There are exceptions to thisbutformostof thecrop ground in the counties I cover the crop schedule is corn, soybeans, corn… soybeans…corn, more soybeans and on and on. This has become such an ingrained standard we hardly even think about it anymore. Last week I talked about how farming has steadily changed since the first plow hit the sod but in the last few decades that change has ground down a bit. Innovation only seems to be in corn and soybean traits or products that will help those two crops. There are many products out there that claim to help the life in the soil (bug in a jug) but just like what rotational grazing does for our grass (and soil) so is crop rotation better for our soil. Letting natural cycles and processes work for us will always be more productive than something we try to cook up in a lab. I don’t want to call anything snake oil that I haven’t used but...
Is this two crop rotation really a rotation? To me this is more alternating of crops. Rotation insinuates multiple somethings; do baseball teams have two pitchers in their pitching rotation? No, it’s usually somewhere around five. Now I’m sure I can hear some cussing at the futility of five crops in a rotation but is that really an absurd number? I think if we could get just three it would be a big step in the right direction but if you embrace another crop, maybe in time four or five might not be so absurd after all.
The easiest crop type to add for that number three spot is a small grain, most likely wheat but barley, rye, or even oats can be a good fit depending on your operation. There are a few reasons we left wheat and small grains behind. The largest being that its income potential is lower than that of beans and corn. Is this a realized number or an assumed one? If we are not looking at all the options each year, do we actually know what the best choice is? How many of us are only looking at corn or soybeans in our profit scenarios? If it’s not even close, why check right? Having grazing livestock may change that if they are factored in.
Small grains shake up the growing season schedule. A big advantage is that you can space out harvest and depending on which small grain, the planting as well. Thus lessening the labor burden your operation faces. Another great thing is that with that mid-summer harvest we have the opportunity to plant another crop. It gets called a cover crop but that name can lead us to think of it as a cost and not a money maker. If we can figure both the cash price from the grain harvested and the profit from the pounds gained on the forage harvested, is this number comparable to what the profit from the soybean crop would be? I can’t tell you it is or isn’t but I can tell you, you won’t know until you investigate it. Sure, makes sense to me that it’s worth a look.
There are other factors that might not show up on paper in a good moisture year but sure will in a drought. How good of a drought mitigation tool is having cover crop acres to graze in August or September right through the fall? Even in good moisture years having those acres lets you rest your pastures and thus make them more productive as they aren’t grazed to the dirt. There is a lot of value there that I don’t think gets factored in all the time if ever. Then of course there is that more tangible value of the hay if you were to choose to go that route. That one is easier to put the numbers together on and if you don’t have livestock to graze here is your additional income to add to the cash grain price. Rolling up bales is still farming. How is it really any different than corn or soybeans? It’s still a crop to harvest. Up until we had ethanol and biodiesel plants in the area most of our grain went to animal feed anyway (a lot still does), the crop is a little different but same destination.
All that works if we considered all of our crop ground premium stuff. Which unless you have your head in the sand, you know it isn’t all premo stuff. We have a lot of saline (some may call alkali) impacted soil. Corn doesn’t handle it real well and soybeans possibly have the lowest tolerance of any crop. Small grains are much more tolerant and while they are still impacted by salinity their yield isn’t as impacted as corn or soybeans. Even milo and sunflowers handle it better (crops #4 and 5?) I want to be clear as sometimes different crops can be toted as a fix to saline, these are not fixes, the saline is still there, crops other than corn or soybeans are just more tolerant. They get closer to their normal potential yield, but they still won’t fulfill it, and they won’t get rid of the salt. So, even though the dollars per bushel sold may be less than that of soybeans, if we have a crop that is more productive it may be worth looking at.
All of this is still suggesting adding another crop to a rotation not replacing corn or soybeans. The main reason I believe (I don’t think I can be far off) that we got to the current crop alternation is that we assume nothing else can compare to the income level of corn and soybeans. Many studies have shown that adding crops to a rotation increases the yields of all the crops. We have all seen the reports in magazines or what have you. It doesn’t matter, we have to think about this year and getting that income this year. “It would be nice if we could do those things but we can’t risk it.”
That’s where the additional crop (cover) changes this or at least could. I don’t want to throw numbers at you because every operation is different. Only you can determine if it will work for you or not. All I’m saying is look.