Work smarter, not harder by cutting out bad acreage

My fellow reader; it has been a while, and I apologize that we haven’t seen a Soil Sound Off lately. But as my mother would say “better late than never.” To start the new year, I wanted to begin a discussion that perhaps can be the most important one for a farmer, but the one that is least considered and hardly brought up; cutting out bad acres from your operation.

As shocking and incomprehensible as it may seem, this concept isn’t ludicrous at all. By recognizing the capabilities of specific acres and properly applying best-use land management you can increase the productivity of your farm.

The acres that I am referencing are those that bring unwelcomed yields, poor field conditions and crop damage. These areas are most often on the edges by woods (shading from trees, feeding wildlife, and those black bear ‘romp-arounds’), head lands (severe compaction causing poor development of the crop), “bottom” lands (lower ends of fields with saturated ground that get equipment stuck, can cause poor emergence/development of the crop). These areas might not seem like much but because of their significant impact to yield per acre marks, these little acres add up fast and will reduce your yield average, which cuts into profit/ acre. Nor is it outlandish to count on these acres being present on every field. In my years of field walks, I estimate that at least 5-8% of any given field will have 0-50% yield acres.

I generally do not profess myself a great mathematician, but being that I have had several classes with Mr. Jeff Rosemeyer at Colby High School, I feel confident I can present some numbers to you.

Let’s go through a scenario that I have a 40 acre field that I am going to plant field corn. The field has head lands that are compacted and I have a bottom area that stays pretty wet, and those add up to two acres total. In the first scenario, I plant all 40 acres: 38 acres averages 185 bushels per acre, one acre averages 125 bu, 0.5 acre does 90 bu/a, and 0.5 acre does 0 bu/a. Just considering yield and value of corn (I am going to pick $4.25/bu), this is how it shakes out: the yield average is 180 bu/a at $765.00/a gained.

Next scenario, I take out the acre that did 0-90 bu/a: my yield average goes up to 183.46 bu/a with $780.00/a gained. Now let’s get crazy with the last scenario; I will take out the 2 acres that did 0-125 bu/a: yield average is 185 bu/a and $786.25/a gained. That is +$21.25/a made on two less acres than the first scenario. Now someone has already quickly pointed out that the first scenario would have yielded more grain than the last scenario (7,200 bu vs 7,030 bu). However, what isn’t being penciled in here are the extra inputs spent on the acres that lowered the yield average, especially the half acre that yielded 0 bushels; seed, fertilizer, time in the tractor, potential loss of other logistics (equipment getting stuck, pushing mud back on the field, etc). Everyone’s field costs are different and highly contested so I don’t want to fall into that rabbit hole, but you don’t have to be a Jeff Rosemeyer to see that chasing extra bushels can cost you more. Lastly, these numbers are conservative in nature. Some field systems can have more extremes and have a larger number of lower yielding acres. “Work smarter-not harder” is a common phrase on the farm, particularly these days with tight margins caused by continued high inflation rates and global unrest creating volatile markets. To make every acre work at it’s best, a farmer has to start with recognizing these low yield potential acres followed by effective land management practices.

These best-use practices (as I like to call them) need not be complicated and are practiced in Clark and Marathon counties. Field edge practices like vegetative buffers that can be harvested for forage or grazed, wildlife enhancement areas (prairie), pollinator habitat (real men like butterflies, just admit it), wide-row spaced corn with interseeded cover crop, grass waterways and much more.

All of these come with payments from the USDA/NRCS through an EQIP or CSP program that pays the farmer to not only implement it the first year, but each year they keep the practice in-place. Money aside, this is also a way for the farmer to benefit as a steward of the land; managing the land for their family farm and for our natural resources by reducing soil and nutrient runoff escaping the field.

So while we wait for spring, take advantage and begin planning your next best season.