Long term which cereal crop establishment is most cost effective/more for giving, when farming on a large scale?

[Pilatus]

I am interested to know if when farming on a large scale (1000ha's +) ,if using D/D (Direct Drilling /Zero Till),whether that long term it is as cost effective /forgiving, as using a once over the ground " Vaderstaad Top Down " equivalent implement for one's cultivations.

 

[Properjob]

Think that would all depend on what crops you are growing, soil type and weather. Anyone in the West, selling straw, is unlikely to be better off direct drilling after cereals. Some soil damage is inevitable in an average harvest. Break crops fine though if the chopper is on. In the East I should think on the right soils and dryer weather much harder to call, no doubt there will be a lot of differing opinions.

 

[D14]

I am interested to know if when farming on a large scale (1000ha's +) ,if using D/D (Direct Drilling /Zero Till),whether that long term it is as cost effective /forgiving, as using a once over the ground " Vaderstaad Top Down " equivalent implement for one's cultivations.

Its not whether you no till or min till. Its the entire system that determines profitability. Running a single cultivation pass is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things because for a large scale farm all it is doing is ensuring good crop establishment. With no till you expect bare areas due to slugs or lying water etc. So you save the cultivation pass but loose some cropped area where as with min till you spend more to establish the crop but generally theres no bare areas.

Cost effectiveness of whatever system you run is down to the whole system not just a single cultivation or not. Also no till farmers will spend more on cover cropping a tillage farmer does not but the no till farmer is trying to better their soils where as a tillage farmer is purely reliant on a rotation to maintain soil health. I don't really think you can compare the two systems really as they are both a very different approach. Things like management time for example the mn till approach takes more man power but less management because its consistent where as the no till approach takes less man power (no cultivation pass) but far more management time.

 

[Brisel]

The most effective one is that which does not degrade the soil yet produces a sustainable margin that allows reinvestment. It's no good saving 1 t/ha of yield in establishment cost via no till/min till/strip till/whatever you call it if your yield falls by 2 t/ha. If you have a deep compaction problem then you must fix it somehow. A pass with a subsoiler on sand that can grow vegetables and roots is cheap when you look at the value of the extra yield gained.

 

[4course]

cant help with 1000s of ha but for what its worth on our few 100 acres the plough has meant we are still in business and growing cereals profitably

 

[yellow belly]

on heavy land constant cultivations has reduce the organic matter levels
to maintain yield requires more cultivation and imputs and tighter rotations relying on oilseed rape the loss of rape as a reliable weed reducing crop has become a high risk operation
losing crops to pests leaves very few profitable alternatives

if mintill under 2 inches deep works then notill will work
if a field need maxitill it takes longer for notill to work

with notill lower margin crops have much lower fixed costs as all the ground does not need cultivateing in the ost harvest slot
tractor hours are now getting very expensive in replacement terms

 

[Pilatus]

Many thanks for your posts,obviously as always farming, sounds like horses for courses.
As said in other threads I am a semi retired from hands on farming, but still very interested in the D/D concept as "in theory" it should help to reduce the amount of capital invested in large tractors and associated implements.
In reality sounds as if D/D needs more management and is less forgiving than min till, and for the aforementioned that is the reasons the likes of "Velcourt" are NOT into D/D across there contract farms, they just cannot afford to take that risk of failure on board ,as it would not be compatible with their business policy,even though it may reduce the amount of capital they would have invested in large "Quadtrac" type tractors etc. Thanks again

 

[Chae1]

Many thanks for your posts,obviously as always farming, sounds like horses for courses.
As said in other threads I am a semi retired from hands on farming, but still very interested in the D/D concept as "in theory" it should help to reduce the amount of capital invested in large tractors and associated implements.
In reality sounds as if D/D needs more management and is less forgiving than min till, and for the aforementioned that is the reasons the likes of "Velcourt" are NOT into D/D across there contract farms, they just cannot afford to take that risk of failure on board ,as it would not be compatible with their business policy,even though it may reduce the amount of capital they would have invested in large "Quadtrac" type tractors etc. Thanks again

I'd strongly recommend you visit groundswell if interested in direct drilling and the management techniques required that goes along with it.

 

[ajd132]

Hard to know what to do with our quad track. It pulls a 12m direct tine drill using 5l/ha of fuel and a cultivator where we use it. Most importantly it pull a twin leg mole plough which I think we will be doing more of in the no till system. The quad trac has also had much of its depreciation and is paid for. It would cost me quite a lot of money to swap it for something that’s 1/3 of the power! Doesn’t work hard thinking I may aswell keep it for ever for mole draining rather than give it away.

 

[Pilatus]

Hard to know what to do with our quad track. It pulls a 12m direct tine drill using 5l/ha of fuel and a cultivator where we use it. Most importantly it pull a twin leg mole plough which I think we will be doing more of in the no till system. The quad trac has also had much of its depreciation and is paid for. It would cost me quite a lot of money to swap it for something that’s 1/3 of the power! Doesn’t work hard thinking I may aswell keep it for ever for mole draining rather than give it away.

That sounds the way to go,as a lot different to a Quadtrac that I know of pulling a 6mtr Top Down over thousands of acres, and then going over the same ground a few weeks later with a 8mtr Vaderstaad drill.

 

[ajd132]

That sounds the way to go,as a lot different to a Quadtrac that I know of pulling a 6mtr Top Down over thousands of acres, and then going over the same ground a few weeks later with a 8mtr Vaderstaad drill.

This is basically what we used to do but have gradually cut back. We do topdown shallow infront of spring crops at the moment but it doesn’t take much grunt.
Could be doing as much as 200ha mole draining a year also, especially in the spring where from experience a quad trac on twin legs leaves far less damage that a much smaller tractor on tyres pulling 1 leg. If we didn’t need to drain then it would go tomorrow.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Think that would all depend on what crops you are growing, soil type and weather. Anyone in the West, selling straw, is unlikely to be better off direct drilling after cereals. Some soil damage is inevitable in an average harvest. Break crops fine though if the chopper is on. In the East I should think on the right soils and dryer weather much harder to call, no doubt there will be a lot of differing opinions.

I dunno. I sell straw and we just drill straight back in after by and large apart from the odd cultivation for OSR. It feels a lot easier than back and fore ploughing and cranking up the hours. We don't really do much damage at all - less in fact as we don't have erosion and a better soil function