Large scale No Till

[Clive]

I wasn't necessarily saying 4000ac of combinables, more like any area of land. If you're growing sugar beet on some acreage, have a decent area of environmental options including fallow, then you can tailor your combinable area to whatever you like. I think we need to get away from thinking that the only farming solution is to crop every acre of every field.

maybe but a landlord like see a crop / return from their acres - fallow is easy if you own the land !


Adam was asking about "farming" 10k plus under zerotill not just managing that area - in my mind farming means harvesting that many acres, so 2.5-3k acre teams working separately on their allocated areas but coming together to help each other out when they can would be my way to zerotill a big scale

 

[Clive]

We have put 4000 through a 600 on 35ftnheader some years in the past but other years had to get help in. Farming less now due to that farm being sold so its more manageable but could easily do more now with 780and 12m.

I think the most we ever put through 1 machine was 3200ac - but it was an easy weather year, decent spread of crops so long season etc. 2.5-3 / machine is far more sensible and long term sustainable in this are with field size and logistics we are 'blessed' with !

 

[Feldspar]

maybe but a landlord like see a crop / return from their acres - fallow is easy if you own the land !


Adam was asking about "farming" 10k plus under zerotill not just managing that area - in my mind farming means harvesting that many acres, so 2.5-3k acre teams working separately on their allocated areas but coming together to help each other out when they can would be my way to zerotill a big scale

I think there can be more flexibility between the landlord and the contractor. If, for example, the landlord entered an area of their land into Mid Tier, that could include paid fallow, which I'm pretty sure will give them a better margin than most break crops. That fallow could be worked through the rotation which allows the overall area to exceed the maximum area that could be put through a combine. My forecast of things to come means that as a landowner that we need to think of ourselves as land managers primarily and farmers second rather than the other way around.

 

[Feldspar]

I think the most we ever put through 1 machine was 3200ac - but it was an easy weather year, decent spread of crops so long season etc. 2.5-3 / machine is far more sensible and long term sustainable in this are with field size and logistics we are 'blessed' with !

On the actual harvesting side, it is important to note that people have very different moisture thresholds for when they start. @ajd132's would be higher than many I would guess.

 

[Wheatseeker]

I think you are all worrying about the easy bit! OP’s challenge of large scale no-till is getting reliability of establishment to match an existing system. Another big constraint but a necessity would be the flexibility of cropping required, and how this could get fragmented over time and reduce overall block cropping efficiency. This also impacts on storage logistics.

 

[Feldspar]

I think you are all worrying about the easy bit! OP’s challenge of large scale no-till is getting reliability of establishment to match an existing system. Another big constraint but a necessity would be the flexibility of cropping required, and how this could get fragmented over time and reduce overall block cropping efficiency. This also impacts on storage logistics.

Good points. I would say that a conscious choice needs to be made about whether you are aiming to maintain the reliability / yield / establishment of conventional systems or maybe no-till on a smaller scale, or whether you are going to go for very low fixed costs and accept that every acre might not be perfect every year. I did some number crunching on these two scenarios and you can make a very low cost no-till system work even if you get quite a bit lower yields. If you can keep yields up, even better, but it's not a necessity.

The point about fragmentation is important. Keeping together cohesive field blocks has been more difficult with more direct drilling. We try to treat each field on its own merits, and what can be right for one field can be different to its neighbour. This has lead to more fragmentation than many people achieve. Part of this was due to having several low output drills. Now with one faster disc drill we are drilling areas as blocks more successfully without getting areas split up by weather events. I think a wide rotation can make larger blocking easier because you can more easily bring an out of sync cropping pattern back into sync without having things like 3rd wheats and black-grass problems. There is a question though as to whether a less profitable rotation is worth doing just to maintain greater block cropping.

 

[Clive]

I think you are all worrying about the easy bit! OP’s challenge of large scale no-till is getting reliability of establishment to match an existing system. Another big constraint but a necessity would be the flexibility of cropping required, and how this could get fragmented over time and reduce overall block cropping efficiency. This also impacts on storage logistics.

I don't think reliability of establishment is an issue once you have a system that works on your land, its certainly no bigger challenge here now that it was when we ploughed or min tilled the same soils - I could multiply up what I do over as many 2-3k acre units as a wanted to now (quality labour being the biggest challenge)

I don't think its smart to farm as a single big unit (regardless of zerotill) - far better to work in multiples of smaller but efficiently sized units but with flexibility to help each other out as required. I don't see any greater efficiency beyond that 2-3k single combine unit size, in fact my experience is that things get less efficient / profitable if you go beyond 1x combine unit but still try to farm as a single unit

 

[Badshot]

All of this talk of 2,3 ,4 k plus acres through one combine really should be thought about more carefully, a lot depends on the yields achieved, I can cut a lot more 2-3 tonne wheat in a day than 4to5, so it really needs to include some sensible tonnes per day alongside the acres.

 

[Feldspar]

All of this talk of 2,3 ,4 k plus acres through one combine really should be thought about more carefully, a lot depends on the yields achieved, I can cut a lot more 2-3 tonne wheat in a day than 4to5, so it really needs to include some sensible tonnes per day alongside the acres.

Good point.

 

[Clive]

All of this talk of 2,3 ,4 k plus acres through one combine really should be thought about more carefully, a lot depends on the yields achieved, I can cut a lot more 2-3 tonne wheat in a day than 4to5, so it really needs to include some sensible tonnes per day alongside the acres.

harvest workload also usually includes a lot of low yielding crops like OSR, Beans etc as well though where output from combines is higher - I think the difference between a 3.25t and 4t wheat crop is not dramatic iin effect on daily output and certainly not as dramatic as amount of road work, field size and header drop off etc.

If your growing a lot of 2t winter wheat crops you really shouldn't be trying to farm more acres !

 

[Feldspar]

harvest workload also usually includes a lot of low yielding crops like OSR, Beans etc as well though where output from combines is higher - I think the difference between a 3.25t and 4t wheat crop is not dramatic iin effect on daily output and certainly not as dramatic as amount of road work, field size and header drop off etc.

If your growing a lot of 2t winter wheat crops you really shouldn't be trying to farm more acres !

My lost cost farming model did make more money at low grain prices than a high yielding one. That was assuming 6.5 t/ha rather than 9 t/ha. As I said before, if you can get costs super low and still maintain yields, then great. But if wheat goes below £100/t for a while and you have a choice between fixed costs or yield, I'd go for low fixed costs.

 

[Badshot]

harvest workload also usually includes a lot of low yielding crops like OSR, Beans etc as well though where output from combines is higher - I think the difference between a 3.25t and 4t wheat crop is not dramatic iin effect on daily output and certainly not as dramatic as amount of road work, field size and header drop off etc.

If your growing a lot of 2t winter wheat crops you really shouldn't be trying to farm more acres !

If you're growing 2t wheat you shouldn't be growing anything.
There is a huge difference between cutting 3t and 4 to 5,, unless you are happy to ignore losses of course. That's why everyone gets so excited about t/hr figures, very simple maths says a combine capable of 40t/hr average delivered to store, will do a lot more acres at 3t than 5t.
Definitely agree that moving fields hits output massively too, and for that reason I try to not drop the header off more than necessary

 

[Clive]

If you're growing 2t wheat you shouldn't be growing anything.
There is a huge difference between cutting 3t and 4 to 5,, unless you are happy to ignore losses of course. That's why everyone gets so excited about t/hr figures, very simple maths says a combine capable of 40t/hr average delivered to store, will do a lot more acres at 3t than 5t.
Definitely agree that moving fields hits output massively too, and for that reason I try to not drop the header off more than necessary

I agree its t/hr that count

I think we all "try" to drop header as little as possible but try as I might 40ft just won't get up the A5 ! a typical day for us might involve half a dozen header drops and 20 miles of road work and that eats harvest capacity farm more than a 5t wheat crop can

 

[Clive]

My lost cost farming model did make more money at low grain prices than a high yielding one. That was assuming 6.5 t/ha rather than 9 t/ha. As I said before, if you can get costs super low and still maintain yields, then great. But if wheat goes below £100/t for a while and you have a choice between fixed costs or yield, I'd go for low fixed costs.

I agree but I cant really see sub £100/t wheat being to big a threat these days

 

[Brisel]

Dyson must be working on robots surely?

He’s far to smart to think quadtrac farming is really a good idea or in any way sustainable I’m sure

No Dyson robots on his website. Lots of pictures of Quadtracs, shiny Fendts & big Lexions...

http://www.beeswaxdyson.com/farming/

 

[Feldspar]

I agree but I cant really see sub £100/t wheat being to big a threat these days

Why not?

Trade deal isn't exactly looking promising so far.

 

[Brisel]

Plenty of Euroland growers feeling like it's the equivalent of £100/t! Only the weak £ is supporting our values.

 

[Clive]

Why not?

Trade deal isn't exactly looking promising so far.

Well it’s been well above £100 for de Etsy seasons so it would have to stay well below £100 for several begirecwe started to “average” sub £100

Can’t see it personally - I think weak £ outside of EU will help us as exporters I’m more worried about the inflation if not uk made imported inputs and equipment

 

[Clive]

No Dyson robots on his website. Lots of pictures of Quadtracs, shiny Fendts & big Lexions...

http://www.beeswaxdyson.com/farming/

Not yet or not that’s he’s owning up to or ready to reveal !

But who knows ! It’s a rather too perfect fit given his combination of tech business and farming interest imo

 

[Feldspar]

Well it’s been well above £100 for de Etsy seasons so it would have to stay well below £100 for several begirecwe started to “average” sub £100

Can’t see it personally - I think weak £ outside of EU will help us as exporters I’m more worried about the inflation if not uk made imported inputs and equipment

Have you read the AHDB impact assessments / sectoral analysis (!) for different possible trade deals? Largely we're badgered either way (i.e. loss making in high tariff and low tariff scenarios).