Details

November 17th, 2020

Be sure to check out more plot results at http://www.proharvestseeds.com/products/plot-data

Details

April 2nd, 2020

Here’s to hoping that Spring 2020 is better than last year. However, this is a good lesson to know for the future. Keep this in mind the next time you are having to “down-shift” your hybrids due to a late Spring!  

Details

February 25th, 2015

Big argument for growers as the 2015 growing season begins to unfold. An article from the University of Wisconsin, "Do we Grow Another Bushel or Save A Buck?" outlines some of the most important management decisions that growers face in the 2015 season.  The big problem for 2015 is the expected decreased price of corn commodities. Because 2014 was a huge crop year, growers face either growing more corn to earn the same amount of money or cutting costs to help raise the ROI on growing less corn.

In a candid interview with Sean Jordal, we look at what is happening within the industry and at several options open to growers. While the University of Wisconsin article opens up the discussion of what to do, Sean's interpretation of the market adds value. 

If 2015 is to be such a bad year for corn prices, what options are open to growers?

Sean: Currently growers, faced with lower commodity prices can consider two potential actions. One is to spend more to grow more while looking at ways to save money by cutting grower inputs. The other is to grow less and save money while looking at savings as a way to remain prosperous. Saving themselves into prosperity is an option that has never worked. That leaves the first option of growing great crops. However, with lower prices and the historical free spending by growers over the last several years, the end profit is skimpy. 

It sounds as if there no real options open to growers unless the commodity prices rise. 

Sean: The real issue is not specifically the commodity prices, even though that seems like the most likely problem. The problem has been the increasing cost of growing a large yield crop of corn. Those costs come from the higher cost of GMO seed and the costs associated with crop maintenance, such as fungicide, and weed abatement. When you consider those aspects, then other options open up for growers. The consideration of reducing the cost of operations by reverting back to non-GMO seed or seed that has lesser trait and, therefore, costs less. Another option is to switch crops. Growing less corn and more soybean crops is another option for growers. However, that does not address all of the inputs that growers need to address. The biggest input is soil bank fertility.  

So because 2014 was such a large crop, commodity prices have fallen and growers are left in a precarious position of having to replace soil fertility at a time when they need to grow more crops to maintain past profit margins? 

Sean: From a nitrogen, phosphate, and potash perspective, the larger crop in 2014 has created a fertility deficit that growers need to overcome before they see profits in 2015. That is not part of the problem that growers face in 2015. Just to plant a crop means that the cost of that crop will be higher in 2015, and the higher cost of growing becomes coupled with a year of lower prices. In the middle is profits, and those profits are squeezed into a thin line. That is the problem that growers face. It is not just lower commodity prices, but the increase in cost of inputs just to get a crop in the ground. The higher crop prices in 2014, coupled with the loss of soil fertility, leaves growers in a situation where they must spend more to simply grow a crop in 2015.  

It sounds as if simply cutting inputs is not going to be enough? 

Sean: Cutting inputs is not going to be enough because inputs do not replenish soil fertility to the point where crop expectations are met. What this means is that as a grower, you can opt for a cheaper seed, but if you have not replenished soil fertility, then your cheaper seed is likely going to under perform, and that affects yield. Where does that leave growers at the end of 2015? In short, it leaves them in the position of spending more money to grow less yield. There is less profit in that. 

Are their other options that mainstream growers have not considered? 

Sean: The article from the University of Wisconsin does an excellent job of explaining the economics that growers face. The current situation forces growers to return to a more fundamental method of growing crops. A keyword from the article is “frugal innovation” and for growers that means finding ways to increase soil fertility without dumping a ton of money into the solution. The bottom line is that the more money you throw at this problem, the less profit you will grow in 2015. 

Resources: Read the Full University of Wisconsin Article, Do We Grow Another Bushel or Save a Buck? 

Details

October 9th, 2013

As we are in full harvest mode in the Midwest, I am amazed at the yields that are coming out of these fields with so little rain late in the season.  I truly believe the reason for the better than expected yields this year is outstanding genetics.  Each year our genetic advancement improves quantitatively.  Better traits and treatments are extremely important but the factor that trumps everything is genetics. 

This thought was verified when I was talking to my good friend, Dave Mowers, consulting agronomist for AIM for the Heartland, Inc.   I asked him what are the major factors that affected corn yields this year and here was his response:

“I would say that the three major factors are: Genetics, Nitrogen Management and Soil Management. I believe those three factors affect 95% of the yield outcome. I realize that some yield increases are attributed to weed, insect and disease control. Further increases in yield can be attributed to fertility management, crop rotation, tillage and population. But I contend that the largest yield increases come from the first three factors.

Genetics are the single most important consideration in increasing yields. It appears that the biggest benefactor of improved genetics is the more marginal soils because we are seeing even greater percentage increases of yields on the marginal soils. Nevertheless, genetics appear to be the biggest contributor to improved yields.

Nitrogen Management is another important factor in increased yields. It is not how much Nitrogen is needed, but it is the placement and timing of Nitrogen applications that are making the biggest differences.

Soil Management covers a wide array of components. The most important is drainage. Then compaction needs high consideration. Better aeration, water holding capacity, and soil tilth are results of both drainage and compaction improvements.”

Each year we at ProHarvest are committed to providing the very best genetics to our customers so that, when the combines roll through the fields, you will know we have been with you all the way.

Details

May 30th, 2013

“Wow” it is wet. It is amazing how this has been going on all spring for many farmers, but it is still the number one conversation topic. I am providing a link that Ryan Bell (our Seed Specialist in Covington Indiana) forwarded around earlier this month. The article was written the beginning of May, but it is still very relevant at this time. Be sure to read this article before you switch maturities and risk giving up yield. Every circumstance has its own little twist, but in general it can cost you more yield/profit switching later in the season than it does during normal planting dates.

http://ipm.missouri.edu/IPCM/2013/5/Corn-Maturity-Ratings-and-Delayed-Planting/

If anyone has good information that supports or challenges this, I would like to receive the feedback.