Economy


Farm competition yields interesting water-use results


By George Oamek, PhD I


t’s no secret that irrigators make a lot of water-related decisions in order to profitably grow a crop,


e success of the Farm Management Competition in 2017 has guaranteed that it will be back in 2018.


but many other nonwater decisions can equally affect profitability. A group led by Daran Rudnick, PhD, an assistant professor and irrigation management specialist at University of Nebraska – Lincoln’s North Platte Research and Extension Center, has developed a competitive approach to demonstrating this and to begin developing a database that addresses the interactions of the numerous decision variables. In addition to


UNL, his supporters include Aquamart


and the Nebraska Water Balance Alliance, both local organizations concerned about


water stewardship and the long-term sustainability of irrigation.


The competition


As part of the UNL-TAPS Program (aka Testing Ag Performance Solutions), the first annual Farm Management Competition held in 2017 was a contest where participants, either individuals or groups, competed in the production and marketing of corn. Each team, or farm, competed for three possible awards, the most prestigious being the most profitable farm, followed by an award for water and nitrogen use efficiency and another for highest yield. Competitors


made real-time decisions about irrigation management with respect to volume and timing of application, nitrogen management, seed hybrids, seeding rate, grain marketing and purchase of crop insurance.


There were 15 teams involved, consisting of individual producers or groups of producers in Nebraska’s Platte and Republican River Basins. The competition took place on a 40-acre parcel located at the North Platte Research Center. Each “farm” on paper included 3,000 harvested acres for purposes of making management decisions. The decisions made by each team for their respective farm were applied to three randomized plots within the research center’s quarter section, averaged and extrapolated over 3,000 acres. The winner of the most profitable farm was awarded $2,000, the most input-efficient farm received $1,000, and highest yielding farm received $500.


Control groups were managed by the UNL folks and included 1) a parcel that was not irrigated and was not fertilized, 2) a parcel that managed these inputs in a manner that ensured neither water or nitrogen would limit yields, and 3) a parcel that intentionally limited water and nitrogen in a highly managed manner.


Differences in desired irrigation and nitrogen application rates were implemented through technology:


• A center pivot sprinkler with a variable rate irrigation package


allowed for each nozzle to function independently with respect to rate and field location. This gave each participant the opportunity to manage water application themselves and apply up to an inch of water twice per week during the growing season, as desired.


• Irrigation decisions were aided by soil moisture probes providing continuous moisture levels for each plot, accessible to participants over a project website.


• A variable rate fertigation system gave the participants the option to apply a portion of their nitrogen with their irrigation water. All teams using nitrogen took advantage of this.


Results


Profits ranged from -$153 to +$146 per acre, demonstrating how different, yet reasonable, combinations of inputs and management decisions affect profitability. The results were not universally conclusive with respect to water and fertilizer usage, which was valuable information in itself. It demonstrated that other decisions, like marketing strategies, hybrid selection and seeding rates were equally critical in farm profitability. However, generally the more profitable combinations featured about 25 percent less nitrogen application, with more fertigation and side-dress applications relative to preplant applications. There were


For more information about UNL-TAPS 2017 Farm Management Competition and competitions planned in 2018 — 28 Irrigation TODAY | April 2018


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40