8/4/2019 CQ Perspectives Jul 2009

1/4

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF CROP QUEST AGRONOMIC SERVICES, INC

C r o p Q u e s t P e r s p e c t i v e s

Volume 19 Issue 4 July 2009

With over 34 millionacres of land scheduled

to come out the FederalCrop Conservation Reserve

Program in the next few years,farmers will be faced with some

cropping opportunities, but somechallenging hurdles to overcome in bringing

this land back into production.Nearly a quarter of all the CRP land is in the Northern Plains Re-

gion, which includes Kansas and Nebraska. Growers in Kansas, in

particular, face some interesting challenges in bringing thousands ofacres of farmland back into production in 2010 and 2011, accordingto Kansas State Extension Agronomist Jim Shroyer.

Kansas alone had over 1.5 million acres of land come out of theCRP in 2007 much of that land is now coming back into produc-tion. With about the same amount of land scheduled to come outof CRP in 2008 and 2009, farmers have an opportunity to bringthis land back into production, if they can efciently manage suchissues as: what crop to grow, how to grow it, and how to protect it.

CRP land in most of the High Plains consists of primarily nativewarm-season grasses and other native plants. The transition to crop-land is not an easy one, but producers can benet signicantly fromthe trained agronomists and Precision Ag specialists at Crop Quest.

Using CRP land for other sources such as hay crops, nativegrasses for cover crops or cellulosic ethanol is not an easy manage-ment process either. One of the rst decisions growers will have tomake is whether to go no-till or use conventional tillage. Both havesome inherent weaknesses and strengths.

If growers choose conventional tillage, they will be able to moreaggressively work the land and will be able to bring land back intofuller production earlier. However, they will also lose much of thebenet built up over the years in the CRP.

Much of this land went into the CRP to help alleviate erosionproblems. Going back to conventional tillage will break up the soilaggregates built up during years in the CRP and will open the landup to the same type erosion problems that occurred before it went tothe CRP.

Producers who choose conventional tillage should plan on mak-ing several trips across the eld the rst year to control the exist-

ing perennial vegetation and smooth out the soil. In many cases,nding conventional tillage equipment capable of deep tilling thesoil may be problematic because many farmers have adopted no-tiland/or minimal tillage practices and may have disposed of theirdeep tillage equipment.

For no-till, soil structure and decreased erosion potential will bepreserved, but weed control, along with the terrain of the land, maybe more problematic. With no-till, seed slot closure will be difculon CRP ground.

The continued development of glyphosate resistant weeds inmuch of the Crop Quest coverage area creates another distinct

problem for growers who plan to bring CRP land back into cropproduction.Native plants common to CRP land are difcult to manage and

often require multiple applications of herbicides. These perenni-als usually re-grow at some point, and will require an additionaltreatment. Realistically, producers should not anticipate planting acrop into the CRP ground the same year that the vegetation is rstsprayed with a herbicide.

Kansas State University Weed Specialist CurtisThompson says multiple applications of aglyphosate with 2,4-D/dicamba tank-mixare the most cost-effective ways to controlboth the broadleaf and grass plants.

Perennial grasses may be a problemon land coming out of the CRP for at

least two years after the initial herbi-cide treatment. Growers will have tobe persistent in applying herbicidesover the next few years.

If a Roundup Ready crop such ascorn or soybeans is planted into theCRP ground, glyphosate can be ap-plied multiple times in-crop. Producersshould plan on putting a full-labeled rateof a preemergence herbicide down beforeplanting the crop.

KSUs Thompson says, Producers cannotcut corners on herbicidal control with these peren

PUTTING CRP LANDBACK INTO PRODUCTION

CREATES MANYCHALLENGES FOR

GROWERS

Continued on Page 2

8/4/2019 CQ Perspectives Jul 2009

2/4C r o p Q u e s t P e r s p e c t i v e s w w w . c r o p q u e s t . c o

Putting Crop Land Back Into Production ... Continued from Page 1

With technology being incorporated into

daily farm activities, Crop Quest wants toensure you are aware of the availability of

electronic eld reports. You can haveyour eld reports e-mailed to yourpersonal computer for electronic

storage and archiving.The vast majority of our Agronomists generate eld reports via

their laptop computers while in the eld. Many will then delivera hard copy of the report to you. This report is saved as a .pdf leon the laptops and can easily be e-mailed to you. Acrobat Reader(a free software) will be required on your computer in order toopen and read the reports.

More and more of our customers are requesting their eldreports to be e-mailed to their homes. Some are asking us to

exclusively e-mail the reports and not to deliver a hard copy

others prefer both an electronic and a hard copy. We want tyou be as efcient as possible and will customize ourdelivery method to best suiteyour operational goals.

If you are interested inreceiving eld reports viae-mail, please provide yourCrop Quest Agronomistwith your e-mail address.We appreciate yourbusiness!

Electronic Field ReportsFrom Crop Quest, Inc.

Dwight Koops

nials, or successful weed control will not be achieved. Balanc-ing adequate weed control on CRP land being converted

to cropland will probably best be accomplished usingprofessional agronomic advice.

Fertility will be an issue on much of the CRPland, if it is going into crop production. There

will be a lot of dead plant material in theeld that will bind up available nitrogen

as it decomposes. If wheat, corn, or grainsorghum is the rst crop planted into theCRP ground, the producer should applysufcient nitrogen to compensate forthe tie up.

Growers planning on putting land backinto production for a 2010 crop shouldhave soil tests done at least seven monthsprior to planting. Grid or zone sampling,as is done routinely by Crop Quest agron-omists, is the best bet to optimize fertilizer

recommendations.

ROW CROP OPTIONSWhere rainfall is more abundant, corn may

be the recommended crop because of betterweed control options, but water demands, fertil-

izer costs and a host of other criteria should be con-

sidered before selecting a crop to go onto CRP land.For example, high N costs going into the 2010 sea-

son may push growers to plant more soybeans on CRP landbecause of the nitrogen xing capability of beans and subsequently

lower N requirements.If soybeans are suitable to CRP land, in addition to inoculating

the beans, growers should still plan on putting 20-30 pounds of N peracre, ideally applied to the side of rows and in a band. Typically CRPland may need 30 pounds or so of phosphorus fertilizer. This deci-sion can best be made with soil testing and the advice of a qualiedagronomist.

Wheat is an option for some CRP land coming back into produc-tion. Because wheat is predominantly a cool season crop, plantingit makes sense as it will allow the CRP land more time to recover.

Killing perennial grasses in the fallow period before going to a rowcrop may be the best row crop option, especially on some of the morefragile land in the program.

Jim Shroyer, Kansas State University agronomist, says grow-ers bringing CRP land back into production should remember that

Federal crop insurance policies require the acreage must have beplanted and harvested in at least one of the three previous crop yunless such acreage was left unplanted in order to comply with aother USDA program. Therefore, acreage coming out of a Consetion Reserve Program (CRP) contract would be insurable.

WILDLIFE HABITATThe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Farm Se

Agency (FSA) have recently approved an additional 45 wildlife-cic conservation projects on more than 250,000 acres under theState Acres For Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) practice in the Fa

Bills Conservation Reserve Program.Although SAFE offers very attractive incentives for agricultuproducers to enroll cropland, CRP rental payments just cant comwith current crop prices. Crop prices will have to drop signicanbefore SAFE and other CRP practices can achieve their potentia

GRASSES FOR CELLULOSIC ETHANOLGrasses grown for cellulosic production of ethanol are anothe

option for growers with land coming out of the CRP program.Switchgrass, in particular, has been cited as a possible replacemefor much of the corn currently used for ethanol. However, there some inherent problems both with switchgrass and the conversioCRP land to grass crops.

USDA-ARS Researcher Harold Collins says, Only about 20lion of 37 million acres currently enrolled in CRP could be avail

for conversion to cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass, and 17 miof those acres are in ve states in Midwest and the High Plains oTexas.

HAY/NATIVE GRASSES FOR GRAZINGGetting CRP ready to graze will probably require fencing and

water development both of which will require making well thoout management decisions, best made with the help of a trainedagronomist. One such decision will be whether to fence off CRPthat is adjacent to native rangeland.

Most CRP stands coming off contract have weak plants with growth vigor due to years of non-use. Typically, this land is not icondition for full grazing pressure and a management strategy coing two to four years may be necessary to condition the plants to

Multiple strategies are available to growers who have acres bereleased from the CRP program. Choosing the right options andimplementing these plans will be difcult at best, but qualied CQuest agronomists are ready to assist in bringing the CRP land bto its full potential.

8/4/2019 CQ Perspectives Jul 2009

3/4C r o p Q u e s t P e r s p e c t i v e s

At a recent water, land, and energy sustainability conference aspeaker cited that irrigated farms make up about 15-20% of the totalcultivated land within the United States, but production from theseirrigated acres amounts to almost 50% of the total farm production.Irrigation is particularly critical in the arid west in places like the FrontRange of Northern Colorado where the average annual rainfall isaround 12 to 14 inches. Without irrigation water, the agricultural pro-ductivity of the Front Range would be limited to 25-35 bu/ac drylandwheat yields, every other year.

In the hub of the Front Range of Colorado is Weld County whichranks 8th in total agricultural production in the nation. Productionconsists of a wide variety of crops such as grain and silage corn, sugarbeets, dry beans, wheat and barley for feed and brewing, and a vast

array of produce from onions and spinach to sweet cornand potatoes. The arid climate is ideal for vegetableproduction keeping diseases to a minimum. Dairies andfeedlots within the area are important clients for alfalfaand feed grain producers. Although Weld County rankshigh in economic benet from agriculture, only a mere15% of the total gross income within the county comefrom agriculture. In eastern Colorado, total income from

agriculture is closer to 60%.Irrigated farming began on the Front Range in

the mid-1800s. Gold and Silver discover-ies, the Homestead Act of 1862 and theend of the Civil War encouraged pioneers

to the new frontiers. They soon discoveredthe need for irrigation water and by 1859 water use rights were estab-lished on the South Platte River and its tributaries. The Right of PriorAppropriation was included within the Colorado State Constitutionin 1876 allowing rst in time (or use) was rst in line when it cameto dividing up the waters of the state. This water law has been copiedmany times in other states where water is limited and precious.

Today, there are over 50,000 different water rights led in Coloradofor the South Platte drainage system alone. Water rights are issuedas either CFS (cubic feet/sec) or specic acre-feet of water, like 100ac-ft, rather than a ow rate. The water rights are issued by the lingdate and amount of benecial use. For example, the rst right wasissued on 10/01/1859 for water from the Lower Boulder Creek for24.9 CFS year around. All other rights are junior to the rst right.Therefore, if there is only 20 CFS in the river, the rst right gets allthe water.

The Rocky Mountains provide the irrigation water on the FrontRange, but they are also responsible for the east side of the Conti-nental Divide being dry. As storms move from west to east, they gebacked up against the 12,000-14,000 foot mountains and lose mostof the moisture on the west side. 75% of the moisture lands on thewestern slope of the Rockies; only 25% lands on the east. Due to tfact that 80% of Colorados population lives on the eastern slope, theare many thirsty competitors for Colorados irrigation waters. To methe water demands of the growing urban areas, the rst trans-mountwater diversion was built through the Moffat tunnel to divert west slowater to the Front Range cities in the early 1900s. Many such diver-sions have been built since then, usually with urban areas and irrigatfarmers working together to make them happen.

Another issue both cities and farmers recognized was stream owwhen using mountain water. Colorados mountains are the starting pfor several major river systems such as the Colorado River, the PlattRiver and the Arkansas River. Winter snowpack is the source, and easettlers soon found the need for storage reservoirs. The peak stream for many mountain-fed rivers lasted only two months at best. The reof the time, these rivers were little more than creeks or drainage wwhen compared to river systems further east where it rains more. Wiout these reservoirs built by farmers and cities in the early 1900s, moof Colorados rivers would be almost completely dry several monthseach year. Today, over 2000 manmade reservoirs and 1900 natural lastore precious water for the drier months of the year.

A large component of irrigated farming on the Front Range is oor row crop surface irrigation. The long history of the canal systemwhich use raw water often with sediment load, has made adoption a more efcient center pivot or drip system irrigation very slow. cause much of the ground is still ood irrigated, the increase of sor minimum tillage seen elsewhere in the country is limited.

During the drought of the 1930s and during the last major drouin the 1950s, irrigated producers were encouraged to drill wells.They began pumping contributory alliuvial waters to fulll irrigarequirements for many farms closest to the rivers. This was meana stop gap during an extreme time, but these junior rights irrigatwere allowed to continue. There was lots of extra water then so none worried about future water issues. Cities pushed to obtain senwater rights over the years, and some well water irrigators sold thsurface senior rights thinking they were not needed anymore. Thein 2002, these junior rights well-water irrigators were challenged

Member, National Allianceof Independent Crop

Consultants, CPCC-ICertied

By: Ron OHanlonPresident

Determining the value of products and services is not alwayst and dried. Using a reputable professional agronomic service,ch as Crop Quest, usually pays dividends when tough decisionsed to be made. For example, it is an easy decision to recommendatment for a pest problem, but that decision may not be the most

onomical solution to the problem.Over the past few years, the use of fungicides on wheat has be-me a very common practice due to disease pressure, the price ofheat and the lower cost of chemicals. However, this year presentedreater challenge in determining an economical decision on the

e of fungicides. There was tremendous pressure promoting theed to use fungicides even when there were no diseases present.e disease pressure was slow to build and the environmental con-ions were not conducive to their development.This was one of those years when each individual eld needed toevaluated to determine potential yield, over-wintering condition,riety, end-use (such as for seed wheat) and whether the eld wasured with revenue crop insurance.

The majority of the wheat eldsthroughout Kansas and Oklahoma didnot have sufcient disease pressure orlacked the yield potential to justify thecost of a fungicide application. Manyelds not under Crop Quest care weretreated. Crop Quest agronomists didrecommend treatment where it wasjustiable. After evaluating elds wherethe heads were lled, we found disease pres-sures still relatively low. Therefore, the returnon investment of fungicide treatments for theseelds would not have been in the producers favor.

As our mission statement reads, The quest of our network ofprofessionals is to practice integrity and innovation to ensure ouservices are economically and environmentally sound. This is opledge to you as our client.

COLORADO TACKLES CHALLENGING WATER ISSUES

Continued on Page 4

Kent Davis

Economic Value Of AProfessional Agronomist

COLORADO TACKLES CHALLENGING WATER ISSUES

8/4/2019 CQ Perspectives Jul 2009

4/4

Mission StatementCrop Quest is an employee-owned company dedicated to providing the highest quality agricultural services for each customer. The quest of our network

professionals is to practice integrity and innovation to ensure our services are economically and environmentally sound.

PRSRT STD

US POSTAGE

PAID

DODGE CITY K

PERMIT NO. 43

Employee-Owned & Customer DrivenCrop Quest Agronomic Services, Inc.

Main Ofce: Phone 620.225.2233

Fax 620.225.3199

Internet: www.cropquest.com

cqofce@cropquest.com

Crop Quest Board of Directors President: Ron OHanlon

Director: Jim Gleason

Director: Dwight Koops

Director: Cort Minor

Director: Chris McInteer

Director: Rob Benyshek

court. Cities and others with senior rights objected to their pumpingstating this pumping was lowering ow rates of the rivers, hence reduc -ing senior rights. This caused severely limited pumping except whereproducers had obtained augmentation exchanges. Additionally, cities havepushed to obtain water rights outside of their normal drainage zones sincethey expand concentrically from their core. Much of this ground had notbeen irrigated and therefore had no water rights with it. But, homes musthave water, and generally developers must obtain 1 acre-feet per 1 or 2households. A typical Colorado towns water use is described in the graph

below. The bellshaped curve isthe water use ofthe lawns of thisparticular com-munity during thesummer. Farmersare competingwith turf grass forwater usage.

Before the drought years, the farmers and cities had a close workrelationship. When supplies were tight, the cities would tighten resttions on lawn irrigation, promote xeriscaping and be able to lease soexcess water to the farmers to help them make the crop. Some sittions allowed for farmers to lease waters to the cities at a rate wherefarmer could stave off problems, and the cities could pass the extra to the consumers. In 1980 a farmer could buy or sell Big T project wfor around $1,500/ac-ft unit; today, that same unit price is about $15Farmers could typically lease excess water from cities for $15-25/afeet, but that is very limited today. Cities often wait until late in the to decide on leasing as they do not want to get caught short.

The increasing population in the Front Range continues to bringchallenges concerning water usage and appropriation. Its said theSouth Platte River was over-appropriated by 1910. Many a gunst ght or court ght over the last 150 years has been fought overwater; hence came the saying you can steal my dog, kidnap my wiyoure not taking my water. Flexibility is key when dealing with wissues year to year.

Two Agronomists Return to Crop Quest

A couple of veteran agronomists have rejoined the Crop Questagronomic team after several years of involvement in various agricul-ture activities that will enable them to provide an even greater wealthof experience and knowledge to farmers and producers in south/centraland western Kansas.

Jay Smith initially started with Crop Quest in 2001 after his gradu-ation from Kansas State University with a degree in agricul-

ture economics and animal science. He served as a crop

consultant for four years advising corn, beans, milo andalfalfa producers in southern Kansas.Smith began his career at Crop Quest because he

felt the job was ideal since it allows younger peoplewho cant afford to start their own farms a chance to

work directly in agriculture. I enjoyed the workas a consultant the planning, implementing and

managing, he recalls. But, when the opportu-nity to get more involved with the productionside of agriculture presented itself, Smith tookadvantage of it. He joined Garden Plains Coop

in Belmont, Kansas, driving a rig, sowing grain and doing someconsulting.

Since his return to Crop Quest, Smith says he is pleased to be asociated again with a great institution. Smith will be consulting south central Kansas around the Kingman area as part of the Pratt /John Division.

Rob Meyer can claim some credit for the institution Smith speso highly of. He was one of the founders of Crop Quest when it waformed in 1992, served on its board of directors and was manager the Pratt / St. John Division. After earning a degree in crop scienc

from Ft. Hays State University in 1985, Meyer began his career asagronomist with Servi-Tech and worked there until he tookpart in the launching of Crop Quest. Meyer pursuedhis interest in biofuel production and in 2006, tooka position with ICM, Inc., in Colwich, Kansas, as aresearcher in ICMs cellulosic energy developmentprogram.

Back with Crop Quest, Meyer will be part ofthe Special Projects team. Meyer will operate out ofColwich, KS, and will focus on special projectsthis summer in addition to becoming moreinvolved with administrative duties.

60

50

40

30

20

10

0JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

(

)

Calendar Year

2006

2005

2004

Colorado Tackles ... Continued from Page 3

Jay Smith

Rob Meyer