you say to them?

DAN FRIEBERG: Don’t give up. I mean, some people, they literally are giving up, or they’re cynical or whatever. I would say it’s never too late to get started, obviously, and your yield files can be eye-opening in a way to do better. They’re a foundation piece to do better.

RENEE HANSEN: There’s always an entry point to get started and, sometimes, it’s just taking that first leap. Thanks for listening to the Premier Podcast, where everything agronomic is economic. Please subscribe, rate and review this podcast so we can continue to provide the best precision ag and analytic results for you. And to learn more about Premier Crop, visit our blog at premiercrop.com.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
Free Resources:

014: Farm for Profit | Farm Finance

farm finance

Today we welcome Tanner and David from the Farm 4 Profit Show. This episode is a section of their show ‘What’s Working in Ag’ featuring our own Dan Frieberg. We are discussing farm finance.

Make sure to subscribe to their podcast: https://farmforprofit.com/

If you are enjoying the show, tweet us using #PremierPodcast.

TANNER WINTERHOF: All right, welcome back to another Farm 4 Profit episode. This is Tanner Winterhof.

DAVID WHITAKER: And this is David Whitaker.

TANNER WINTERHOF: Dave, we got a little advice from a couple of peers as we put this podcast together that it would be helpful if we identified ourselves at the beginning of each episode. So, for a new listener, I’m Tanner. This is the voice of Tanner, and I’m a banker in central Iowa.

DAVID WHITAKER: And I’m David, and I am a farmland sales auctioneer and a real estate agent in central Iowa, as well.

TANNER WINTERHOF: So, thank you, new listeners, for joining us. We really appreciate you checking in. We’ve got a little bit of an interesting time this year. We started out with the coronavirus. We had some weather events. We’ve got inland hurricanes and droughts. Everything’s all storming together, but we’re going to focus on something a little bit more exciting today. We’re going to jump right into what’s working in ag. Don’t you think, Dave?

DAVID WHITAKER: I think so. We’ll just call it hashtag 2020.

TANNER WINTERHOF: That’s all we got.

Farm 4 profit podcast focus on farm finance

DAVID WHITAKER: That’s what we’ll call it. We have a guest today. Who is our guest, Tanner?

TANNER WINTERHOF: We’ve got Dan Frieberg, and he is here to share with us a little bit about what’s working for ag in his company. A really neat background. He grew up on a farm in Iowa, graduated from Iowa State University. His career includes wholesale fertilizer sales, retail management. He also served as the CEO of the Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical Association, later the Agribusiness Association of Iowa, and other business consulting. One of his favorite beverages, if not the favorite beverage of Dan, can you believe this, is Diet Pepsi.

DAVID WHITAKER: There you go.

TANNER WINTERHOF: But what does this have to do with farm finance? What do you think?

DAVID WHITAKER: I tell you it has a lot to do with farming. So, Dan, tell us. I’m glad to see you’re an Iowa State grad. I’m glad to see you’re from Iowa. Anything we missed there, other than a good hair day and the Diet Pepsi thing?

DAN FRIEBERG: I think you got it nailed.

DAVID WHITAKER: Okay, great. Well, welcome Dan. Do you live currently in Iowa, still?

DAN FRIEBERG: Yep, just south of Des Moines.

DAVID WHITAKER: I got ya. And so, tell me a little bit about your company. What exactly do you do?

DAN FRIEBERG: We take agronomic data, help growers with agronomic data that they’re collecting to provide analytics and economics with farm finance. Then, that analytics turns into advice and an action plan for the following year. Most of what we do ends up with a variable-rate prescription that goes in a piece of equipment, whether it’s the grower’s equipment or it could be a retailer’s equipment.

DAVID WHITAKER: So, you’re basically working with the farm data. “Farm Data is the currency of the internet” is what I always tell Tanner. And you are taking that farm data, and then you are helping the farmer probably spend less money by doing variable rate throughout the field or making tough decisions to plant or not plant or certain things. That’s what I’m gathering. Is that correct?

DAN FRIEBERG: I don’t think we ever save growers money. I think that’s one of the mistakes that a lot of people made in precision ag in the early years. We’re 20-some years into this, and a lot of the early messaging was around saving growers money. And I think that’s an unfulfilled promise. In the case of variable-rate lime, it is something that we do that saves the grower money on liming costs. But, most of the time, I think what we do is, rather than positioning it as saving the grower money, it’s about investing within parts of fields to get a higher return.

So, instead of treating the whole field as though it’s the same, it’s about identifying areas that are capable of producing more and more efficiently. And then in other areas, it could be that that’s where you save them money because it just doesn’t make sense to continue to invest.

TANNER WINTERHOF: I grabbed it right off the website that Premier Crop was established in 1999. And what it says right there is this: “They enable the growers to think deeper about their data.” So, what I grabbed from that is using that variable-rate technology. The way to make that pay is not necessarily saving money but maybe reallocating those input dollars to site-specific areas, to where you could probably get a better return on your investment than where they might’ve just been blanketly broadcasted.

DAN FRIEBERG: Yep, I think that’s exactly right. I think maybe the other thing that we do differently is we have the ability to combine agronomics and farm finance. Right now, it’s really difficult to make money in a lot of areas. If we’re spending more in one part of the field, we’re able to actually tie the cost, the added costs that we’re investing in that part of the field, to the analysis. So, at the end of the year, we’re able to really deliver what we’re branding as a yield efficiency score, which is just dollar-per-acre return to land and management. For us, it’s about what’s been missing. We think there’s too much focus on just agronomics and not economics. I think right now, especially growers, they appreciate the focus on economics to help with farm finance. We like to say everything agronomic is economic.

farm finance and profits

DAVID WHITAKER: Gotcha. So, that’s a new term for me, the yield efficiency score that you have. Tell me a little bit more. Is it 100 is the best and zero is the worst, or how does your scoring system work?

DAN FRIEBERG: No, it’s really just dollar-per-acre return to land and management.

DAVID WHITAKER: Okay.

DAN FRIEBERG: It’s yield, and yield is tracked, obviously, with the yield monitor, a calibrated yield monitor. So, it’s yield at a benchmark selling price that the grower gets to set minus what they spent on nutrients, seed, crop protection and field operations. It’s kind of what’s left over. When a grower sees a yield efficiency score of $400, and they know they got $275 in land cost, then they immediately understand what’s left, the return to them for farm management.

Premier Crop Yield efficiency score

TANNER WINTERHOF: So, if we’ve got a listener here who hasn’t been using variable-rate technology before as part of their operation, is that a large hurdle to overcome? Or do they pretty much have the technology on most of these farms to be able to implement that?

DAN FRIEBERG: Tanner, I think if $7 corn did anything for us, it was that there was a lot of investment in new technology in the cab. When we had that run-up in prices and in profitability, growers put a lot and they invested heavily in upgrading planters. In the process of what happened during that time period, there’s a lot of technology in the cab, but there’s a lot of growers who aren’t necessarily using farm data to the full advantage. They have the technology and the ability to do it. They haven’t started because they don’t know how, and they’re looking for solutions.

DAVID WHITAKER: You said $7 corn. A lot of people updated their equipment there. But, for our newbie farmer that’s out there, or even somebody that’s been doing it, if they’re in an older combine, whatever it may be, and they decide they want to upgrade and be able to use your systems, is there a minimum-like entry? Something that they’re going to need for farm equipment?

DAN FRIEBERG: For us, we use the yield monitor as a way of measuring, measuring whether what we did was the right thing.

DAVID WHITAKER: Do they have to have a WAAS GPS or a certain sub-inch or anything there?

DAN FRIEBERG: No, just a GPS, a yield monitor with a GPS receiver.

DAVID WHITAKER: Okay, fair enough.

TANNER WINTERHOF: Pretty simple to get in there. So, Premier Crop Systems really allows that farmer to really get the investment that they put into that technology and put it to work. You guys can really work with them to use the existing equipment that they have to their full potential. One of the other things that I had come across when I was reading is it really keeps that farmer from farming on averages. You really come down and do check blocks and break that field out into, I call them, profit zones, but maybe you have a different term. Could you explain what you do when you break a farm down?

DAN FRIEBERG: Yeah, a lot of times that is what we do. We just try to identify, whether it’s management zones. We’re bringing a new version of that, which is performance zones, but it’s really trying to identify like-agronomic environments or unique agronomic environments within fields. It’s very much not treating it all like it’s the same. Tanner, within every field, growers will tell you there’s a sweet spot.

TANNER WINTERHOF: Yeah.

DAN FRIEBERG: Every grower who’s had a yield monitor has seen 80-90 bushel beans. They’ve seen greater than 100 bushel beans, and they just wish they could figure out what it was about that spot that made it so great. And that’s kind of what we try to help them do, identify those really high-yielding sweet spots, and a lot of times those are the ones that will respond the most to additional input investment.

And then, conversely, there are areas that just don’t yield as consistently, and we try to solve the problem of whatever it is. We try to use farm data to help coach them on whatever those areas are. You’re in Huxley, and there’s a lot of potholes. There’s that north-central Iowa area. There are low areas. In wet years, they drown out. In dry years, they’re the highest yielding. They tend to be organic matter rich and nutrient rich because of all the years that they didn’t produce a crop. So, they’ll do great. They’ll do great in a dry year, but a lot of times we don’t invest near as much in inputs in those areas.

TANNER WINTERHOF: Yeah, take advantage of the resources that we have there.

DAN FRIEBERG: Tanner, the time is right, but it is tight on the farm. It’s really difficult to make money. That’s why farm finance and combining agronomics and economics is so important.

TANNER WINTERHOF: Yeah, it is.

DAN FRIEBERG: We have growers who tell us that some of this economic stuff we’re helping them with is what’s helping them convince their lender to give them the full operating line. So, we’re all about helping growers step up their game, and we know how difficult it is on everybody’s part.

TANNER WINTERHOF: It is.

DAN FRIEBERG: You guys don’t remember. I lived through the farm crisis of the 80s, and I was helping growers get financing. It was a dark and ugly time.

TANNER WINTERHOF: One of the things that I’ve noticed in the farm finance industry is that we have had more people utilizing creative financing methods. They are combining the dealer financing on their seed. They are also getting some chem finance through their supplier, rather than getting their full operating through the bank. And part of that is our fault. We do get a little bit more conservative if we don’t have accurate records. So, I could see where Premier Crop Systems is valuable. And the fact that you can show me that, “Hey, we’ve got a plan. If mother nature cooperates halfway, we’re going to be able to put this plan to work and get us at least a crop that we can sell.”

DAN FRIEBERG: You guys know it because you’re interacting with growers. It’s a really high-stress time. When you see the farm suicide rate spiking, it’s reminiscent of just all the stress that’s going on with a lot of operations.

TANNER WINTERHOF: So, have you been advising any of your clients on what to do after the crop insurance adjuster shows up? Are you able to kind of help with a profitability calculation based upon what they’re learning after the derecho?

DAN FRIEBERG: Yeah, I mean it’s going to be difficult, like Corey will tell you. It’s going to be really difficult to get great data when you’re harvesting down corn. It really makes it difficult to have as much confidence in the data. It’s a struggle that way. Tanner, we’re right in the middle of it already because we’re starting to get ready for fall fertilizer prescriptions. If you’re not harvesting a crop, you’ve got nutrients that are in that crop that are going to get returned. So, you’re factoring that into your nutrient investment for next year, and so people are going to spend less on nutrients probably. But you’re trying to make sure you don’t short yourself in an area where you really need fertilizer manure to make it pay. It’s already started.

TANNER WINTERHOF: I’ve already heard guys talking that they might not be able to do as much corn on corn as they wanted to for fear of a volunteer coming up. Yeah, a lot of things are up in the air. I just got off the phone with a commodities broker who stated he’s got clients that just don’t know what to do. They’re in a limbo, waiting for the adjuster to show up, waiting for crops to dry down, waiting to find out what their options are.

DAVID WHITAKER: It’s an emotional roller coaster.

TANNER WINTERHOF: Yeah, any type of advice that they can get from a trusted advisor will go a long way.

DAVID WHITAKER: Yeah, it makes for an interesting year.

TANNER WINTERHOF: Well, Dan, I really thank you for joining us. I’m going to summarize real quick, and then let me know if we missed anything. But we’ve got Dan Frieberg with Premier Crop Systems, helping us out with our “What’s Working in Ag” segment.

The company, started in 1999, enables growers to think deeper and utilize their data to make better agronomic decisions from that detailed data itself. They put the technology investments that you’ve already got on your farm to work for you. They want to make sure that you don’t think about farming on the average. Get down to a profit zone by profit zone analyst and management style, and then make sure that if you have a farm that is set up to where variable rate can pay, that it is not necessarily, Dave, the concept of saving you money. It’s more allocating those resources into a better part of the field that might make you more on the profit side. How did I do, Dan?

DAN FRIEBERG: You did perfect.

RENEE HANSEN: Thanks for listening to the Premier Podcast, where everything agronomic is economic. Please subscribe, rate and review this podcast so we can continue to provide the best precision ag and analytic results for you. And to learn more about farm finance and Premier Crop, visit our blog at premiercrop.com.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Free Resources:

013: Nutrient Planning

anhydrous ammonia

Today we are talking with Dan and Darren about nutrient planning and its importance during this part of the growing season.

If you are enjoying the show, tweet us using #PremierPodcast.

DARREN FEHR: Good morning, Dan. We’ve done a number of these already, so we’re kind of cooking here in this podcast world. I want to talk this morning about nutrient planning. So, let’s start off this morning, Dan, by going through the process that our advisors have undertaken for several years. What is their approach to nutrient planning? You can talk about nitrogen separately from phosphorus potassium, but give our listeners a little bit of an overview of the nutrient planning process.

DAN FRIEBERG: 2021 nutrient planning is one of the first things that’s tackled because a lot of advisors want to get ahead of the curve. They want to be able to have had that planning discussion with growers before they get in the combine. Growers start identifying which fields go into what crop, and then the next piece is usually addressing nutrient planning. There are parts of the Midwest that really have drought. There’s a big chunk that’s also going to have wind damage where they might not harvest a crop. Those are additional considerations, but, for us, nutrient planning, especially in the fall, a lot surrounds phosphorus and potassium, and those are two of the three major nutrients.

Sulfur’s probably the other one that’s really become the fourth major nutrient. Sulfur and nitrogen are mobile nutrients, so there is some fall application in heavier soils. But, certainly, phosphorus and potassium would, a lot of times, be the first nutrients to hit the field. The approach depends on what kind of a crop you’re removing. But, certainly, a big piece of what we do is we use some type of spatial soil sample as one of the foundation pieces. A spatial soil sample can be a grid sample, where the field is divided into smaller sizes, and you have a lot of samples within a field. Two-and-a-half-acre grids are really, really common in a lot of areas.

In other areas, zone sampling might be more common where they divide the field into zones, and those zones could be driven by soils or historic imagery or EC conductivity. But the big thing is, a lot of times, instead of capturing one sample for an entire field, they’re capturing a lot more intense or site-specific samples.

DARREN FEHR: Let’s just start here, when our advisors are working through nutrient planning at this time of year. Pre-harvest, is the removal estimate based on estimated yield? How are we going about creating that first draft, if you will, of the nutrient plan?

DAN FRIEBERG: What feeds the crop is a combination of soil-supplied nutrients. This means there are nutrients in the soil that get released, and there’s fertilizer, or manure-supplied nutrients. So, what we’re trying to do is balance what the soil supplied versus what we supply with either manure or commercial fertilizer. If you think of low-testing areas, they should be more responsive to applied nutrients. This meaning you should get a bigger yield response in a lower-testing area than you do a higher-testing area.

Another piece of what we do is use yield files to actually capture the removals, and sometimes that’s last year’s yield file. It could be two years of yield removal if you’re on a two-year cycle. It could be just one year of yield removal. And for some people, literally, because we’re getting yield faster and faster, it can be this year’s yield file. Meaning, because we’re capturing yields every second, we’re able to calculate the phosphorus and potassium removal off that yield file. So, two of the major pieces would be using some type of spatial soil sample, and then using a yield file to not guess at removals but to calculate actual removals.

DARREN FEHR: I think there are nutrient prescriptions made on many millions of acres here in the Midwest and across Canada. What are some common mistakes that are made, or what are some things that growers should make sure went into their nutrient plan? You mentioned a couple: some type of a grid sample, some kind of a soil measurement to understand where we are, and the other one is attributing a yield file to overlay an understanding of productivity. What else is necessary that growers should ensure that their trusted advisor is including in their nutrient plan?

DAN FRIEBERG: Darren, we spend a lot of time on dividing fields by productivity level. We’re able to define is that there are some areas of the field that just respond to more nutrients. What we tend to do is have a different equation for each productivity area within a field. For some people, they go to the grower with three different equations, and it could be color coded or metal. However they describe them, they go to the grower with three different equations and prices by each equation for nutrients, and they say: “Pick between these three.” We’re like: “No, you can run three or four equations inside a field.” You don’t have to choose aggressive versus conservative for the whole field. You can treat parts of the field really aggressively and parts of the field really conservatively.

This is just all math. Having more complex equations is a big part of what we do. It really goes to just this idea. I mean, if you think about nutrients, in general, across the country and across entire countries, we tend to have recommendations that are a little bit “one size fits all.” What we’re able to prove is that the ideal combination of soil-supplied, which is what we measure through a soil test, and fertilizer, or manure-supplied, changes within field boundaries. It makes sense to us that some areas of the field just respond more to nutrients than other areas of the field, and we want to take advantage of that.

DARREN FEHR: We have talked a lot about agronomy as local in the past. And because we believe that, in site-specific recommendations, paying attention to every field, specifically in every different productivity area inside of every field, it makes it important to create unique prescriptions. And when you talk about equations, they are based on productivity, based on soil analysis, based on removal rates. When you think about the rate of nutrients that should be applied, how do you decide? How do you know if you have enough, too much or too little?

DAN FRIEBERG: For us, it comes back to being able to do trials in growers’ fields. Sometimes I sound like I’m critical of land-grant universities. I’m not. I’m a land-grant university product. Land grants were a big piece of educating and bringing science to agriculture, and they still are. They still have a really key role, but it’s this transformation. Instead of taking research that was done somewhere else, we’re actually able to put replicated trials in growers’ fields.

One of the things we hear all the time is you can’t get more local than my fields. That ability to use analytics to inform our recommendations, and then turn around and put a rate trial in different areas of a grower’s field, is a key piece of our strategy. Doing scientific trials within each part of each grower’s fields is just a big piece of our culture and this idea of continuous improvement.

Darren, you asked me earlier what some of the common mistakes are. In the area of variable-rate nutrient application, the I believe the single biggest mistake is that we’re going to test your field, and then we’re going to make variable-rate applications. And the map that looked like there was so much variation, it’s all going to be one color someday. We’re pulling down the high areas and building up the low areas. Four years from now, your field will all be one color.

The goal of variable-rate nutrient application and why you would do a soil test was never to achieve a part-per-million number. Even though equations use part-per-million soil test values, nobody gets paid by that. The grower doesn’t get paid because they got their phosphate to 30 parts per million or 25 or whatever the number is. The goal never should have been achieving a part-per-million number. The goal is to produce yields as efficiently as possible. In areas where nobody has been doing much sampling, and they’ve been doing uniform applications, we typically find that the lowest fertility areas are actually the highest yielding.

create a nutrient plan

And the reason they’re low fertility is those high-yield areas have mined down the nutrients. The field is treated uniformly. I put the same blend on every acre. I’ve done it for the last 10 years. The point is, you haven’t been removing nutrients as uniformly as you’ve been applying them. Those consistently high-yield areas have pulled down nutrients. The consistently low-yield areas have allowed nutrients to build up in the soil test. You capture that when you soil sample it, and that can be a foundational piece. But, what we also find is that those areas that are consistently higher yielding, it’s hard to keep up with them. The more you apply with certain nutrients, the better the yield.

Our point is never to try to even out the field and make it one color on a soil test map. Ours is all about: how do we generate more dollar return for every dollar we invest within those areas of the field? And if we never catch up soil test-wise, that’s great because if we never catch up, that just means we kept producing better and better yields as efficiently as possible.

DARREN FEHR: Since we started doing enhanced learning blocks…I don’t know, what are we in? Our fourth or fifth year?

DAN FRIEBERG: Yep.

DARREN FEHR: What is the insight that surprised you the most when you looked at how we advanced or accelerated that rate for nitrogen or other nutrients? Especially when you learned how much money we left on the table? Tell me how that journey has been for you.

DAN FRIEBERG: The dollars per acre are way bigger. The dollar per acre returned to the grower is way bigger than I thought. I was obviously a really big advocate that everybody should be using the technology available to do better agronomy. I didn’t realize that the dollar-per-acre swings for the grower were as big as they are. We’re seeing 80 to 100 dollar-an-acre swings by single nutrients. When you realize there are that many dollars in play, it just leads you to want to do it better. We got to get even better at this. We’re just beginning to understand and to tap into what’s possible.

DARREN FEHR: We are also surprised by getting a yield response when we are ultra-aggressive on our rates. We’re still getting a yield response in some areas of the field that are very high-producing areas. We’re constantly surprised at how much yield response we can still get by being ultra-aggressive and applying a very, very high rate.

DAN FRIEBERG: But just think about what you said because it’s really key that everybody understands it. If you do that everywhere, if you take that attitude everywhere, you’re wasting dollars. What we’re talking about is there are areas of fields where everything is working. Everything is working, and those areas just seem to keep climbing, and you see it in trials. You see responses to being even more aggressive. So, it does surprise you.

DARREN FEHR: Okay. Thanks, Dan, for sharing a little bit of your insights today on nutrient planning for any of our listeners that do get a prescription created by their supplier or adviser. And if you want to take that to yield and prove it paid, contact us at www.premiercrop.com. This is kind of what we do. We take a prescription. We take the planning process and prove it out in their analytics, and we’d love to do it for you. So, thanks Dan, and we’ll talk again next week.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Free Resources:

012: Does Grid Soil Sampling Pay?

grower and advisor

Today we are joined by Mike Manning (aka @datamanning on Twitter) and Renee Hansen as they travel through Nebraska, to discuss soil sampling.

Mike is an agronomic information advisor in the state of Nebraska. He’s a western Nebraska farm kid from the panhandle. Mike has been working closely with growers throughout most of Nebraska for the last eight years. He has a wide range of precision and agronomic experience.

If you are enjoying the show, tweet us using #PremierPodcast.

RENEE HANSEN: Welcome to the Premier Podcast. We’re traveling down the road in Nebraska here. I’m sitting here with Mike Manning, @DataManning on Twitter. We went to meet with some growers, and we’re getting to about that season where we can talk about grid soil sampling. So Mike, why don’t you just tell us of the benefits. Does it really pay to grid soil sample?

MIKE MANNING: Absolutely, and it really is the perfect time of the year to be thinking about grid soil sampling. We’re getting ready to put a bow on the crop for 2020. We’re starting to do some of that early harvest prep in Nebraska. We’re also getting finished up with some of our final irrigations in corn. We still have a little ways to go on beans. Now is the time to start thinking about our fall fertility plans.

When I think of fall fertility, I think of grid soil sampling, or minimally, spatial soil sampling a field.  Mainly though, we talk about grid soil sampling. Especially with what we do in Nebraska, and especially under irrigation, we look at a 2.5-acre grid sample. Sometimes at a higher resolution (1.1a, 1.5a), and sometimes at a wider resolution (3.3a, 4.4a). As we drive that combine across the field, we detect yield variability. Regardless of how table-top flat or how uniform a field appears, we don’t have uniform yield. We have yield variability across the field. That same concept applies to the soil fertility underneath the field.

What are our soil test values in the field? And, how do those soil test values change across the field?

RENEE HANSEN: What are you going to use that for, as the soil tests change across the field? How do you map that, and why is that so important?

MIKE MANNING: Bottom line, I really say the fundamental piece of precision ag, is a grid soil sample.  But what do we use that grid sample for? Primary use number one: variable-rate application of our dry fertility products. We think of that as phosphorus, potassium, lime in acidic soils, and potentially some AMS or CalSul, & sulfur-type products if we’re trying to manage or mitigate other field issues. We’re really looking at variable-rate application of your dry fertilizer products. Then identifying where we need more fertility in the field. We also identify the areas where we need less, or perhaps no additional fertility at all in the field. It’s really about reallocating the fertilizer dollar to where it needs to go within the field.

RENEE HANSEN: We were talking to some growers today. Sometimes, they say, that other growers want to cut. They’re so focused on the bottom dollar, or with the markets the way they are today, that they need to cut somewhere. But the growers that we were talking to today, the ones that work with Premier Crop, they’re not focused on cutting on inputs. They think that they know that utilizing this grid sample really helps them build that foundation. So, can you talk a little bit more about building that foundation using the grid soil sample?

MIKE MANNING: You hit on a couple of really good points there. Bottom line, at the end of the day, what matters on the farm is profitability. Every grower in the world wants to produce their crop as efficiently as possible. They also want to spend as little money as possible to do that. But they need to do so without cutting any corners in fertility to produce a good crop. and produce it profitably.  One of the easiest ways to do this is by variable-rate application of your fertility in a good, sound, agronomic manner.

Spatial soil sampling — in particular, grid sampling — has really been around for about 30 years. Early and widespread adoption more so came in the early 2000s period, combined with marrying it up to the yield data.  Early on, and understandably so, a lot of growers that were burned, or had a bad experience with either grid sampling or zone sampling. This was largely due to two false premises.  False premise number one: “the grid sample will show us the field variability and, Mr. Farmer, we’re going to make your field uniform.”

RENEE HANSEN: You and I have talked about that before, too, just how you want to make the field all green, and that’s just not realistic.

MIKE MANNING: That’s not realistic. It’s about identifying and managing where we need to add, where we need to reduce, where do we need to reallocate that fertilizer dollar?

False premise number two“I’m going to save you money by grid sampling.”. We might save some money on our total fertilizer spend with a VR fertilizer spread. Pretty commonly though, we’re spending the same amount of money on fertilizer and, depending on what things we identify in that variability within that sample across that field, we might be spending more money. Again, I would say in the early days of grid sampling, there were guys that got burned on two false premises that were promised to them: “We’re going to make the field uniform”, and “I’m going to save you money.”. Very rarely is that ever the case.

One prominent exception would be acidic soils. From central Nebraska all the way to Indiana and Ohio, all the way across the corn belt, VR lime, 99.9% of the time will pay for that grid sample in year one. Instead of looking at a quarter section or an 80 or a 40 and saying, “I need to go apply two tons of lime because my composite sample says I have a pH problem.”, we can redirect that lime dollar where it is most needed, and hammer the areas that are really in tough shape. If we’re in a high pH situation or have an area of the field that needs no lime, and we go hit it with that area with the same two or three tons per acre, we may actually be hurting ourselves.

We also might not be applying enough lime in the really acidic areas to truly be mitigating the problem.  It’s a win-win. A lot of times we reduce the total tons of lime we need, and there might be hotspots in the field that need six or seven tons of lime, while half of the field, or large areas of the field, might need zero lime whatsoever.

RENEE HANSEN: Just tell me a little bit, does Premier Crop have any skin in the game when it comes to grid soil sampling? Why do we promote it so much?

MIKE MANNING: The primary reason I promote it to my growers — universally, we promote it to our growers, and to our partners within Premier Crop — is because it’s sound agronomics. It is what makes sense to better manage your farm at a spatial level. As the field changes, how are we adjusting our management to account for those changes within the field?

It starts by having good data to make decisions, understanding that field variability exists, and we need to examine that variability. We need to understand that variability before we start to try to manage it or change things. At Premier Crop, we believe management zones make sense. We like to manage by zones.  An advisor or grower may say, “Well, I have management zones. Why don’t we just variable-rate the fertility to those management zones.” I would say at a basic level, that’s an acceptable approach if you can verify that’s the right thing to do.  But this approach doesn’t account for the variability within the management zone.  It’s important to note there is fertility variability within each management zone.

So yes, I may have a 285-bushel yield goal in my A zone, but my soil fertility throughout that A zone is not uniform. And if I’m truly going to variable-rate my fertility to a yield goal, I also need to variable rate to the underlying soil test values within that zone.

In essence, what I am talking about here is we’re variable-rating the variable rate. We are varying our rate to that management zone by yield goal. And, we’re also varying our rate to the soil test variability from the grid soil sample, within that Management Zone (or sometimes a multi-sample zone sample within that zone).

There are a lot of methodologies and philosophies out there about how you go about creating management zones. One historic school of thought might be using the SSURGO maps, your NRCS and SCS soil maps. The soil type lines from the soil surveys. And that can be effective in some geographies. Largely however, in my experience in the state of Nebraska, our soil types are in that field, but those lines do not match up to where those soil type breaks happen.

The key reason for this discrepancy in Nebraska is that we have spent the last 60 years leveling ground so we can irrigate better. We’ve learned from some of our past mistakes. Those soil types exist in that field, but we’ve changed the soil dynamics since it was surveyed. In contrast, and I don’t have a specific example, there are a fair amount of places in Iowa where the soil type lines are darn near to the ‘T’. I’m sure some of my Iowa colleagues would disagree and say, “No, they’re way off on this county and this county.” But I’ve seen maps that match up to the line.

Back from the Nebraska perspective, even where we do have good soil type lines or we have another dataset, such as EM mapping or EC mapping, that maybe confirms those soil type lines, we don’t see a correlation to yield to those soil types.

RENEE HANSEN: Take this all the way from beginning to end. We prefer to have a grid soil sample because it is such deep data. You get so much more information from the field. And then you were talking about how you can variable-rate all of your nutrients. Then, you’re going to also variable-rate your seeding, and then talk about the yield. I mean why are all of those layers so important?

MIKE MANNING: Because yield is not created equally. Our best areas of the field have probably historically been the best areas of the field. Our poorest areas of the field have probably been our poorest areas of the field. That’s how geology created them. That’s how soil formation created them. It’s also influenced by how long a piece of ground has been farmed, and how it’s been managed for the last 50, 100, 200 years, and the practices associated with how you go about your farming.

Tying it all together, again, I strongly encourage every single one of my growers to grid soil sample.  If they’re not grid sampling, it’s not an absolute. You do not have to go do this. But if you really want to start putting the whole puzzle of soil fertility together, and really be able to look at the complexity of agronomy that happens within your fields, and begin to understand how to be more productive, and how to get more out of each field, and how to make each field more profitable, it starts by understanding what’s happening within the field with a grid soil sample.

RENEE HANSEN: I mean, when it comes down to it, a lot of people view Premier Crop as a data company, but we are highly focused on agronomics. You out in the field with your growers are highly focused on agronomics.

MIKE MANNING: Absolutely. It starts with soil. We build a crop from the ground up. We have to take care of the fundamentals, and we have to start with a good soil foundation under our feet to grow a productive crop.

There are a lot of products out there in the market that say “add this”, or “add that”. Don’t get me wrong. There are good products out there. There’s a lot of biologicals coming to the market. Some of those things have shown promise, and there’s definitely been some winners and losers. And I’m sure many of our growers have more than a few stories to share with that.  If we don’t have good fundamental fertility underneath us as that strong foundation, we’re not going to produce a good crop to begin with.  Regardless of what you throw out “on top”, is that additional product “X-Y-Z” supposed to result in “1-2-3”? Without a strong foundation, the “X-Y-Z” product afterwards is really just throwing your money away.

Grid soil sampling the first time can be scary. It can be daunting to some people, depending on change. Change can be difficult. If we’ve been composite sampling fields for years and years, and I’m putting out 100 pounds/acre of MAP and 50 pounds/acre of Potash, and that’s my dry fertility program at a flat rate. It can be eye-opening. It can be jarring, if you go pull a grid sample on that field for the first time because you’ve probably been noticing your yields slowly declining, or perhaps have plateaued, or are not increasing like we’re used to. You can’t quite get a finger on it, and you’re not quite sure what’s going on. In these cases, a lot of times, we’re mining out the best areas of the field. We have not been taking care of that the way we should be (crop nutrient removals).

Grid soil sampling is all about making sense of that.  Reallocate the fertilizer dollar to where it needs to go.  Sometimes this helps you save money. Other times, if a field has been neglected for 30, 40 years, or has just received a minimal flat rate for a really long time, there might be an eye-opening fertilizer bill the first few years.  But it’s something that you can stair-step into. We’re not going to go in and try to fix everything in one shot. Let’s go for a walk first. Let’s work up to a jog, and then we’ll condition for a little bit.  It’s not like trying to roll out of bed in the morning and go do the high jump.

One of the biggest things we say at Premier Crop is “identify limiting factors”. “What’s the number-one item that we need to address?”…when we get those grid sample results.  What are one, two, or maybe three, major things that we really need to start working on and address if we’re talking about a field that’s really out of whack?  The amount of dollars that get left on the table from flat-rate applications can be astronomical. We’re undoubtedly wasting fertilizer on the areas of the field that need little or none, and under-applying the areas that have been mined out.

grid soil sampling to benefit your nutrient foundation

Not necessarily devil’s advocate, but one example you mentioned earlier is “turning that entire map ‘green’ (making fertility uniform across the field). I work with a number of producers that have access to this “green mapmaker,” and that is manure.  Manure is one piece that can sometimes be an objection to grid sampling. “Well, we manure. We have fertility levels through the roof.” That very well may be true. So, I want to offer what I call a few best management practices for manure.

Practice number one: if you have regular access to manure (or you’re a farmer feeder), move your manure around. Your manure has value. It pays to put wheels underneath your manure. Do not hit the home quarter every single time or whatever field is closest to the pen. It pays to spread it around.

Practice number two: Pull a grid sample after we have grown next year’s crop on that field.  Again, if you have been hitting the same field year after year after year, let’s find another home for it. That fertility is going to be through the roof.

For growers that are heavy manure users — whether hog slurries, beef slurries, dried beef scrapings, etc. (each of these manure products has a different consistency, are typically applied at different times of the year, obviously, are applied at different rates, and carry different fertilizer values.). My best management practice for manure users is to pull a grid sample after we have grown next year’s crop on that field.

Say if we’re getting ready for a Fall 2020 manure application with dry beef lot manure in November, 2020, and I go apply 30 tons of manure. We grow a crop on it all of next year (typically corn), and after harvest next year, we go pull a grid sample on that. Naturally, I expect to see a lot of elevated (soil fertility) values in the field when we get the results.  However, you’ll surprise yourself. You will have more holes, and inconsistencies out there than you probably thought.

Typically, we’re looking at 20 or 30 tons to the acre. We’re going to see those phosphorus values go through the roof. We typically pick up a lot of calcium. We pick up a lot of zinc. A pretty good shot of potassium, and hopefully not too many salts in the form of sodium. Say you’re at a 30-parts-per-million phosphorous field average, you might have a lot of values up to 100 parts per million, or  80 – 100 parts per million. But there could be some pretty good spreads between some of those points. You might still have a couple points at 45. You might still have a point down at 25 or 30, and the rest of the field is up at 80.

What guys and gals really need to be mindful of is manure is not a consistent product. Manure is a fantastic product that provides a lot of carbon back to the soil. But, it’s not a guaranteed fertilizer analysis that comes with an “N-P-K” label. Depending on the size of the stockpile, or the size of the barn, or the size of the lagoon you’re pumping out, I encourage you to take multiple manure samples throughout the season. If I’ve got a quarter-mile-long stockpile, I want three or four manure samples — good, consistent manure samples — out of that pile to get an idea of what I’m going to be receiving. Again, the bottom line is manure is not a consistent product.

RENEE HANSEN: It really starts with the foundation. We get started with a grid soil sample so we can ultimately make that crop as most profitable and efficient for the farmer as possible. Thanks for joining us today, Mike, as we’re headed down the road in Nebraska. Thanks for listening to the Premier Podcast, where everything agronomic is economic. Please subscribe, rate and review this podcast so we can continue to provide the best precision ag and analytic results for you.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Free Resources:

011: The Importance of Yield Efficiency

yield efficiency dashboard

Today we are talking with Dan and Renee about the importance of Yield Efficiency in farming. Topics covered include yield efficiency, how this effects output, and related subjects.

About Dan: Founder and current VP of Technical Services. Since founding PCS in 1999, Dan has witnessed many changes and transitions in the ag data industry.

If you are enjoying the show, tweet us using #PremierPodcast.

RENEE HANSEN: All right. Welcome, Dan, to the Premier Podcast. Thank you for joining us today. Today, we’re going to focus on yield efficiency and have you explain to us how important yield efficiency is and why a farmer should be focusing on yield efficiency.

DAN FRIEBERG: In general, people have used yield as a measure of profitability, meaning that, as long as we achieve higher yields, that is our measuring stick for how good we are doing. Across the nation, we keep stair-stepping up, from a yield perspective. But, of course, we know that higher yields come at a cost. They come at a higher cost. What yield efficiency is for us is combining agronomics and economics. It’s just being willing to really put the dollars and cents from the grower’s perspective on the line. So, yield efficiency, the way we’re defining it, is the dollar-per-acre return to land and management. And the reason we exclude land and management is that we want to create a score that growers could anonymously benchmark against other growers in the area.

And when you include land cost, it really can be very distorting. Some people own their own ground, and they don’t necessarily charge themselves an opportunity cost on the land. Others are paying cash rent, and there are all kinds of different land arrangements. Plus, land cost is really personal and private. Taking land out of the equation from an economics perspective, when a grower sees a yield efficiency score, and it’s a dollar-per-acre return to land and management, they instantly are able to take their land cost out of that number and know how much is left for them. A lot of times, the return to management is profit. It’s family living. It’s what’s left over. So, yield efficiency is really, for us, about tying agronomics and economics together.

It’s perfect timing for the market because things are so tight at the farm gate. The economics are really tight. There’s a lot of operations that are struggling to break even, let alone make any money. It’s a great time to focus on not just better agronomics but better economics, as well.

RENEE HANSEN: Yeah, that’s such a great point, Dan, the fact you’re saying to focus on agronomics and economics. How is Premier Crop doing this different with our growers? How are we separating ourselves out from the marketplace? Because there are a lot of red waters out there and competition, so how does Premier Crop do this differently?

Managing on a Spatial Level

DAN FRIEBERG: Renee, it’s just about being real. We’re not just taking the statewide average cost of inputs divided by the yield file. What makes us different is we’re doing this spatially within the field. A lot of our go-to-market involves helping growers manage different parts of their fields differently. When we talk about yield efficiency, we’re talking about keeping track of all the input dollars as they change within the field. So, if you’re variable-rate applying part of your fertilizer, we’re tracking the cost associated with those variable-rate applications. If your variable-rate seeding, we’re tracking the difference in seed cost as you move across the field. With yield efficiency, maybe the best way to talk about it is it’s real.

This is a dollar-per-acre return that is tied to not somebody else’s costs but your actual costs. That’s probably the biggest, that there’s a fair amount of work involved to get there and to really have it be meaningful and right. There’s just a lot of shortcuts that people take. There are other solutions that do this at a field level, and we do that too. So, growers, they get a report card on every field, but what makes it even more unique is we drive it down within fields. It’s within-field measurement. I was doing a grower meeting last winter before COVID, and one of the growers saw me and said: “So, you can actually tell me if I got my management zones right.”

Yield profit by field

And I couldn’t figure out exactly what he meant, but then I finally figured out what he is talking about. What I was showing is we can actually measure yield efficiency down to a management zone. If we’re spending more on inputs in what we think are the best parts of the field, we can show the economic return to spending more. Renee, our company is 22 crop seasons into this. We’re getting ready to head into our 23rd crop season, and I’m convinced that the number-one reason that precision ag, as we talk about it and talk about all the things we do, the reason it’s not bigger is we haven’t consistently proven to the grower that it makes more money. That’s really the missing piece.

Every grower will respond to economics. If they can be assured that every year they will know that everything they are doing and being told to do agronomically actually pays, they would do it. It’s on us to step up our game and to be willing to measure our success, not just by yield but by dollars and cents. Are we able to drive higher returns in how we manage inputs? The big components of yield efficiency are yield times the selling price that the grower gets to set minus what they spent on seed, crop protection, nutrients and field operations. That’s how it’s all calculated, and it just generates a dollar-per-acre return.

Yield Efficiency by management zone

RENEE HANSEN: I’ve been out in the field too, Dan, and growers that have been using Premier Crop for multiple years, let’s say five to 10 years, continue to say that the service that is offered far outweighs the economics. And I think a lot of growers are afraid to jump in because they’re either not variable rate seeding or variable-rating nutrients yet because they haven’t seen the benefits. If they could understand what their yield efficiency can be by utilizing Premier Crop on a per-acre basis, not an average. And those growers continuously say, over and over again, that the money that they’re spending on the service far outweighs what they’re making back in returns.

DAN FRIEBERG: It’s being willing to measure whether what we did worked or not. There’s a lot of people who generate a prescription, but there’s no validation at the end of the day, whether that paid or not, and that’s the difference. Being able to validate whether using a prescription actually delivered more return to the grower, that’s really what this is all about.

RENEE HANSEN: Validating it, and they can compare against others in their region, Dan. So, can you share with us how we benchmark? They benchmark against themselves, but they also can benchmark against others in their region.

See Beyond Your Operation

DAN FRIEBERG: It’s the idea of benchmarking versus peers in your area. The ultimate benchmark is benchmarking in your own operation, so being able to have a handle, just knowing the most profitable parts of each field and how your fields compare to each other. That’s the first starting place. Every grower wants to see beyond their own operation. It just amazes me. They love to be able to compare in a system where quality data is really key. They love to be able to compare how they did and are doing compared to their peers. What you see with the yield efficiency score is, right away, what you see is sometimes the growers that had the highest yields that year didn’t have the highest yield efficiency.

How do you rank in profits as a farmer

And it’s kind of that gut check. When you see that your yield is the highest but your yield efficiency isn’t, that’s kind of a wake up call. And it really creates dialogue, like: “What am I doing? What’s different? For people who are having a higher yield deficiency, what did they do differently?” And that’s really the details and that’s really what makes it fun, having those dialogues and figuring it out. But the first point of it is actually measuring. It’s actually knowing where you’re at. We’ve talked on an earlier podcast about: “You can’t manage what you don’t measure.” Or another way to say it is: “What gets measured gets focus.”

That’s where people focus. If you’re not measuring the dollar, if you’re not measuring everything you’re doing agronomically economically, then you’re not going to focus your attention on it. So, we just believe that it’s time, in this day and age with the technology we have available, it’s time that we deliver analytics to the grower that shows how we’re investing. The only way to drive yield efficiency is you have to figure out where, within every field, to invest and how much to invest in each part of the field. Sometimes, investing in nutrients in some parts of the field is literally a waste of money because that’s not what’s yield limiting. It’s something else.

RENEE HANSEN: And if you can save money in that part of the field, why wouldn’t you? You talked about how critical this market is. Why is it so critical right now? Why is it more critical now than it ever has been in the past to determine yield efficiency?

DAN FRIEBERG: It’s so hard to make money. It is really, really hard to make money. It’s just very difficult right now. It’s difficult, and things are just so tight. Commodity markets have really taken a tumble, and we’re just in a really tight time, so it’s really hard. Renee, in those 23 years, sometimes, I think we actually grow fastest as a company when things are the worst at the farm, when the economics are the worst. And I know that doesn’t make sense to some people, but when it’s so hard to make money, that’s when growers decide: “Okay, I’ve got to do something different. I’ve got to focus on managing in much more detail.” And that’s kind of what we do. We help them plan and, really, we help them spend every input dollar as wisely, within each field, as possible to try to drive higher returns.

RENEE HANSEN: There’s that saying of: “Spend money to make money.” What would you have to say about that and where we are right now?

DAN FRIEBERG: You do. Another way to say it is: “You can’t save your way into prosperity.” That’s really the magic. Sometimes, there are areas where you can save money, and those are really critical. Saving money in those areas makes a lot of sense, but there are other areas where you have to invest, that you have to invest more to make more.

Get Started with Yield Efficiency

RENEE HANSEN: And just be more efficient. And that’s what we’re talking about with yield efficiency. Dan, how does a grower start? How can they get started to determine their yield efficiency?

DAN FRIEBERG: What we do is we lead them through. We try to get accurate yield data, and then it’s about tracking the input cost. If they’re doing any kind of variable-rate activity, we’re looking for those files. We’re looking if they’ve done anything variable rate because we’re trying to track that difference in cost within the field. It’s like: “What did you apply and how much did you spend?” And if that’s variable-rate, that’s great. If it’s just straight-rate, then that’s fine too. That’s a way to get started. It takes yield. We’ve got to know yield and have to know the key input costs.

RENEE HANSEN: Yeah, and this is something that Premier Crop has been working on. You talk about how, when you started Premier Crop, that you were going to focus on costs, as well, but didn’t back then. And now we’re really bringing it back to that and merging the agronomics and economics. Can you talk about the direction where we’re going in the future?

DAN FRIEBERG: You’re exactly right. Premier Crop started with this, and we have customers who have done this for 20 years. We had a slightly different approach then, and we still do it. We can calculate break-even cost per bushel, but break-even cost per bushel includes land and management. Land and management, for a grower to share land and management, it’s really personal. It’s very private, and it doesn’t work where it has issues when it comes to benchmarking. But we can definitely do that. We can go to break-even cost per bushel.

I think yield efficiency, for us, seems like a way to get started, a way for us to get started with growers. The reality is we don’t influence land costs. The places where we spend most of our time are talking about how you manage seed, your seed investment, crop protection, nutrients and operations from a tillage perspective or field. No-till versus strip-till versus conventional or conservation. It’s all those pieces and how they integrate with the crop protection plan and other parts of them.

RENEE HANSEN: Great. Well, thanks for joining us today, Dan. I believe, on the next podcast, we’ll talk more about farm finance and the economics of the situation that we’re in, in this critical market. Is there anything else that you’d like to add in regards to yield efficiency or getting growers on board?

DAN FRIEBERG: When you ask about: “You have to spend money to make money.” In general, there’s a lot of truth behind that. But, sometimes, throwing the kitchen sink, like throwing the kitchen sink at a crop, isn’t always profitable either. It kind of goes to changing the paradigm from high yields. High yields are really critical to remain profitable, but it has to be done efficiently. It has to be done with an eye towards: “How do we generate more return?” Not just the highest yield, but how do we generate more return to every grower’s operation?

RENEE HANSEN: Thanks, Dan. Maybe we’ll get Darren back here. He’s probably working on his golf game right now, so hopefully we’ll get him back on our next podcast. Thanks for listening to the Premier Podcast, where everything agronomic is economic. Please subscribe, rate and review this podcast so we can continue to provide the best precision ag and analytic results for you. And to learn more about Premier Crop, visit premiercrop.com.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Free Resources:

010: Why Creating a Farm Plan Matters

farming on ipad

Today we are talking with Dan and Darren about the Derecho land hurricanes and storms that wrecked havoc on growers and their crops. We also cover why creating a farm plan is important in agronomy with some key take aways for those looking for a planning strategy

About Darren: CEO and President of Premier Crop. Fehr joined Premier Crop in 2018 and has successfully led the company in significant growth over the last two years. His passion for mentoring, leading and growing the business will be instrumental in the future of Premier Crop.

About Dan: Founder and current VP of Technical Services. Since founding PCS in 1999, Dan has witnessed many changes and transitions in the ag data industry.

If you are enjoying the show, tweet us using #PremierPodcast.

DARREN FEHR: On a little more somber note, we’re coming off of a week that has seen some record devastation, some real problems. And first of all, first and foremost, on behalf of Premier Crop and all of us, I’m really, really sorry to see all of our farm friends and family go through this. Our hearts, minds and prayers go out to all those who have had such significant loss. Four dead: three in Iowa, one in Illinois. There were, 200,000 people without power for more than seven days, which is really, really difficult. I’ve heard something like 10 to 15 million acres damaged or written off completely. Some really serious devastation, and, even more than that, we have a grain storage problem with thousands of on-farm storage bins damaged or ruined completely.

So, we have a fairly significant weather issue, and it kind of sets up the topic for today on creating a farm plan. And this is a question that we get often from either prospects or customers: why should I spend so much time planning when I can’t control the weather? Let’s just talk a little bit about that, about what goes into the resulting yield efficiency. How should we think about farm planning in light of the fact that, yes, we do not control the weather and we cannot predict the weather? So, what advice, Dan, do you have for our listeners?

Farm plan to mitigate weather

Creating a Farm Plan

DAN FRIEBERG: Sometimes, it’s best to tell a story or to paint a visual picture in people’s minds. This is one I have used over the years, and, as farm size gets larger, you may need to change the numbers. A lot of times, this is a dialogue with growers, and the question comes up, and what happens is they’re just so frustrated by an event like what happened. You have green snap, you have a wind event, you have hail, you have drought. There’s just this frustration, and I know that’s where it comes from and I understand the helplessness.

I ask farmers and have them paint this picture: in your local area, in your local market, there are 160 acres that are coming up for sale. That’s 160 acres that is really uniform. It’s all one soil type, and it’s been farmed for the last 30 years by the same operator. It’s been rotated as 160 acres for 30 years. In this case, it’s either been corn or soybean. So, it’s coming up for sale, and the auctioneer sells it, initially, as a 160-acre track, but then, sometimes, they will divide the track. They offer it as two 80s, and, sure enough, when they split it up and offer it as two 80s, it goes for a much higher price as two 80s than it did for the 160.

I ask the growers that I’m talking to: how much yield difference, or you could say how much yield efficiency difference, could there be between the two 80s? What I’ve done is I’ve basically said: this is uniform. It’s been farmed the same, and, because it’s a 160 acre field, those two growers are going to experience the exact same weather events. So, I ask them how much yield difference could there be? In the case of corn, it’s a 30 or 40-bushel difference, so think about that. If there could be 30 or 40-bushel differences, you’re talking more than a $150-an-acre swing in yield efficiency.

The whole point of that exercise is, in everybody’s heads, they know that management matters. No matter what the weather, the details that go into farming really do matter. The management decisions that each of those growers makes, that’s where all the profit is. Details matter. Management matters. That’s what we’re all about. Farm planing matters no matter what the situation is.

DARREN FEHR: We’ve seen that time and time again, where our customers are constantly in the top 10 percent of the performance in their counties, for example, where, typically, you’d see some similar climatic conditions. Where management is intensified, or where we get this behavior of professional  farming, you have the ability to make a difference. How do we approach farm planning, knowing that we can’t control the weather? What should we plan for, in terms of environment? If we talk about genetics and environment and management, there’s a management piece as a component, which we do a lot to help with, in terms of managing right-rate technology. But how should we approach weather in terms of: Am I planning for a dry year? Am I planning for a wet year? Am I planning for a 15-year average? What do you say about what should be the lens?

DAN FRIEBERG: So much of planning and, really, so much of the way people farm is about managing risk. A lot of the decisions are risk management. It tends to be very individual. Some people’s tolerance for risk is much greater. And how that plays out agronomically is, if your tolerance for risk is greater, you might be more aggressive in the way you plan and the decisions you make. And if your tolerance for risk is less, that could just be the financial constraints you’re under. When you’re under financial constraints, sometimes, you have to be a little bit more conservative.

For example: hybrid selection. If you’re more conservative, you might deliberately choose hybrids that have a lot of flex. By choosing flex, it allows you to deal with the diversity of weather that you might experience. It would let you plant at a lower population. So, in a dry year, you have a lower population. You’re better able to handle the moisture stress. And in a wet year, you have a little bit more potential for the hybrid to flex versus you know, when you make that choice, you could be choosing to give up the top end. There may be a racehorse that is capable of hitting the very highest yield for your area, and you may have passed on that, but you passed on it because you’re managing risk in a more conservative way versus somebody who’s maybe more aggressive.

DARREN FEHR: I want to dig into soil fertility a little. You’ve been a soil fertility expert for many, many years.

DAN FRIEBERG: I’m kind of more of a practitioner, just somebody that’s had the luxury. I’ve had the luxury of seeing lots and lots of data.

DARREN FEHR: You have had the luxury of experimenting with other people’s farms and seeing terrific results of all experimentation, which is fantastic.

DAN FRIEBERG: It has been fun. That is what’s really fun about all this. You see all this going on in the data, but then you’re able to actually put down a trial or an experiment and follow through and see the results. So, it’s really been fun that way.

How to create a farm plan to help with profitability

DARREN FEHR: Which is such a big reason why we’re so passionate about what we do. It’s because we see the results and the reality of it, but, on a soil fertility level, we’ve seen it time and time again. We’ve gone through weather events, whether it’s drought or flooding, and where we have established really strong long-term soil fertility principles, we have seen it time and time again. Our customers go through that easier or with better performance than others. Why?

DAN FRIEBERG: I think what you’re speaking to is when the weather turns against us, and that could be dry because we’ve got areas that have drier weather. So, when the weather turns against us, I think that’s when the reward for having a farm plan and managed fertility really pays, whatever that weather event is. I think we see more response to having that long-term fertility management in stress years than we do great years. I mean, when everything’s perfect weather-wise, you still see it in data, but I don’t think it’s quite as dramatic as it is in a stress year.

DARREN FEHR: A farm plan is almost like an unseen insurance policy, to some extent. It’s not going to save you, but it’s certainly not going to let you get as severe as others.

DAN FRIEBERG: It is. That’s exactly what it is.

DARREN FEHR: I think that’s the premise of this farm planning piece, that we can’t save our way to prosperity. We know that. This game isn’t about cutting costs. It’s about managing costs. And when we talk about farm planning, we’re talking about managing costs, managing resources in a way that we’re allocating them to the areas that can return the greatest. And we’re managing risk in areas where we know that productivity has historically been low.

DAN FRIEBERG: Sometimes, I get challenged because of what we do, like you’re programming the field on how to behave. You are literally telling the field how to behave. Well, yeah, we’re doing it, but it’s based on data. It’s based on how the field has behaved, and then we constantly challenge ourselves. We put check blocks inside learning blocks inside prescriptions, just constantly to validate if we’re missing something, to make sure we don’t make a mistake in how we program the field.

To me, this weather piece of planning has everything to do with it. There’s a lot of growers who are sitting on a mountain of historic yield data, and they haven’t necessarily used it very effectively. And to me, that’s a great starting place. It’s just a great way to get started and to use your historic yield data, to identify. It’s part of setting realistic yield expectations. Having realistic yield expectations for every part of it. There are areas that people farm that are never going to produce at the highest level. Then, it’s just about managing way more conservatively in those areas.

DARREN FEHR: You made a comment to me several years back: sometimes, it’s not even what you buy. It’s where you put it and how much you put on. I believe that the products that you use matter. I believe that we should plan before we buy.

DAN FRIEBERG: Everything works somewhere. Nothing works everywhere.

DARREN FEHR: Right on.

DAN FRIEBERG: Farmers are just bombarded by all kinds of new products: yield enhancers or efficiency this or that. It’s just constant. It’s microbials and stimulants and seed treatment. They all work in some place. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have found their way to the market, but they don’t work everywhere. I’ll guarantee you that. There’s something else that’s more yield limiting than whatever they’re fixing. So, figuring out what works where and at what rate is just the magic that we’re all chasing.

Pros and Cons to Spatial Farm Planning

DAN FRIEBERG: Darren, there are operations that treat thousands of acres the same. They literally do everything exactly the same on every acre. So, going to a field level is a great start for them. It’s finally starting to acknowledge that there are differences within fields. That’s a great start, but, for us, it’s way deeper than that. Squeezing every possible bushel and dollar out of every acre is just critical. We think where this obviously leads is managing and creating a farm plan within fields, within areas of fields that have dramatically different productivity potential.

DARREN FEHR: Yeah, and just for our listeners’ perspective, we were literally managing every 20 by 30-foot area inside of every field and looking at them uniquely, looking at them as it could be different. And if it is, we would do something different in that small area of that field.

DAN FRIEBERG: It’s all within the equipment restraints. We’re realists. We kind of know the constraints of the equipment as it goes across the field and what it’s capable of executing on.

DARREN FEHR: When we think about applying our right-rate technology to farm planning versus field-level planning, how much money is at stake? Is it worth it? Is the hill worth the climb?

DAN FRIEBERG: It sure is. It’s not hard, in data, to find 100-dollar-an-acre swings. You think about where we’re at today. 100 dollars an acre is just gigantic. It’s easy to find individual decisions that amount to 100-dollar-an-acre swings. There are hundreds of dollars an acre differences.

DARREN FEHR: It’s a huge deal, and farm planning without proving the result doesn’t really do us any good because we can’t really tell how effective our farm plan is. Something that we do very well is prove that the prescription pays or prove that the farm plan pays.

DAN FRIEBERG: Just that constant analyzing what you did, making sure. We analyze, and then we turn that into advice, and that advice could be anything related to how you make management decisions or agronomic decisions. That advice turns into action. The action, many times, is driving differences in how we treat pieces of fields. It’s just a continuous cycle. It’s all about shared learning and continuous improvement.

DARREN FEHR: We’ll keep talking about creating a farm plan and yield efficiency in our upcoming podcasts. Dan, thanks for being here. I hope you have a fantastic birthday. For anybody who wants more information on farm planning and proving your plan pays, you can get a hold of us at www.premiercrop.com. Thanks for being with us today.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Free Resources:

009: On Offense During Farm Planning

farmer and advisor

Today we are talking with Dan and Darren about going on offense during farm planning of each season. Topics covered include ever changing complexities in the field, using data to create a farm plan for planting, and treating different parts of the field differently.

About Darren: CEO and President of Premier Crop. Fehr joined Premier Crop in 2018 and has successfully led the company in significant growth over the last two years. His passion for mentoring, leading and growing the business will be instrumental in the future of Premier Crop.

About Dan: Founder and current VP of Technical Services. Since founding PCS in 1999, Dan has witnessed many changes and transitions in the ag data industry.

If you are enjoying the show, tweet us using #PremierPodcast.

DARREN FEHR: The point is, to be responsible and to plan appropriately, it takes a lot of effort. And I think that’s the theme for this podcast: it isn’t easy to plan ahead for some of these things. For you to be successful, it isn’t easy, and it takes some time. With all that being said, Dan, what are some of the key principles here to plan effectively, prior to purchasing products and prior to getting into the production cycle?

DAN FRIEBERG: Part of what amazes me so much is how much the growers we work with plan. That’s what they do. They plan. There’s an old saying that says you plan your work and then you work your plan. To be successful, it’s all about getting organized ahead of time. For a lot of them, it starts really early. It’s really common.

We are coming up on August of 2020, and, for a lot of growers, that’s when the 2021 plan details really start to take effect. It’s because they can’t do anything else. In August of 2020, in a whole bunch of the market, you can’t do anything to affect the 2020 crop. Any kind of treatment is done. Then they turn their attention to 2021. For a lot of growers, it’s what fields are going to be rotated into what crop. They’re starting to make crop rotation decisions really early the year before.

One of the big benefits of being a great planner is related to buying opportunities. You get out in front of everything, and that sets you up to figure out when to buy what during the year. Of course, the plan is not just what’s going to happen agronomically to set up for the next crop year. It’s also your budget. It’s having placeholders in your cash flow for those buying opportunities.

DARREN FEHR: I had a chance to work with farmers for several years now. I asked every group the same question: do you plan before you buy, or do you buy before you plan? And I would say the overwhelming number bought first because there’s this pressure of getting in early, getting the early program discounts. So, speaking for products and committing to something, and then doing some detailed planning with the products that they purchased.

DAN FRIEBERG: That really happens a lot with seed. Some people think crop protection is like this area that you can’t plan, and that’s just nonsense. It’s really easy to develop a crop protection plan. All you gotta do in August is do some evaluation of what worked and where you have escapes. You can evaluate. 80 to 90 percent of your crop protection could be planned a year ahead of time because you know what weeds escaped. You can plan to tackle them next year, as you go into rotations.

DARREN FEHR: For the likelihood of having new weeds appear, would you say that’s reasonably low? Do you have a pretty good idea of your weed spectrum, your resistance levels, from year to year?

DAN FRIEBERG: Yeah. Growers can definitely get a feel for resistance. Weed resistance doesn’t happen overnight, obviously, so they can get a feel for that really quickly. We went through a decade where we didn’t have weed resistance, and crop protection planning was way easier. It was just: how many ounces of glyphosate are we going to use? Now, it’s really changed, but most of it can be planned. And by having a great plan, that lets you take advantage of prepay opportunities or the right pricing opportunities.

DARREN FEHR: How do you prepare for farm planning? What data is relevant, as you think about planning your next crop year? We’re sitting here, and we’re going to start looking at variable-rate nutrient recommendations in August. What’s the relevant amount of data that I need to start planning?

DAN FRIEBERG: In our case, we manage fields based on different productivity opportunities within the field. We manage how we create zones, where we’re more aggressive or less aggressive, so that’s a component of it. Obviously, some have some kind of a spatial soil sample, where you’re capturing pH changes and organic matter changes. In soil tests, nutrient changes throughout the field is a big piece of it. That’s kind of annual, where a certain percent of the acres are getting re-sampled every year, so that information is constantly being updated. Those are big parts of the nutrient plans.

DARREN FEHR: One of the myths is planning is an event. It happens, and then you’re done, and then you go on to implement. But, Dan, that’s not what I’ve seen from farmers who are effective planners. It is a multistep process. Would you agree, and what would you see as those multiple steps that farmers need to take to plan effectively?

DAN FRIEBERG: Maybe the best way to explain it is to use an example. When you talk about farm planning with growers, one of the things they’ll say is: “It’s all weather dependent, and I can’t plan. Nobody can forecast the weather. Nobody can predict the weather. I can’t plan because I don’t know what the weather is going to be.” And in their defense, it does seem like we are having bigger swings and weather events than we did before. It could be that we are coming into a period with more weather variability.

What I find is that people can plan around weather. With nitrogen management, a lot of these growers plan their nitrogen program to have handoffs during the year. A lot of growers in heavier soils want to do some nitrogen application early because it takes the workload off. Instead of applying nitrogen in the spring, they’re planting. So, they’ll do some nitrogen ahead of time. They’ll do some nitrogen at planting, and the idea of that is to have something immediately available to the young plant. That could be a starter or a weed-and-feed application. They’ll plan a post-emerge application, and that could be anywhere from when the corn is really small to a Y-drop application later. At different places, you’re handing the crop off to different types of nitrogen applications.

We have a partner, Central Advantage in southern Minnesota, that has a program called Nitrate Now that they branded. It’s a planned side dress program, where they’re doing spatial nitrate sampling in not quite 100,000 acres every year. It’s a planned handoff. They basically account for weather. If it’s a great mineralization spring, like this year, where everything warmed up great and we had adequate moisture and everything took off, they probably are saving growers a bundle. There’s probably a lot of planned side dress that didn’t happen because it wasn’t needed. What you don’t want to do is be reactive. There’s a lot of mentality around: “I’m going to take a picture of the field through an image, and I’m going to identify, through the image, the areas that need something.”

DARREN FEHR: Definitely.

DAN FRIEBERG: Well, by the time the crop tells you it needs something, it’s too late. You’ve already lost yield. If an image tells you that the crop is denitrified, it’s not that you shouldn’t address those denitrified areas, but you’ve already lost yield. The idea is to never have the plant have a bad day. That’s what high yields are all about. You just want, from start to finish, to execute this plan where the plant never has a bad day, and that’s how you maximize yield and yield efficiency.

DARREN FEHR: Now, you talk about maximizing yield efficiency. Well, a lot of the farm planning that I’ve seen take place really has an agronomic emphasis. The economics are more difficult. Tell me about how we can effectively plan for yield efficiency.

DAN FRIEBERG: For me, it’s really in the details. These plans that we’re talking about are very detailed, and part of the detail, Darren, is we have to get out of this mindset of treating entire fields as though they’re the same. They’re not. There’s terrific variability within fields. If we’re going to drive higher return to land and management, if we’re going to drive bigger dollar return, it’s all about where we invest and how much we invest in what part of fields and how we treat parts of fields differently and how we treat fields differently from one another. They’re not all the same. Managing that variability is where the big dollar returns come in. We have single decisions that are 100-dollar-an-acre swings, basically 100-dollar-an-acre net swings for growers.

DARREN FEHR: The devil’s in the details. The complexity is: “If I’m going to variable rate my nutrients and my seed, that’s more difficult and adding cost to it is difficult.” But you’re right. Every high-performing grower that we have in yield efficiency does those things extremely well with our team, with our people.

DAN FRIEBERG: The difficulty is that’s what you pay an advisor to do, to make it not difficult, make “complex” easier. You can’t make “complex” simple, but you sure can make it easier. That’s the whole idea, just to make it easier. The outcome, by having a plan, is growers feel more in control. And when you feel more in control, you have more peace of mind.

Right now, the world seems pretty darn out of control. We’re finding out just how much our food production system is a just-in-time delivery system. There’s a lot of just-in-time everything, and that’s all detailed planning and logistics. It’s an amazing system, but, right now, having a better plan in really tight financial times just gives you more control and more peace of mind.

It’s amazing, over the years, how much I’ve witnessed, for example, growers who plan seed around the destination of the grain. Based on where the grain is going to go, they plan what they plant where. For fields that they know are going to be the last to be harvested, they are picking hybrids that have terrific standability and retention, that can stand until very late in the fall. They have fields that are coming out early to fill the grain dryer, to get the grain system going. They’re chasing an early ethanol bid on some fields. Everything is planned for details that are very plannable, but it’s just thinking ahead.

We have growers who plan manure applications two or three years ahead of time. They’ll contract with a turkey litter company way out. It’s their fertility plan. They know, every few years, they’re going to get access to so much litter or so much manure, and they plan that far out. They plan rotations around that. It’s impressive, just that ability to manage details and use your data to drive confident decision making.

DARREN FEHR: As we wrap up here, what historical data is relevant? How do farmers go about starting this plan, and what should they have prepared when we start putting their plan together, prior to harvest?

DAN FRIEBERG: For us, it’s just identifying field boundaries and grabbing anything we can. A lot of growers are sitting on a lot of yield data, historic yield data. We love to grab that because we can put that to use immediately. A lot of growers haven’t really done much with their yield data. They haven’t made a lot of decisions off of it, so they really like the idea of being able to take advantage of some of that data they’ve been collecting. We’re really big on getting a benchmark year started when we get started, so we like to grab the current planting data and applied fertility data. That way, we can establish a baseline year and judge ourselves and mark ourselves by how much we improve yields and yield efficiency.

DARREN FEHR: Yeah, we’re setting up the next podcast to talk about yield efficiency, but I want to make sure that our listeners understand we do this full, end-to-end planning process with growers, prior to them purchasing products and after, if that’s the case. I just want to remind everybody that this is a great time to get started. Make sure you contact us if you want to get involved or get started or have an opinion on our planning process. Dan, thank you again for today for being part of this podcast with me. I hope everybody has a fantastic beginning to July.

DAN FRIEBERG: Awesome, thank you.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Free Resources: