Why can’t I access this file?
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
- Your membership has expired.
- The file is restricted to certain users.
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.
This 1,150 acre western Wisconsin farm operates a medium-size beef feedlot and grows in rotation alfalfa, corn silage, and corn grain. The solid beef pen pack manure is farmer applied to corn land. The farm also adds some liquid dairy manure that is custom applied to help meet crop nutrient needs. The remainder of the crop needs are applied in-season.
This farm with multi-year and crop rotation has a dynamic response in cost of practice change and nutrient use efficiency. Looking at corn silage production over three years, on average the farm decreased cost per acre as they transitioned to intermediate 4R practices. As the cost decreased on average, the nitrogen use efficiency and nitrogen balance increased over time. This is happening for two reasons. One, the farm is doing an excellent job of crediting the nitrogen that is accumulated in the soil from the alfalfa portion of the rotation into their nitrogen applications. And two, beef manure is applied pre-plant supplying nitrogen to the early growing crop. These are strong practices for building soil health and organic matter.
The nitrogen balance is always negative with the corn silage years and lower in years where there is more first year corn silage. The rotation to alfalfa and the organic nitrogen from the residual beef manure that remains over time helps meet the nitrogen needs of the corn silage crop.
When the crop rotation is corn grain with alfalfa, the accounting for nitrogen from the alfalfa cost did go up as practices shifted to intermediate, but the lower cost in the first year corn is due to the lower fertilizer application from accounting for the nitrogen from the alfalfa crop.
In 2018, the farm transitioned from applying nitrogen pre-plant to an in-season side dress for nitrogen requirements and added software for managing records and weather impacts on nutrient applications. Through all years, the farm is crediting all nutrient sources and adjusting fertilizer needs based on the nutrient contributions from those sources.
Year | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Crop | Corn Silage | Corn Silage | Corn Silage | Corn Silage |
Cost ($/acre) | $249.10 | $208.03 | $165.80 | $92.70 |
4R Practice Level | Basic | Basic | Intermediate | Intermediate |
Nitrogen Application Rate (lbs/ac) | 89 | 173 | 218 | 95 |
Nitrogen Use Efficiency (lb N applied/bu of corn grain) | 2.9 | 5.2 | 6.6 | 3.8 |
Nitrogen Balance (lb N applied – lb N harvested) | -181.4 | -115 | -69.9 | -123.3 |
Phosphorus Application Rate (lbs/ac) | 60 | 73 | 53 | 40 |
Yield (bu/ac) | 31 | 33 | 33 | 25 |
Year | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Crop (Tons/acre) | Alfalfa Hay | Corn Grain | Corn Grain | Corn Grain |
Cost ($/acre) | $137.86 | $108.55 | $172.53 | $154.21 |
4R Practice Level | Basic | Basic | Intermediate | Intermediate |
Nitrogen Application Rate (lbs/ac) | 15 | 33 | 182 | 179 |
Nitrogen Use Efficiency (lb N applied/bu of corn grain) | 3.33 | 0.20 | 1.01 | 1.19 |
Nitrogen Balance (lb N applied – lb N harvested) | -89 | -93 | 49 | 68 |
Phosphorus Application Rate (lbs/ac) | 30 | 73 | 73 | 60 |
Yield (bu/ac) | 4.5 tons/ac | 170 | 180 | 150 |
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.
This family farm located in central Illinois is managed by multiple generations with a focus on improving soil health. The operation runs a cow-calf beef herd and uses the manure as part of the nutrient management planning. The farm does on-farm research with partners to evaluate practice implementation before adopting farm-wide.
By implementing more advanced 4R practices and cover crops in the strip-till managed corn cost per acre decreased due to lower fertilizer costs associated with variable rate applications and decreased labor and equipment costs for strip till applications of anhydrous ammonia versus full, custom application of anhydrous ammonia.
In the no-till fields, increased cost for cover crops and the change to 2.5-acre grid samples resulted in a slightly higher cost per acre in the year of intermediate practices. However, with further refinement of fertilizer application rates and greater use of variable rate P and K application in the year of advanced practices, costs decreased below that of basic or intermediate practice levels.
Changing from basic to more advanced 4R practices, the farmer decreased cost per acre by $67.71 in the strip-till fields and $40.71 in the no-till fields while also decreasing CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions by a maximum 17.5 percent. Costs were reduced even with the increase in soil sampling density and frequency and with the cost of seed, application, and termination of the cover crop.
2014 – Basic
2016 – Advanced
2018 – Advanced
2014 – Basic
2016 – Advanced
2018 – Advanced
Strip-Till | 2014 | 2016 | 2018 |
---|---|---|---|
4R Practice Level | Basic | Advanced | Advanced |
Nitrogen Application Rate (lbs/ac) | 186 | 216 | 216 |
Nitrogen Use Efficiency (lb N applied/bu corn grain) | 0.98 | 1.01 | 1.06 |
Nitrogen Balance (lb N applied – lb N harvested) | 34.1 | 44.01 | 52.85 |
CO2 Emissions per Bushel | 9.05 | 8.29 | 8.08 |
CO2 Percent Reduction | – | 8.4 | 10.7 |
Yield | 189 | 214 | 203 |
No-Till | 2014 | 2016 | 2018 |
---|---|---|---|
4R Practice Level | Basic | Advanced | Advanced |
Nitrogen Application Rate (lbs/ac) | 186 | 144 | 140 |
Nitrogen Use Efficiency (lb N applied/ bu corn grain) | 0.78` | 0.67 | 0.69 |
Nitrogen Balance (lb N applied – lb N harvested) | -4.48 | 44.01 | -23.8 |
CO2 Emissions per Bushel | 7.21 | 6.17 | 5.95 |
CO2 Percent Reduction | – | 14.4 | 17.5 |
Yield | 237 | 216 | 203 |
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.