Produce (a lot) More with Less

I spend some of my best work days with growers – encouraging them to use their data to drive better agronomic decisions. Of course, I’m frequently also inviting them to become customers.

Tight economics for most corn and soybean growers has made selling anything more challenging. As tempting as it might be, I never suggest that data-driven decisions will lead to spending less on inputs. In fact, I believe the promise of spending less has hurt “precisions ag” adoption. Variable-rate lime applications might be the lone exception.

Rather than promote the input-savings message, for me, it’s all about investing more wisely within each field and across your operation. Everything you save in one part of a field will likely be spent in another. Every seed saved in the worst part of the farm will be invested in the best part.

The first step in using your data to drive efficiency requires a change in thinking. It requires that you stop pretending all fields are the same. Technology allows us to measure the differences that exist. And variable-rate technology allows us to treat each part of each field differently.

Is it working? Are precision ag tools really allowing us to be more efficient? Is the concept of producing more with less real?


Paul Fixen, senior vice president of the International Plant Nutrition Institute, recently summarized some encouraging evidence, and the answer is “yes.” Fixen writes that in the U.S. in the past 35 years, we have raised corn yields by 70 bushels per acres (70% increase). During the same time period, average nitrogen rates have only increased 6 pounds per acre (5% increase). This is a success story that needs to be told over and over again!

Fixen also cites precision ag’s role in increasing soil testing and notes that “nutrient use has never been as measurement-guided as it is today.”

Premier Crop has many customers who focus on using all their layers of data to drive efficiency in all their corn and soybean production. The table above is an example of data from a grower’s first-year corn acres where the grower split-applied his N and focused on stretching every pound of N while maintaining high yields.

Results like these don’t happen by accident. Achieving higher yields while dramatically lowering pounds of applied N per bushel produced requires using variable-rate technology to execute an integrated and complex agronomy plan each year.

Remember the old days of 1.2 pounds of N per bushel of yield less credits for legumes? Those days are long gone for many of the best operations. We need to tell our story to others – family, friends, urban neighbors, legislators and public policy makers.

Learn more about crop management.

Give Your Data Purpose with a Yield Efficiency Score

As you are gearing up for harvest, there is a nervous excitement. You are about to get your final grade for 2019. How did you do? Did you make money? Did your decisions for the year pay off? These questions may give you pause, how do you measure such a thing? Is it the check that comes in the mail from the elevator? Is it the number that comes across the combine monitor? Is it, if your harvest map is green instead of red?

We help you answer these questions to establish your goals and create strategies to achieve them. Because we know it’s not about the highest yield, it’s really about how you profit. We can show you how profitable you were with our new Yield Efficiency Score metric.

Premier Crop has found a solution to combine all agronomic inputs, operations, yield and cost to determine your Yield Efficiency Score. A Yield Efficiency Score, similar to a credit FICO score, is a single number derived from multiple factors. The purpose of the Yield Efficiency Score is to take all your collected data within each field and use it to determine your per acre return to land and management.

Premier Crop helps you get started with a Yield Efficiency Score. At a minimum, we need yield files, field information (pesticide programs, planting rates, varieties, fertility programs, and input costs) that can be entered or gained from as-applied files from the planter or applicator, and your input costs. You don’t need the most updated equipment to gain efficiency knowledge, you just have to be willing to sit down with your advisor and walk them through your farm plan during the season.

Once a Yield Efficiency Score is calculated you can visually see a benchmarking gauge that allows you to see beyond your own operation.

The Yield Efficiency Scores below are a true sentiment that obtaining the highest yield is not always the highest profit. Notice the image on the right shows that this grower has approx. -41 bu/ac less than the highest yield in the benchmark peer group, yet the image on the left indicates he is nearly the highest profiting.

yield efficiency score can determine corn profits

The same can be done with seed, fertilizer & pesticide products/rates/times, field management, and economics.

As you track your data, year after year we can track how your efficiency gets better over time and how the decisions you make affect your bottom dollar. The longer you are in the program, the more confident your decision making will become. We strive for continuous improvement through shared learning and increased knowledge working along side you.

Yield efficiency is the metric you may not know you are missing, but yield efficiency has the ability to transform the way you view your operation and each individual field. At Premier Crop we know you have different needs and our goal is to help you reach them. If you are interested in getting your Yield Efficiency Score, contact Premier Crop now and an Agronomic Information Advisor will be in touch with you.

Your success is our success, we strive to give your data purpose.

What is Efficiency in Farming?

A quick Google search on the word efficient returns the following definition – achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.  I like to think of efficiency as a ratio, or fraction. Most often the input value of the equation is time or money.  Efficiency is something almost everyone strives for in some aspect of their life. Think about different tasks you try to become more efficient at.

how to measure farm efficiencyHere’s an everyday example of efficiency.  My pickup’s gas tank holds 24 gallons and I can drive about 440 miles on one tank.  My wife’s car has a gas tank capacity of 14 gallons, which gets her almost 480 miles of driving.  One tank of gas in each vehicle results in only 40 miles difference in total output or miles traveled.  However, when calculating efficiency these values equate to her vehicle being roughly twice as efficient as mine.  If the capabilities (towing, hauling, etc.) of our two vehicles were the same it wouldn’t make sense to drive my pickup because the input expense is almost twice as much to return roughly the same output.  This thought process can, and should, be applied to crop production.

tracking farm and yield efficiency for roi

You rarely hear a farmer complain about being too efficient.  However, production efficiency ($/bu.) is often overshadowed by one of its components: output.  In farming output is synonymous with production, or yield. Historically, yield has been the basis for comparing hybrid performance, analyzing other agronomic factors, such as soil tests and application rates… and coffee shop conversations.  Although yield is a critical component, it is only half of the equation when measuring efficiency. We must remember to examine the input side of the equation.

When completed the equation it reads as shown below.

farming production costs and how to reduce efficiency

I don’t know many farmers who are tracking the number of bushels produced per dollar invested.  It isn’t a metric that can be easily related back to operational decision making. Here’s an example calculation: 235 bu/ac ÷ $700/ac = .34 bushels produced per dollar spent.

The result becomes more relevant when you flip the equation.

farming costs determining roi

The measure of efficiency now equates to breakeven cost per bushel ($/bu.), or how many dollars it took to produce one bushel of grain.  Here is an example with the same values from above: $700/ac ÷ 235 bu./ac = $2.98 / bu.

Cost per bushel produced is a metric that is easy to comprehend and is also actionable.  Knowing your breakeven cost per bushel allows you to have greater confidence when making marketing decisions.

It’s important to understand that breakeven $/bu. changes within the field and that there are two ways to improve efficiency, or lower your breakeven $/bu.: 1) Reduce input expense 2) Increase yield.

As a farmer, you’re able to control the input side of the equation, which directly affects output.  To effectively lower your breakeven $/bu. and gain efficiency you must manage your input dollars spatially within fields.  All fields have some degree of agronomic variability – yield, soil fertility, elevation, soil type, etc.

It doesn’t make sense to manage inputs at a flat rate across a field when trying to improve farm efficiency or lower your breakeven $/bu.  For example, uniformly lowering your nitrogen rate across an entire field will reduce your input expense, but will limit your yield potential in ‘high productivity’ areas of the field due to the reduced rate.  Conversely, excess nitrogen applied uniformly across the entire field will be wasted on areas with lower yield potential to begin with, dragging down efficiency.

corn cost per bushelUnderstanding and managing variability within each field is key to improving efficiency (lowering your breakeven $/bu.).  Flat rate additions or reductions in inputs can have a significant impact on efficient production.

People are always looking to improve everyday tasks to make their lives more efficient, it’s important to have that same mindset for farming.  Remember that production (yield) is a key component of the efficiency equation, but knowing what it takes to achieve a specific level of production takes you to the next level of understanding profitability.

In part 2 of this series we’ll show you how to understand your profitability and see where you are leaving money on the table. You’ll learn how to make informed decisions and increase your margin.

farm efficiency

Measure Financial Impacts of Agronomic Decisions

In farming and a pandemic – having the right denominator matters

Almost everything related to the Covid-19 pandemic frustrates me. From the ease at which the rich and famous can get tested while “normal” people are told just to stay home, to the media’s biases from opposite perspectives.

I live in Iowa, and earlier in the week, our governor and the state epidemiologist held a press conference on Covid-19. Part of their messaging was that not everyone that has the Covid-19 symptoms needs to be tested. The state epidemiologist said that 80% of us won’t have severe symptoms from Covid-19 and will recover fine at home.

I understand those messages and know they are being echoed across the country. We have a shortage of test kits, so it makes sense to use them for the most vulnerable cases.

But since our business, Premier Crop, is all about using data to drive decisions, I also understand that having quality data, and in this case, the right denominator matters.

Here is an example of recent Covid-19 analytics for the world.

11,277 deaths (numerator)/258,419 confirmed infections (denominator) = 4.36% world death rate

What if the “Iowa message” on who needs to get tested (for understandable reasons) is being repeated across the US and around the world? What if we are dramatically under counting/testing the infected population?  What if, at the time of that analysis, there were actually one million people with the Covid-19 infection in the world and the death rate is significantly lower?

is there such thing as bad data

I don’t have an “agenda” in the Covid-19 debate, but I get data analytics. How you measure is directly connected to how you manage. Bad data equals bad analytics equals mis-informed and sometimes wrong decisions. The ‘denominator’ matters!

Let me share an ag data analytics example below from one of our dashboards – benchmarking one of a grower’s 58 individual fields vs the entire farm operation. This field’s seed cost per acre (the denominator) was one of their highest at $107.34/ac – their seed costs/acre ranged from $97.48/ac up $112.03/ac. But when evaluated using, what I would argue is the right denominator, seed cost/bushel produced, this field was almost their lowest at $0.47/bu produced.


How many conversations with lenders this winter have ended in frustration because of a one-sized-fits-all per acre spending limit on inputs. I think it’s time that we change how we measure our farming business.  Everything agronomic is economic and we can measure and manage both.

We can help you use your precision ag equipment and your data to stretch your input investments to the maximum in each part of each of your fields.

The pandemic analytics we are seeing every day in the news can have the effect of de-humanizing the sorrow and heartache that families are feeling as they battle illness and sometimes lose loved ones. We are privileged to work with many multi-generational family farms and we know how important that older generation is to the farm and to the family. Stay safe and keep all of your loved ones safe.

You Can’t Manage What You Don’t Measure

“The reality is the definition of success
is different for everyone, but the other reality is,
profitability matters.”
– Darren Fehr


DARREN FEHR:  We come across a lot of people who have a very small or narrow group of metrics that they’re measuring, and, consequently, the question that comes back to us often is: how do I improve my performance? So, let’s start here, Dan. Defining success is a very important first step. How has the definition of success evolved over time with the farmers that you have worked with?

DAN FRIEBERG: In general, growers get that, in order to drive higher profitability, they need to drive higher yields. So, they understand that higher yields are key, and the reason that’s the case is because row-crop farming is a high fixed-cost business. If you think about before you plant a crop, most of your machinery investment is locked in. The fuel and the labor to actually make passes across the field is variable. Obviously, land cost, whether you own it or rent it, is, by far, the biggest fixed cost. There’s a lot of other costs: family living, health insurance and all those things. Whether you produce 100-bushel corn, or 200-bushel corn, or 50-bushel wheat, or 80-bushel wheat, it doesn’t matter. You still have a bunch of fixed costs. Producing more bushels is the only way to drive your cost down. So, yield has become the surrogate for profitability, but we know better. We know that all yield isn’t created equal. It’s really not about yield. It’s about how efficiently we produce yield. It’s how many dollars do we return to land and management.

DARREN FEHR: We started talking about this topic, I don’t know, 18 months ago, 24 months ago. Now, economics is a really big part of the conversation. When people think about how they drive success, what are some of the big barriers to actually uncovering this idea that I know what my profitability is, or my return on investment? This ROI thing gets thrown around really easily, but this isn’t easy to get to. What advice do you have for farmers to really be proactive in getting to understand how much they get back for every dollar they spend?

DAN FRIEBERG: It is really complex. I had a friend, a professor at Iowa State, who said real-world agronomy isn’t rocket science. It’s way more complex than rocket science. His point is we put somebody on the moon with what wouldn’t be the equivalent of a PC now, or a laptop now. He’s basically saying that real-world agronomy is just super complex because it’s this interaction of all these different biological factors, including the weather and soils and fertility and seeds and genetics. If you appreciate that agronomy is incredibly complex, and you add economics to that, then everything agronomic is economic. The reason we make the agronomic decisions we do is because we get that there’s an economic impact to them. When you add all those pieces together, there are lots of complexity to deal with. What we argue is that agronomic-economic complexity is very spatial, meaning it’s changing within fields. There are parts of fields that are just begging to be managed at a higher level. And there are parts of fields that are sending signals, like, you just need to quit wasting money here. You need to change to what is successful in each part of the field.

DARREN FEHR: Dan, as the industry’s evolved, and we’ve got this many billions of dollars of venture capital funding come in towards a variety of different ag tech startups, we have this division happening. We have precision ag that’s more agronomy focused, and we have farm management information systems, which is arguably more economic focused, maybe less agronomic and more economic. Why is there this division happening, where people are having to choose: am I going to focus on subfield agronomy? Or am I going to focus on field-level economics?

DAN FRIEBERG: Of course, our answer is you don’t have to choose. That’s what we’re about. We are all about combining those pieces together. Our solution is not one or the other. It’s both. With Premier, this is 22 years, maybe 23 crop seasons. We’ve been doing this a long time, and I’m convinced that the reason every grower doesn’t do what we do — and this is not just us, this is not just Premier — is the precision. If you put every company that has any kind of a precision ag offering, and that includes a lot of major companies, like really big companies, there’s a whole bunch of offerings. But the reason every grower doesn’t do what we do is we haven’t shown, year after year, that it pays. It’s almost that simple. If we show growers that it pays every year, they’ll do it. There’s always an adoption curve, but, eventually, everybody gets on the bus because it’s just a matter of proving that it pays. And that’s why, for us, this push to tie economics to agronomics is such a big deal. That’s what we’re doing year over year. We’re proving that it pays. If we advocate or advise the grower to spend more money in the best part of the field, at the end of the year, it’s not a “trust me” it works. We’re providing the dollars-and-cents analysis to show that they got a higher return. So, to your ROI message, that’s exactly what we’re doing. A lot of times, they’re spending 30 to 50 dollars an acre more on inputs in the best part of the field, but we’re generating an additional 80-dollar return to land and management beyond that input spend.


DARREN FEHR: You’re saying that there’s that much money left on the table at the end of the day. Once people have an accurate view of precision economics at the subfield level, you’re saying there is that much money left on the table.

DAN FRIEBERG: There is. The more we get people excited about doing this, the more we’re going to be able to stretch those numbers even higher. There is no doubt we need to continue to push higher yields. The times right now demand that you scrutinize every dollar you spend to get the higher return. We used to have a slump in commodity prices, and it begs that we just have to be keen on how we spend every input and every input dollar to get higher returns.

DARREN FEHR: So, in this environment, what we’re facing, with a significant cash issue at the farm gate, this isn’t about cutting costs. This is about managing costs, so that every dollar we spend stretches as far as possible.

DAN FRIEBERG: You may cut costs in some parts of some fields. It would be a false promise to suggest that you’re not going to spend whatever you save, that you’re not going to spend extra in the best part of the field. The point is we have the ability to prove and to deliver a report card on every field that says it paid. It paid better than had we flat-rated it and pretended it was all the same.


DARREN FEHR: So, we started off with how you can’t manage what you don’t measure. Dan, what are the metrics? What should farmers be measuring?

DAN FRIEBERG: Everything. That’s what makes it so complex. We talked about 400 layers of data at a subfield level, and people just think that we’re crazy stupid for handling the complexity of all those data layers, but that’s reality. So, the idea is it’s not one thing that matters. It’s the combination of a whole bunch of things that matter, and it changes. It changes within fields, so what matters is different within different parts of the field. Darren, everybody in the United States can bring in digitized soils. Digitized soils means we get soil type and texture and slope and drainage class and things like that. You can bring in soils layers, which is a great starting place. In our case, we have a lot of spatial soil sampling, meaning zone or grid sampled. Instead of just doing one sample that represents the entire field, you’re capturing differences, which means you’re capturing differences in organic matter and pH and fertility. There could be a couple dozen layers captured that way. We capture as-applied fertility. That’s more complex than people think because there’s a lot of growers that would put nitrogen on five different ways. There would be some with the phosphorus, some weed and feed, some primary N goes on or side dress or manure or starter. We capture rate, source and cost, so those are all sortable data layers that can be analyzed. We get probably 15 layers off the planting file: its population, density, seeds and things like hybrid and variety. There are hundreds of layers that aren’t necessarily captured on a monitor that really matter. Manure would be an example. There’s still a lot of manure applications that really have a huge impact, both agronomically and economically, and they’re not always captured on a monitor. There’s a lot of input capturing the real cost associated with all this, too. It’s just a lot of detail, but that’s what we do because we think that’s what’s most meaningful.

DAN FRIEBERG: Darren, you said that you can’t manage what you don’t measure. That was a Peter Drucker quote. I would recognize the name, but the younger generation doesn’t even recognize Peter Drucker’s name. He’s a management guru, but people have added on to that Drucker statement. One of the add-ons to the Drucker statement is: things you measure tend to improve. So, if you don’t measure it, does it have any chance of improving? It just really goes to being intentional and having a goal. That’s what we do with growers when we’re interacting with growers. Every year, there’s a goal-setting discussion about: how are we going to measure success? With some growers, they want to drive yield efficiency. They want to drive higher returns, so that they can hire some help and their family life can improve. They can have more time with the family because they’re able to afford hired labor. Others want to expand their operation. Everybody’s got slightly different goals, but, usually, it comes down to: they’re business people, and they want to generate more returns or hold their operating capital in check.

DARREN FEHR: The reality is the definition of success is different for everyone, but the other reality is that profitability matters. In having a business, whether it’s farming or anything else, everybody’s trying to make some money. Measuring the right parts to drive operational growth and profitable growth is really important. And what you said earlier about planning, we’re going to talk about that next week: being proactive and offensive in planning versus being reactive and defensive. So, we’re going to talk about trying to stay ahead of the game, trying to plan before you buy, as opposed to buying and then trying to plan where you place the input. Stay tuned for that. Dan, thanks a lot for being with us this morning and talking about how you can’t manage what you don’t measure and driving higher yield efficiency.

Continue to listen 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.

Yield Efficiency as a New Measurement of Profitability

“Yield efficiency is about tying
agronomics and economics together.
It’s perfect timing for the market
because things are so tight at the farm gate.”

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: For years, in general, people have used yield as a measure of profitability, meaning that, as long as we achieved higher yields, that was our measuring stick for how good we were 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 be focused 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?

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 was 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 could be assured that every year they were going to know that everything they were doing and being told to do agronomically actually paid, 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.

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. You hate these times because there are so many growers that really have a lot of financial stress. So, it’s tight anyway, and then you throw horrible weather events in the middle of it, and it just compounds how difficult it is to make money.

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.

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’ve worked on this and talked 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. We actually 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, has seemed 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

Farm Finance Featured on the Farm 4 Profit Podcast

“We have growers who tell us that we’re helping them with their economics, which helps convince their lender to give them the full operating line.”
Dan Frieberg

On this episode of the Premier Podcast, Dan Frieberg interviews the Farm 4 Profit show. Make sure to subscribe to their show at We hope you enjoy the conversation:

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. We’ve got regular hurricanes. We’ve got 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 farming? 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 economics. 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.


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. They have 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.


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.


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.


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 financing industry is that we have had more people utilizing creative financing methods, combining the dealer financing on their seed, 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 or if you want to share anything else. But we’ve got Dan Frieberg with Premier Crop Systems on the phone today, 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 Premier Crop, visit our blog at

Benefits to Using your Yield Monitor

“You’re capable of using your yield monitor to measure,
do trials and check if your plan actually worked.
It’s so much easier than it used to be.” – Dan Frieberg

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, Renee, 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. Renee, 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. They’ve seen those numbers flash on the yield monitor. And, 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, a lot of times, it’s historic yield data, and it’s exactly like you just described. 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, too, that 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 say all the time, if I’m a grower, and I’m 10 years into this yield monitor thing, and 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, like 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. What we find is that the same grower who hasn’t cared about calibrating their yield data, once we start working with them, and they actually start seeing why it matters, then, all of a sudden, they care a lot. And then they calibrate, and then they really do pay attention. Then, Renee, it almost is like the switch goes on, and then 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, and data quality is a big deal to us. 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. It’s different crop protection plans. It’s nutrients. It’s additives. It’s micronutrients. It’s biologicals. It never ends. 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, where 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, a steeper improvement curve. Across U.S. agriculture, we continually step up yields every year, on average, if you do a trend line, which is what economists do: the trend-line yield. There are ups and downs within the trend line, but 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? And really, Renee, 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 all with an eye for what you just said. 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: Renee, I know not everybody is wired the same, but I’m a big “why.” I always want to know “why.” Like when I see differences, I want to know what can explain the differences. For me, that “why” question is not — you can say, well, it’s mother nature, but it’s like, no. No, mother nature affected the entire field the same, but 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

Three Top Examples of Agronomics and Economics with ProTech Partners

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, and 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. I enjoy being outside in my free time. 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, Kimber and I are going to discuss examples of “everything agronomic is economic.” 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 agronomic and economic sense on the farm. 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 “everything agronomic is economic,” in your opinion, when you’re going out and you’re meeting with your growers?



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 because 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, and 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 because, to tie it back to the economics, by lowering our population, we have reduced seed cost, which helps our bottom line.



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?


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.” And 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. You want to see a return on every dollar you spend. But 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 to the 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. I mean, that planting population decides a lot, and you do need to factor in your planting population when you’re determining your nitrogen rates. And I know Dan Frieberg uses this example a lot. 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.




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. So, for the tar spot this year, one of those tougher fields that he has was planted at the end of May, beginning of June. When I did my last fungicide check on it, when I did my last scouting trip, it was the end of July, beginning of August. We didn’t have any disease out there. We, the grower and I, 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. And then, looking at the forecast, it was supposed to be hot and dry, so 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, yeah, the fungicide is good, but we have to also think about what’s best for that farmer and 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?





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. And 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. Because yeah, I can go out and I can tell you: “Yep, you need to plant 35,000 under the pivot, and 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, and 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, as far as the grower responsibilities. 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, but 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 taken and 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. How we do that, it comes down to what the grower wants to know. I’ll look at things — soil fertility — and make sure that we’re doing the right thing with our fertilizer because 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, to prove that I have been doing a good job. And if I haven’t, 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. I mean, the field average was right around a 20,000 planting population. I put some learning blocks in there for checks down to 16,000, but 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.


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, so 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. I mean, go further out west into Nebraska and Kansas, where 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, and 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, but 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. And we also compare the B zones. And then we compare the C zones because we want to do apples-to-apples comparisons. And 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 looking at it, 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. And if they wanted to contact ProTech Partners or yourself for help with answering some of those questions that they might have and get in touch with you, how and where can they 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 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

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

Three ways to Use Data to Be More Profitable

If I asked you if you had a budget, you would most likely tell me you did. If I asked you where you could skim your budget in order to save more for your child’s education, a new truck or a vacation, you most likely wouldn’t know where to start. I know I wouldn’t!

This is really no different than farming. If you don’t have it written out, in detail, with all of your expenses and projected income, would you know where to start to be able to be more profitable?

First, you have to figure out what your profitability is throughout the field.  You can do this by adding up all of your inputs on your field (flat rated & variable rated) and adding those costs appropriately. When I say appropriately, I mean making sure that variable rates are accounted for.

Next, you have your income from your crop to add to the equation. But, your yield map is variable, so your cost of production is variable. See where I’m going with this?

Using your data to create a profitability map, like this one, can identify those areas.

cost per yield map

Think about this number:  If 10% of your fields are losing money and let’s hypothetically say they are losing you an average of $2.00/bushel, that equates to some serious money loss when you scale it across your entire operation!

But, as my brother asked me once about our own family’s field when I showed him our home field’s profitability map, “That’s great, Katie, but what do you do with this map?”  Using the data and the technology that a grower has available to them, that’s when the magic happens.




They don’t all produce the same, so why should they have the same yield goals?


You don’t have to have all the latest and greatest technology. But you can use your data to help you improve your profitability within your operation. Your trusted advisor should be able to help you with this if you are unsure.

If we look at this example, these areas in red only removed off a portion of the nutrients that areas in green did.

premier crop nutrient removal rates


Let’s give a hypothetical example: If we use $310 for the price of MAP and Potash, the difference in dollars removed is $5.20 and $6.30/acre, respectively.  We could use this information to make sure that our nutrient application accounts for these values in order to spend our nutrient dollars efficiently.  We’re all looking for ways to maximize every dollar and ensure that it returns us the most amount of profit.



This requires you to listen to what the data is telling you. Using your data provides you the facts you need to make more profitable decisions.

We were led to believe that the Precision Ag technology could make us money or save us money. However, it’s the DATA that we use in combination with the technology that enables you to be more profitable.

Changing your outcome is only possible when you do things differently than what’s been comfortable. But, just like your own budget, knowing where to change is essential. Your trusted advisor is by your side to help you make these essential decisions and improve your overall farm profitability.