Yield is King? Rethinking Profitability in Agriculture
The agricultural support industry has for some time now proclaimed that the best way out of a problem is to grow more. To achieve more means increasing inputs, and with the continual creep over time with increased inputs, applications, and indeed associated costs, farmers have found that higher inputs do not necessarily lead to higher yields, and increasingly increasing yield is not enough to cover the extra costs. This is where we begin to question the belief that increased yield is a direct consequence of increased chemical inputs. If this system were the answer then surely, we would not be continually escalating inputs, we would be solving issues, and this has not been the case. The basic error has been an almost complete dominance on chemistry without due diligence to soil biology and soil health. These aspects being fundamentally important for the success and sustainability to growing crops, if you ignore them all areas of plant growth and health deplete, hence the huge increase in chemical dependence.
Yield at What Cost? The Profit vs. Production Debate
The first question we all ask when the combine rolls is, `What is the yield?’ Yield is undoubtedly important, but not at any cost. This year we have seen some farms yielding more than 11 tonnes per hectare of wheat. Inputs using 250-300kg nitrogen, 4 fungicides plus supplementary seed dressings, and the associated inputs, at first hand we consider this with a smile. Looking hard at perhaps opposing and alternative systems, with consideration driven by efficiency and profit, we begin to consider what some farmers are achieving who believe that it is profit that drives a business, not necessarily yield alone. The philosophy is to manage soil in a way that captures free nitrogen, recovers unused soluble nitrogen to recycle, building organic matter that can be digested, and release functional useable nitrogen with earthworms conditioning soil that releases more and more elements just for the cost of connecting with the natural environment. Their success makes you think quite hard when they can grow a crop of wheat yielding in excess of 9 tonnes with 100kg nitrogen, no growth regulators, at best a single generic fungicide without the need for insecticides. If you also add in the energy costs saved with the reduction of nitrogen, chemicals, transport, and so on, quite a saving begins to rack up. It is not hard to find people now talking about 70% reductions in their chemical bills as something to shout about. Consider the huge energy cost of capturing nitrogen from the air, and then wasting 40-60% that is not utilised when applied, and then the associated soil and air pollution and escalating environmental issues.
Prioritising Profit and Efficiency for the Future
I think the question then becomes, who is offering the best to their own business and the future? Why do we buy and waste so much when we have access to free available nitrogen? Perhaps we can change the heading above and suggest going forward that it is profit and efficiency that runs the show?
