So What Value Do You Get From OCPA Research, Anyway? By Ken Hough, OCPA Director of Research and Market Development
When
commodity prices are so low and many farmers are struggling to find the cash needed
to purchase inputs for the upcoming cropping season, why would you bother to read
another article on corn research? Isn’t research just a way of OCPA spending your
hard-earned money and hoping something might come out of it (...probably requests
for further research, right?).
Certainly, not all research is successful from the standpoint of showing that the results researchers expected
are indeed true. Often results are far different than anticipated, but this also advances our knowledge. Thus,
over time, we gain improved understanding about how to manage our crops in the most economical, profitable and
environmentally responsible manner. Much of this gain comes through small, incremental advances building on previous
knowledge, rather than quantum leaps forward in new technologies or new products.
Below are a few of the advances achieved, or anticipated, from OCPA’s research projects either recently completed
or currently underway. A ‘ballpark’ estimate of value per acre of the research is provided [in italic print within
square brackets], recognizing that each corn grower will gain a slightly different value for the results within
his or her own operation and management system. We need to recognize, also, that our competitors are constantly
advancing their efficiencies and market opportunities. This means that we will fall behind in our ability to remain
economically viable unless we progress also.
As a basic yardstick for comparison, a $5/acre improvement in profitability (through reduced input costs, increased
production, premium for improved quality/marketability, etc.) results in a collective benefit to Ontario corn growers
of about $10 million per year (assuming this improvement was achieved on all 2 million acres of corn grown in the
province). This helps put OCPA’s investment in research – about $440,000 per year of Ontario corn grower money
– into perspective (OCPA also controls allocation of another $200,000 in ‘external’ corn research monies), especially
when one considers that OCPA’s investment is multiplied by its leverage of about $3 million in additional corn
research support. This equates to about 33 cents/acre (on all corn acres) invested by OCPA, and leverage of about
$1.50 per acre in other funding, applied to corn research in Ontario. (The overall corn research investment in
Ontario is much higher than this, since the above stats are only for those projects in which OCPA is a participant).
Although many of these benefits may not be fully realized for several years, the following information is provided
in the hope that it will give you a better understanding of how corn research benefits your farm operation.
Nitrogen Use Efficiency Research
• Establish a ‘nitrogen management worksheet’ that can be used by farmers to identify fertility management and
field/site-related factors affecting N availability for corn production, the relative importance of these factors,
and potential implications for environmental impacts. [Once completed, through the culmination of several on-going
research projects, it is hoped this worksheet approach could result in increased profits of up to $50/ac in N fertilization
efficiencies, relative to today’s application rates. This level of returns will only be achieved through investment
in high management capability (i.e., full-scale precision application/management). However, significant returns,
of say $15-30/ac, should also be able to be achieved by growers with low to moderate investments in N management.]
• Determine the reliability of predicting corn nitrogen needs from canopy reflectance and/or chlorophyll measurement
in young plants at sidedress time, as a substitute for soil nitrate testing. Alternatively, examine whether N availability
can be predicted from aerial photos or other types of remote sensing (lower cost methods to estimate soil organic
matter content, which is correlated to N availability), or whether N response strips across fields are the most
reliable method. Also, determine if these techniques can be used to measure variability in N availability (and
therefore variable N application requirements) across a field landscape. [This research is still in the early stage,
so an accurate prediction of the expected benefit is difficult. However, if the nitrate test could be replaced,
and nitrogen application rates were reduced by 10-20%, a $5-10/ac savings is certainly in the ballpark.]
• Verify the reliability and cost-effectiveness of currently employed commercial techniques for identifying nitrogen
management units and N application rates under site-specific N management, for both commercial fertilizer and livestock
manure. [In combination with the site-specific N management approaches being studied in this research, savings
of at least $5/ac are anticipated.]
• Improve the interpretation reliability of the soil nitrate test (Pre-Sidedress N Test). [Again, depending on
the ability of individual growers to improve their N management to more precisely match crop needs, savings should
be a minimum of $5/ac.]
[For the N management area overall, realistic estimates for increased profitability, at moderate management input
levels, is targeted at the $25-35 per acre level. Recognize that the specific advances noted above will not apply
for everyone, and that these advances are still several years in the future.]
Weed Management and Sprayer Technology
• Develop a sprayer system that permits site-specific application of corn herbicide (featuring injection of the
spray solution at the nozzle, and variable-rate dosage control), in conjunction with weed mapping. [Savings of
up to 50-70% of herbicide costs could be achieved with this technology, depending on the ‘patchiness’ of the weeds
being targeted. Since most growers are not likely to achieve this level of benefit, it is difficult to place an
accurate estimate on the true cost benefit, especially since implementation will require some capital outlay for
the sprayer. Perhaps the benefits will be most accessible for those using the services of a custom applicator in
situations where the precision application will provide superior returns. Savings of $10-20 per acre are realistic,
but on a relatively limited portion of the provincial acreage.]
• Determine the economic advantages and production risks related to partial-rate herbicide applications in corn,
and determine the relative importance of factors that affect performance of herbicides (crop and weed growth rate
and condition, temperature, spray carrier amount/additives, etc.). [Reduced rate herbicide applications could reduce
costs substantially, perhaps by $10/ac or more in some cases, particularly if the problem is limited to only one
or two weed species. However, the impact of ‘not getting it right’ could easily outweigh the savings which could
be achieved, so an understanding of the factors which would affect success is of key importance.]
• Develop recommendations for control of new, exotic or difficult-to-control weeds in corn, particularly in no-till
production systems. [If present on even limited acreage of your farm, these types of weeds can significantly reduce
the profitability of corn production. Having recommendations on best control options could add substantially to
the bottom line for that portion of your acreage affected, i.e., from $5 to $50/ac, perhaps more, depending on
severity of infestation.]
• Determine if reduced N application levels affect the competitiveness of weeds, and whether this affects the economically
acceptable weed density threshold in corn. [The actual economic payback for this is somewhat difficult to predict.
However, farmers need to have assurance that savings they achieve through reduced nitrogen input (see above) are
not likely to be largely or entirely offset by additional weed control costs, reduced harvestability or loss of
crop quality.]
Tillage/Cropping Systems
• Determine the effect of intermittent tillage on yield and soil quality, within an otherwise no-till system, and
develop recommendations on yield expectation for reduced tillage systems relative to the length of time in no-till
and conventional tillage.
• Determine if zone-tillage (strip tillage) is an effective means of implementing no-till on heavier-textured soils.
• Determine the limitations imposed by soil aeration/compaction and soil physical properties (structure, texture)
on corn establishment and growth, and soil amendments to mitigate these effects, as a means to improve use of no-/reduced-till
systems on heavier textured soils.
• Assess the significance to corn yield of variation in timing of corn plant emergence or plant spacing, and whether
such effects are consistent in no-till and conventional till systems.
[In regard to all of these projects, reduced or no-tillage systems can pay big economic dividends, perhaps $10-20/ac
in reduced costs, assuming yield and quality can be maintained at respectable levels. Environmental advantages
(reduced erosion, etc.) can be substantial too, also with direct, long-term impact on production economics. Therefore,
it is important to understand how these benefits might be affected within systems where tillage is needed at some
point in the rotation (whether for incorporation of manure, phosphorus, potash, lime, etc., or because of poor
results with no-till corn on clay soils), or if yield security is altered due to crop emergence, soil tilth, nutrient
availability and ‘greenhouse gases’ interactions, etc.]
Corn Handling, Processing and Value-added Markets
• Develop food grade corn hybrids (grain quality, Ontario-adapted maturity, Fusarium ear mould control, harvest-drying-storage
management, etc.), to permit food corn production in Ontario. [With a long-term horizon, this project is expected
to lead to a greater presence of food corn processing in Ontario, and production of corn to meet this demand as
well as quality-based export markets (northeastern U.S., Mexico, etc.). Aside from premiums of 25-50 cents/bu (about
$30-60/ac) for food-quality corn, other growers would benefit from a positive influence on the basis of commodity
corn, as another market option expands.]
• Establish ‘damp corn’ storage procedures, including user-friendly monitoring and controls to permit lower cost
storage/drying and develop market alternatives for damp corn. [Extending the marketing window for damp corn from
harvest through to early spring will allow growers with suitable on-farm storage facilities to avoid drying costs.
This could net $20-30/ac, since actual savings in drying costs would be partially offset by expenses for management
and control systems for bin monitoring and aeration.]
• Expand corporate sector investment in food and industrial corn processing facilities in Ontario (for traditional
products such as conventional and specialty starches, fructose, corn meal, flour, ethanol, etc., as well as new
value-added markets for bio-based industrial chemicals and functional foods/nutraceuticals). [Potential benefits
are similar to those described for food-grade corn markets, as noted above. However, production for these markets
would not likely be restricted to the far southwestern area of the province.]
Corn Breeding, Genetic Engineering and Management of Ear Moulds, Mycotoxins
and Corn Pests
• Provide ear mould-resistant or mycotoxin-free corn technologies (genes and gene-control mechanisms, gene markers,
genetic engineering procedures for corn, etc.) to seed companies (under royalty agreements) for incorporation of
these traits into Ontario-adapted corn hybrids. [Although difficult to define precisely, the economic impact of
Fusarium mycotoxins is very significant, not only for hog producers, but potentially for those marketing to corn
processors as well (i.e., Casco, Commercial Alcohols, feed manufacturers, each of whom have threshold tolerances
established). Results to date suggest a substantive advance in the level of Fusarium ear mould resistance/mycotoxin
reduction may be achievable with new hybrids entering the marketplace within 5 years or so. A conservative estimate
could be $10-20/ac for moderate situations, probably far more in acute ear mould infestations.]
• Maintain traditional breeding efforts to develop corn resistant to ear mould, other diseases and insect pests,
and improve grain yield, quality and other traits important in Ontario and which private sector companies might
not concentrate on. [See above for impact of Fusarium resistance, and for food-grade quality advances. Attaining
improved resistance to other diseases will provide additional, albeit lower benefits compared to Fusarium resistance,
although this will depend on the severity and prevalence of the particular disease or insect pest. For example,
improved rust and/or stalk rot resistance would have provided significant benefits (well over $10-20/ac in some
cases) this past season in many locales, but generally much lower in most other years.]
• Develop corn with improved chilling/cold tolerance during grain filling, to overcome a serious yield- and quality-limiting
factor in Ontario corn production. [Researchers estimate cool (less than10oC) temperatures during grain filling
may reduce yields by up to 15%. In some years, such as 2000, grain quality is also impaired by corn’s inability
to tolerate lower temperatures. On yield alone, the benefit could be $35-50/ac if the full benefit was realized
over the longer term. For quality, the returns could be even greater, depending on the discounts/value applied
by the end-user of your corn (feed value of corn is less affected by lower grade/quality than is corn destined
for industrial processors or food manufacturers).]
Tillage/Cropping Systems