Benedict T. Palen Jr. - Turning Around A Struggling Farm

In 30 plus years of agricultural advisory work, I have encountered a number of farms that were successful, but also a fair number that were experiencing difficulties.  Each situation is unique, but there are some common, broad, themes that are applicable across almost all of those farms having issues.  While inherent in the notion of a struggling farm are financial issues, this essay takes aim at three basic things that, in some combination, lead up to financial issues.  There is a tendency in a struggling business to look for a panacea, or in the case of agriculture and its current rapid evolution of technology, the newest and greatest “big idea.”  Unfortunately, the quick cures and big ideas often miss the underlying basic issues.

The first item is the soils.  The understanding of soils has come a long way from the time when NRCS soils maps were developed, which, in the case of many parts of the US, was 30 or more years ago.  There are now several more precise ways to evaluate soils on a farm, and then to better understand their capabilities and their limitations.  A starting point, for example, is using the Veris technology to map a field by zones; once those management zones are established, then soil samples are taken in each  of the zones, and prescriptions can be devised to match input usage with soil capabilities within each zone. 

Another factor for the soils is how they have been managed on a long term basis in terms of farming practices.  I have found otherwise productive soils to have serious issues with, say, hardpan layers, that will limit optimal results no matter the amount of money that is put into inputs for them, or the amount of water applied (if irrigated).  Correcting bad soil management practices requires patience, but it first demands the level of detailed understanding of the soils that can only occur by way of careful zone mapping of the fields. 

An example of the above is a current project on a large irrigated farm where a one size fits all fertility and water management program has been used for years on various crops. The farm is failing, and our initial analysis has revealed exactly the kinds of soil related issues that I have just noted.  Crop yields are 50-60% of the true capability of the soils.  Water use efficiency is 20-25% less than what it should be because the years of poor farming have taken their toll on the ability of the soil to absorb water.   Steps are being taken to do the Veris mapping, zone specific soil testing, and then a prescription farming program will be put into place so that each field can be managed at a micro level basis.  While an ultimate goal of the program on this particular farm is very focused on no till practices, all fields are being deep ripped as a means of breaking up two hardpan layers that severely limit root development, and water movement.

The second factor is water management.  In a non irrigated situation, this generally means limiting tillage—which depletes plant available water with each pass over the field—and relying more on a no till or minimum till program.     It also means making frequent use of soil probes to check stored soil moisture prior to making planting decisions, and then during the growing season as a means of assessing crop potential, and the wisdom (or not) of applying additional fertilizer to achieve a certain yield goal.  Further, it means looking at the varieties of crops that can be planted, and determining whether evidence suggests that some varieties are more water efficient than others.   This goes hand in hand with understanding the soils because the water holding capacity of soils varies, and hence, one may make cropping decisions related to how water is available in some soils at differing levels than in others.

On irrigated farms, I have found a fairly wide variance in the understanding of the importance of water management.    This is not just a question of applying X inches of water per acre. The key is making the water available where it is needed—at the ground level for the plants.  Many irrigated areas of the world have high evapotranspiration rates, and it continues to amaze me that inefficient irrigation techniques are still in use in a number of those areas.   What this comes down to is making a water budget for the farm, on a field by field basis (taking into account the aforementioned system of zone mapping of fields), looking at more efficient ways to get the water to the ground, and then tracking water use during the season, along with making good judgments on irrigation scheduling.  This is not a simple process, and there are several moving parts, but systems are available, at reasonable cost, for a farmer to tighten up water management.   In my experience, I have found instances where water use efficiencies could be improved from the 60% range to the high 80s with a few simple, and low cost changes to hardware.  In some of those examples, the updates paid for themselves with one season of use.

The third item is people.  I like to say that all of the technology in the world will not fix a failing farm unless there is a sea change in one place—between the ears.  That’s right—attitudes have to change, to reflect the reality of tight margins in this business.   It involves going back to the basics, to the two most critical assets on the farm—soil and water resources—and how they are managed. Everything flows from them.   There are generational issues that get in the way of clear thinking in some cases. There is the attitude of “well, we have always done it this way.”   I tell my clients that we are starting with a clean sheet of paper, and that taking a step back and realizing that they have been stuck in a rut for a long time, will go a long way towards finding solutions.  As I said earlier, all of the hottest new tech out there will solve nothing if a farmer fails to sharpen his or her focus on the basics. Get them right, and then good things will start to fall into place.

-----

Benedict T. Palen, Jr. is a fifth generation farmer who works in an advisory capacity with farmers, investors, and others, involved in agriculture. He can be reached at 720-626-7661.               

Soil Moisture Sensors As A Tool For Irrigated Farm Management by Benedict T. Palen, Jr.

In the rapidly evolving world of ag tech, there are many options—too many in the eyes of some observers—from which a farmer can make choices when he/she is looking at ways to manage water usage decisions in a more precise manner.   Perhaps the biggest questions for most farmers when considering a piece of ag tech are how is the data useful for me, and how does it add value?

Soil moisture sensors are not new, nor are they particularly high tech when compared to some of the precision ag tools that are available today; however, it has been my experience that, in many irrigated areas of the US and around the world, their use is not that common—unless there has been a push by, say, the local Natural Resources Conservation Service, or others—to increase their usage.  Many irrigated farmers still rely on the time honored method of using a shovel or soil probe, along with looking for areas of crop stress.  I find it interesting that, in this time where most farmers are very conscious of precise decisions with each step of the way for producing a crop, soil moisture sensors are not in wider use. 

All of this came full circle for me during a recent NRCS sponsored event on soil and water conservation.   The gentleman who gave a presentation before mine was a researcher from Kansas State University who showed a slide that captured the essence of why these sensors are such an important tool in the toolbox.   Last year, K State had a pivot field (120 acres), of corn, with all cultural practices being the same across the field.  The only difference was that one side had soil moisture sensors installed, while on the other side, irrigation decisions were made by the “shovel method.”   Records were kept on irrigation water usage.  The crop yield difference was one bushel per acre between the two halves of the field.  But the water usage difference was significant—5.8 inches applied on the part with the sensors, and 13 inches on the side where a crop consultant used hand check methods!

There is no doubt that many irrigated farmers have taken steps to improve efficiency of water application, whether by using a drip irrigation system, or by updating center pivots with LEPA or LESA installations.  Further, an increasing number of farmers are using weather data to help in deciding when irrigation is needed, and how much.   That said, there is a missing ingredient in the equation.   And that is to know when to irrigate based on available soil moisture.   If you think of that stored soil water as a bank, consider that prudent folks do not decide how much money to spend on something without knowing how much they have in the bank.  It is the same concept, although this time it is with water.

There are a number of choices for soil moisture sensors, and some of the considerations for the decision include cost, which can range from a few hundred dollars to over $1,500, ease of installation, ability to capture data from the sensor remotely, the format of the data, and the soil types across a field.  

As far as the latter point, in theory one should have soil moisture sensors in use on all soil types across a field if one holds true to the idea of variable rate irrigation.   But the practicality of the cost of having multiple sensors comes into play.  I have worked with farmers who will use the approach of, say, two sensors in a field to pick up the majority of the soils types, and then extrapolating from the data that is generated to make decisions for the field as a whole.   It would be fair to say that, with higher value crops, such as almonds, there is a strong case for using sensors in almost all soils types; almonds are very sensitive to over or under watering, and using a “water prescription” that is too broad based can lead to uneven plant conditions, and yields, across a field. 

As far as the format of the data, it is important that the grower obtain it in a way that does not require elaborate interpretation; in other words, the sensor should indicate available soil moisture, and whether there is a need to irrigate.   Similarly, capturing the data through dashboards that the farmer may be using for other purposes is possible with some sensors, and it would be important for a farmer to give this consideration in the purchase decision, especially where multiple fields are involved, and time for data collection is constrained. 

In this time of much technological evolution in agriculture, what must not get lost is the usefulness of a relatively low tech tool—the soil moisture sensor.  As with any kind of changed practice in agriculture, this one requires an adjustment in mindset.  Breaking an old habit, in this instance, water application decision techniques, is not easy, but the proof is out there, from the aforementioned K State study, and elsewhere, that the soil moisture sensor is a tool of much value.   There are opportunities for cost sharing and other funding for the sensors via the local NRCS, and certain other conservation organizations. 

---

Benedict T. Palen, Jr., is a fifth generation farmer with substantial experience in many phases of agriculture, and especially with regard to soil and water conservation techniques.   He has provided consulting services to farms in the USA, Africa, and in the Middle East.  He can be reached at ben@agmgmtpartners.com