Farmers are used to having to work around the weather – here’s a tip on how to make the weather do some of the work for you. It’s called “frost seeding”, and it’s a technique for ranchers to restore their pasturage, improve yields, and enhance field quality.

In frost seeding, you spread legume or grass seed over a pasture in late winter. The freeze-and-thaw cycle that begins to occur around that time of year will move the seed down into the soil, putting it in the exact right spot for spring growth – without any further labor on your part. Frost seeding will work in February and March, depending on the weather pattern – if it’s a hard, long winter you might want to hold off a bit, but if things are warm in your neck of the woods you can go ahead and seed as soon as the freeze and thaw cycle kicks into gear.

Preparing a pasture for frost seeding couldn’t be easier – just graze the heck out of it. If you can’t graze in the field for whatever reason, you can mow the field or rip the sod cover with a light tillage pass. Basically you want the seeds to get as close to the ground as you can so that they will be drawn down by the freeze-thaw cycle. You can also prepare the field by letting animals graze for a few days, then seeding, then letting the stock continue to graze for another few days – their hoof action will trample the seed into the soil. This works best with smaller animals like sheep, which won’t drive the seeds too far into the ground.

While frost seeding will work fine for legumes or grass seed, the technique has better results with legume seeds. For one thing, the legume seeds are heavier and reach the ground more easily; for another, legumes are nitrogen-fixers and will draw any excess nitrogen in the soil into the plant bodies. If legumes make up a quarter or more of the coverage on a particular field, you can probably forego supplemental nitrogen on that field for the year.

I’ve been working on a whitepaper that discusses US farmland investments in more detail.  I haven’t had a chance to fully “slick” this thing out and make all the charts match yet, but I still thought you might appreciate a first peek. To view, download, or print this 28 page research document concerning US farmland, please click on the link below.  

Link: http://alextiller.com/agribusiness_resource/farmland_investment_whitepaper_2009.pdf

(as usual, I would appreciate your comments and thoughts)

The European Union is reintroducing agricultural subsidies for dairy producers in response to tumbling dairy prices on world markets. EU subsidies, long a thorn in the side of trade negotiators and American farmers, were discontinued for dairy farmers in 2007 following a price run-up, but the subsidies are now returning.

Agriculture as a sector, and even individual producers, generally do best in an environment of free trade – no tariffs, no export or import barriers, no production subsidies. The lower the barriers to trade, the more efficiently the market works in giving producers the proper incentives to grow the right crop for their geography, climate, and economic situation. However, that pro-trade policy only works for one country if other countries are similarly committed. It’s a bit like being in a crowded movie theater – if everyone sits down, then everyone can see and enjoy the movie. But if the people in the front row stand up, then the people behind them have to stand up in order to see – a process that ends up with the whole theater crowd standing up.

In the case of the EU subsidies, the irony is that while the subsidy is a response to low market prices, the result of the subsidy will be to perpetuate that low price. EU dairy farmers, with a guaranteed subsidy check in their pockets, will be able to undercut other producers on price, driving the market equilibrium price down even further. Making things worse, it is possible that other nations, particularly the United States, will introduce subsidies of their own to protect their domestic dairy industries. When everyone in the theater is standing up, nobody’s view is improved – and everyone is working harder for the same outcome.

As I’ve reported here a number of times, input prices for farmers have been rising steadily. If the economy collapses, we can expect those prices to decline – but commodity prices will also likely decline in that eventuality, leaving farmers in the same boat. If the economy recovers – everybody cross your fingers – then inputs are likely to continue increasing as a share of farm operational costs.

With that in mind, many farmers have begun exploring their options regarding fertilizer use, with an eye toward reducing use to the necessary minimum. While this can save quite a bit of money, it is important for farmers to be aware of the risks of reducing fertilizer inputs beyond a certain point. Most farms probably do have some “slack” in the fertilizer budget – but it’s critical not to cut out too much. Suboptimal fertilization levels can have detrimental impacts on yield, stress tolerance, and standability of crops.

One principle to follow – believe the science. Soil tests provide hard data, not just a general “feel” for how soil is developing, and should be done by any farmer planning a reduction in fertilizer input. Don’t assume that a test result will stay valid over time, however – remember that every plant harvested is taking some nutrients out of the soil. Even if your soil has a buffer of built-up fertilizing agents that might allow you a light year for new applications, that won’t necessarily apply during the next growing season.

Another thing to bear in mind is that different crops remove nutrients at different rates. Just one bushel of corn removes 0.29 pounds of K2O and 0.4 pounds of P2O5, while a bushel of soybeans on the same land will remove 1.45 pounds of K2O and 0.85 pounds of P2O5. Know the figures for the crops you intend to grow, and take that into account in your fertilizer plan.

Aside from direct fertilizer use, remember that pH levels will have an impact on the bioavailability of existing (and added) nutrients. If you fail to apply enough lime, absorption rates for N, P and K can decrease, sometimes dramatically. The pH must be 5.9 or higher for N and K, and 6.4 for P. A low pH level can also increase the risk of herbicide carryover for imidazolinone-based applications.

The consequences of low fertilizer levels can be quite devastating to a crop, particularly if the weather doesn’t cooperate. Insufficient P doesn’t produce many immediately visible effects, which may lead you to conclude that levels are adequate, but P levels directly affect the ability of your plants to handle stress. Insufficient K levels mean that plants have a harder time absorbing water and nitrogen from soil, which makes the crop more vulnerable to drought conditions. In soybeans, inadequate K can cause reduced nodulation and increased damage from disease and pests.

To summarize, decreasing your fertilizer application may well decrease your cost – but it may not improve your bottom line if you aren’t careful. It doesn’t make sense to knock $50,000 off the fertilizer bill if it means your stunted crop brings in $60,000 less than last year. Check soil levels carefully and accurately calculate the nutritional needs of your planned crop before taking this step.