[BrianTee]

When deciding on fungicides, snake oils, crop products etc, is there is general ratio you look to get back for example invest 25$ in eq and product and then need to get back at least 75$ would be a 3 to 1.

That's my personal minimum and excludes a lot of products after personal replicated trials.

Seems most products sold come pretty close to break even or certainly less then 2 to 1. Products like ESN etc off have negative or zero return.

How do you decide?

 

[tbone95]

You list various crop products, but then say equipment (I think, you said "eq") too. I wouldn't use the same number to justify those 2 things. . . To me, a product, if it pays you back "at all" is money in your pocket. True, another trip with sprayer or something, it can get complicated, but still you can figure all that in per acre, and if you get a return per acre, isn't it worth it? Equipment is a different story. IMO

 

[Dryland]

One thing to consider is the number you are using for "Expected Return" of applying the product is not an exact number but rather a "guess". So for your $25 fungicide example. Lets say there is a 33% chance of it doing nothing. 33% chance of it returning $25. and 33% chance of it returning $50. Then your ExpectedReturn = .33 * 0 + .33 * 25 + .33 * 50 = $25.

Then your number would be spend $25 to get back $25 or 1:1.

 

[Christian A. Herrnboeck]

Fungicides need to be used just like herbicides, especially in cereals. There should be no "rate of return" calculations on them.


Why? Well, not using them you end up risking the gong show we now have here... Guys didn't spray for years and now there's so much fuzz 90% of the wheat is unmarketable; fields are getting burnt before harvest. Others are so shriveled that there's no way to keep it in the combine.



ESN has a niche IMHO. Winter wheat... or sandy soils were you want to prevent denitrification and leaching.


Snake oils are snake oils... just don't use them.


I.E. "Manipulator" growth regulator... doesn't do anything if you walk into a field. "Ethrel" on the other hand shortens your wheat by a good 6 inches to a foot, prevents lodging, and gives you a 5-10 bu increase.

Just my $0.02

 

[anythingbutgreen]

Fungicides need to be used just like herbicides, especially in cereals. There should be no "rate of return" calculations on them.


Why? Well, not using them you end up risking the gong show we now have here... Guys didn't spray for years and now there's so much fuzz 90% of the wheat is unmarketable; fields are getting burnt before harvest. Others are so shriveled that there's no way to keep it in the combine.



ESN has a niche IMHO. Winter wheat... or sandy soils were you want to prevent denitrification and leaching.


Snake oils are snake oils... just don't use them.


I.E. "Manipulator" growth regulator... doesn't do anything if you walk into a field. "Ethrel" on the other hand shortens your wheat by a good 6 inches to a foot, prevents lodging, and gives you a 5-10 bu increase.

Just my $0.02

I hear people talking about all these wheat fields getting burnt but I have yet to see one yet. Where is this happening?

 

[Christian A. Herrnboeck]

Lake Lenore Sk area.


One will be going up south of us if it stops misting!

 

[snapper21]

I think a lot of this has to do with where you farm and your conditions. The whole fungicide thing is great when there is a real need the majority of the time in canola. Cereals is a no brainer but canola I don't know. Sure isn't much done on canola around here. Sure there was that one year 10 years ago when sclerotinia was bad but other than that it hasn't been an issue. I assume Brian farms in the same conditions I do and understand the point he is trying to make. We quite frankly are a bit drier and have a shorter growing season than the east side of Saskatchewan. You start fungiciding the crop it stretches the maturity and puts you further behind sometimes.

The snake oils are just that. Mostly a bunch of marketing and negligible benefit. Whenever they claim reduced fertilizer use I call bs because for one I don't probably use enough juice as it is and two you will mine the soil. For myself I am better off to spend that on more fertilizer and better varieties.

 

[Don Boles]

On fertilizer Brian isn't rule of thumb at least 2 to 1?

 

[BrianTee]

On fertilizer Brian isn't rule of thumb at least 2 to 1?

It certainly isn't a linear scale. If you have ever used AFFIRM software it diminishes exponentially to 1:1 quite quickly at todays prices. But initial rates are quite high payback.

I just find it interesting that farmers are willing to 'invest' in a break even scenario while most other industries wouldn't even consider spending a dime if it was less then 10:1.

Certainly equipment has a ratio. Getting the latest shiny paint often tho has little to do with economics.

 

[montana]

I have no set ratio. I look at yield trials preferable independents and better yet my own... Some are hard to gauge . Like esn I have proven to myself time and time again that using esn especially with my spring wheat I have gotten higher protein every single time. I plant extra early . I plant sometimes hundred of acres in the snow if the conditions will work to get it in early . So the fert is in the ground a long time and I think in my condition the n is usually all used up when it needs that extra jump later in the year...I often wonder though say for example if it cost me 5 bucks to use esn would I be better off if I put down 5 dollars more per acre of fert? Or say their is no protein bumps or neg......or what if it is -40 per quater down pretty easy to add some n or esn to pay for that....

I did a interesting trial with seed treat this year 1/2 mile long side by side trial all seeded within 1 hr of each other. Did no treat treat treat with some zinc and other goodies and another fully loaded 4 part mix at $15 an acre. The chem company gave me I would not have spent that much per acre on treat. That was for only treating aprox 50# of barley seed ?sorry Don do not have the seed count in front of me. All season long especially early on there was a big difference you could easy see. The worst was no treat and the best was full package . When I went in there with the combine and yield map/ monitor I could not pick ouT any reall advantage. So in theory I should not have treated any of it could have saved a lot of $ . In theory . But what would have happened if there would have been some kind of outbreak of something bad? Treat would have looked really cheap....I look at it as somewhat cheap insurance. Kinda like fungicides for me where are humidity are usually really low and usually very dry . This is the first year that I can remember that we just barley got into double digits from jan. to now for rainfall.. I do use it on my barley because I plant so early the poor plant loose at least some of there leaves every spring and usually cold and wet. I think in Many areas at the min it might be cheap insurance to the best a huge net return...so like said above it is not always about how much ratio can you get as it might be a insurance policy .

I was just looking at a new solid stem variety that the collage used on a test plot on my place. I was happy with it. Until i looked at the price per bu. $33 per bushel...I looked at several yield data trials from at least 7 sites it was usually in top 5 I think it got 2 place in one trial...this was a inanity that you can not even keep the seed for yourself the following year. Now if it beet the next best varity by 5 bu in my conditions it might be worth it... But in dry land only crop the ground every other year ground that is a guarantee looser.....every time.

If a person got half of the advantages they claim you could buy and apply several products and I could be getting corn like yields on my small grains....it is not going to happen in small grains in my conditions . Not even when they gmo small grains it will more than likely pay for guys that have huge yield potentially and can pay big bucks for the seed or certain products . But if product X increase yield by 5% on say a 50 bu yield that is not much more than likely to have much net return however if you are usually pushing say 100 bu average and a 5% increase adds up a lot quicker . Might make since. On the seed treat trials that the chem company gave me they were saying you could get X extra bu on average . Well if you have ****ty ground there is no way that seed treat was going to up you production by 20% however if you have very high yield potential and a lot of certain plant health problems it might be a no brainier . Or say you can get get some manure spread from a neighbor dairy and it will cost you 50 bucks a acre you fig that there that commercial fert instead would cost say 30 a bean counter would say easy choice. I would think most guys would gladly pay the extra for the manure because it will keep on giving and help huge with microbes ....sorry for the long winded post to wind it up but if you are counting on any product to guarantee get you money back for ROI for ther claim I would think I would need to see at least 2 to 1 . I can say I have hardly ever seen any chem company claim to be as good as they claim on large scale. You definitly need to take even independent yield date with a grain of salt on small plots .