Strategies to Reduce Crop Production Input Costs

Martin Entz, Jeff Hoeppner, Shauna Humble, Pam Knaggs,
Joanne Thiessen-Martens and Keith Bamford
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2

Introduction

This paper is written from an agronomic, not an economic, perspective. Agronomists can make specific suggestions about how farmers can reduce input costs, however, there is no guarantee that these steps will actually improve net income or reduce income variability (risk). Also, because each farm is different, it is impossible to develop a "one size fits all" approach.

Our research has focused on crop rotations involving perennial and annual forage herbage and seed crops, and relay and double cropping. We have also considered various low input and organic production systems.

Strategies

1. Forages and green manure sweetclover in rotation - The Glenlea rotation study

A long-term crop rotation study was established at the Glenlea research station in the spring of 1992. The objectives of this study are: 1) to compare the biological and economic performance of conventional, low input and organic crop production systems, 2) to monitor the impact of crop rotation and input level on pest population dynamics (annual and perennial weeds, insects and crop diseases), 3) to isolate the contribution of commercial fertilizers and herbicides to the profitability of crop production in different rotations, and 4) using a native tallgrass prairie treatment as a benchmark, to determine the long-term effects of different cropping systems on soil and environmental quality. An additional objective is to develop alternative cropping systems for Manitoba farmers. In this connection, farmer-directed conventional and organic rotations are being investigated as part of the study.

The experimental area covers 24 acres. The factorial experiment has crop rotation as mainplots, and fertilizer and herbicide use as subplots. Individual mainplots are 2 acres in size. Crop rotations under investigation include 1) wheat-pea-wheat-flax, 2) wheat (underseeded to sweet clover)-wheat-flax, 3) wheat- alfalfa (two years)-flax, 4) two "flexible" organic rotations (in cooperation with the Organic Producers of Manitoba), 5) two "flexible" conventional rotation (under the direction of the Domain marketing club, Domain, MB), and 6) a restored native prairie grassland (mixture of indigenous cool and warm season grass species; successfully established in summer of 1993). The three main rotations have different levels of crop inputs (full inputs - herbicides and fertilizers; low input - +herbicide/-fertililzer or -herbicide/+fertilizer; organic - no fertilizer or herbicide inputs). All treatments are replicated three times. Results are shown below:

Flax test crop yield as influenced by crop rotation and fertilizer and herbicide inputs. The rotations include a flax test crop every 4 years. The table below shows the yields of these flax test crops after 4 years (1995) and after 8 years (1999). Flax yields are shown in bushels/acre.

The results show:

With full inputs, rotations containing a sweetclover green manure year produced the highest grain yields in 1999, however no differences among rotations were observed in 1995.

In both low input systems, flax yields were lowest in the annual crop rotation vs the sweetclover and alfalfa-containing rotations.

In both low input systems, the alfalfa-containing rotation performed better than the sweetclover-containing rotation in 1995, but few differences were observed between these two rotations in 1999.

Under organic production conditions, flax in the alfalfa-containing rotation had the highest grain yield, followed by flax in the sweetclover rotation, followed by flax in the annual crop rotation.

In 1999, the yield of flax after alfalfa in the organic system was identical to the yield of flax in the annual rotation with full inputs!

This information shows that by including soil-building crops such as alfalfa and sweetclover, inputs can be reduced without significant yield reductions in some instances. Clearly, an integrated cattle-grain farm would be in the best position to capture these rotational benefits.

Economic analysis of 8 years of the Glenlea Rotation Study The following table shows the cost of production and net income for the 8 years (1992-1999) of rotations 1 and 3 at Glenlea. Costs are in "1996 Canadian dollars" while returns are in 1996 dollars minus 20%. Values are averaged over the 8 year rotation and are shown in mean annual dollars/acre.

Results indicate:

With full inputs, input costs were lower and net returns were higher in the alfalfa-containing vs the annual crop rotation.

In the annual rotation, removing either fertilizers or herbicides did not seriously reduce the net return, but did reduce input costs (equal reduction in input costs).

In the alfalfa-containing rotation, removing inputs increased net return in a number of cases compared with the full inputs treatment.

The organic systems had the lowest cost of production and the highest net returns over the 8 year period in both the annual grain and alfalfa-based rotations.

2. Relay-intercropping legumes with winter cereals - or - Forage benefits without the cattle

Field experiments were established to evaluate different relay/double crop options in 1997/1998, 1998/99 and again in 1999/2000. The 1997 trial was seeded to a spring wheat test crop in 1998, while the 1998 trial was seeded to an oat test crop in 1999. The effects of the legume relay/double crops on weeds, soil water at freeze-up, and test crop yield are shown.

¹ Relay cropped: Red clover and alfalfa seeded into winter wheat in early spring using press drill. Red clover and alfalfa sprayed in early spring and cereal crop direct seeded into killed legume.

² Double cropped: Indian Head lentil and Chickling vetch no-till seeded into winter wheat stubble immediately after winter wheat harvest. These plots were sprayed with a burn-off herbicide treatment in early spring and cereal crop direct seeded into legume residue.

³ Spring wheat used in 1998 and oats used in 1999.

Results of the relay/double cropping research are summarized below:

Results of field observations indicate that the relay/double crops provided significant yield benefits.

Soil water content at freeze-up was consistently lower for red clover than the control plot - 2 to 3 cm drier. Results for chickling vetch and Indian Head lentil were less consistent. Water use by the relay/double crops is desirable in wet areas like the Red River Valley, where too much water is a major problem. In drier areas, farmers may want to consider using these crops only in low areas of the field.

Fewer weeds were present at freeze-up in the relay/double crop treatments compared with the winter wheat stubble treatment.

One important question is "Is there enough heat and water for this system where I farm?". A second aspect of the relay/double cropping project has involved an analysis of heat and water resources available after winter cereal physiological maturity. Thirty-nine years of Environment Canada data were used for the analysis; the work was conducted for sites in Manitoba and elsewhere in western Canada (see table below).

Many areas of southern Manitoba typically have 500 or more growing degree days (GDD) available for growth after winter wheat maturity.

Based our observations of late-season plant growth, a minimum of 400 GDD are necessary to make this system feasible. In Manitoba, the central Interlake area, plus the area north of Riding Mountain National Park will not consistently receive this level of heat.

Because up to 30 mm of soil water are used by the late-seeded legume, a no-till system, where snow harvest is maximized, would be important.

3. Other Options

Here is a list of some other things that are known to reduce input costs

Seed winter instead of spring cereals

Include grain legumes in the rotation - they make their own nitrogen and leave many benefits to the following crop

Fall-seeded (or dormant seeded) oilseed crops can produce a higher yield at the same level of crop input

Use animal manures as a partial replacement for fertilizer

Use some tillage instead of relying exclusively on herbicides

Convert farm to organic production

4. Dare to do things differently

We all get into a rut sometimes, I know I do.

When making decisions about crop inputs, take time to think about whether that expense is really necessary for that particular crop, in that field, in this year. Are you spraying weeds because they are decreasing your yield, or because you can not stand to see some weeds in your field? Can you skip P fertilizer this year? Can you produce your own seed for planting? The table below shows the major crop production steps. Fill in the box on "how I do it now", and think of ways to reduce these costs.

Crop Production Step	How I do it right now?	Options to lower cost
Seeding
Fertilizing
Pest Control
Harvest
Crop Storage
Land Management

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the contribution by Justin Griffith, Ken Honey, Andrew Klassen and Roxanne Sabourin, who conducted some of the relay/double cropping research as part of a University of Manitoba class project. Financial support for this research was provided by the Manitoba Rural Adaptation Council and Manitoba Agriculture and Food (Covering New Ground Program).