Flaten: Optimizing Canola Production: Fertilization, Crop Protection and Genetic Yield Potential
Date: April 2003
Term: 3 years
Status: Completed
Researcher(s): Dr. Don Flaten, David Przednowek, Chris Unger, Craig Linde, University of Manitoba; Dr. Byron Irvine, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Brandon; and Rob Park, Manitoba Agriculture and Food
SaskCanola Investment: n/a
Total Project Cost: n/a
Funding Partners: n/a
Project Summary
The economics of using crop inputs is very important, since using inputs to increase and or protect yield potential is only feasible if it translates into greater net income. This study measured the individual and combined effects of low, medium and high levels of fertilization, crop protection and genetic yield potential on canola yield, quality and profitability. Overall, the high input package provided the opportunity to make the largest profit, significantly greater than the medium input package.
Canola production has become increasingly reliant on purchased inputs. Due to rising production costs, the economic risk of canola production is also rising due to the unpredictability of growing season conditions and the seasonal yield potential. The economic risks and rewards are also dependent on the market. For producers, the economics of using crop inputs is very important, since using inputs to increase and or protect yield potential is only feasible if it translates into greater net income.
Modern agricultural technology, including improved plant genetics, crop protection and fertilizers all provide incremental yield benefits that are expected to help make canola production profitable. However, most agronomic research data is generated from single input experiments where all other inputs are applied at optimum levels. This approach to evaluating an input’s contribution to yield overestimates the net value of that input within a whole cropping system, especially if a large number of inputs are required to create that response. In the real world of commercial crop production, yield improvements are achieved by using a combination of inputs even though each input is often promoted and priced as if it was individually responsible for the potential yield improvement.
The main objective of the study was to measure the individual and combined effects of low, medium and high levels of fertilization, crop protection and genetic yield potential on canola yield, quality and profitability. This research project tested the performance of various input packages, with respect to midseason monitoring measurements, crop yield and economic returns. Production trials were conducted in 2001 and 2002 at Brandon, Carman and Dauphin.
In many situations, producers try to save money by reducing one (or more) inputs while keeping every other input at a high level. However, in this study comparisons of the high, medium and low input treatments, as well as the comparison between the genetic, fertility and crop protection levels all indicate that the potential savings of reducing one input,
while maintaining the maximum level of the other inputs is significantly outweighed by the potential losses in returns. By cutting rates of one input, it effectively reduces the yield potential of the crop, therefore reducing the potential return on investment for those inputs kept at a maximum level. For example, increasing the fertility package from medium to high was much more effective when the crop protection package was high as compared to medium, due to higher weed pressures. However, at all sites, yield responses to genetics appeared to be stable and generally did not interact with fertility or crop protection.
Table 1. Effect on crop input package on per acre net returns for three Brandon site years.
Net Returns
z Genetics-fertility-crop protection level.
y Means designated by a different letter are statistically different.
Overall, the results showed that for medium yield potential and medium-to-high crop price scenarios, the high input package provided the opportunity to make the largest profit, significantly greater than the medium input package. This opportunity to make more money with a reduction in potential losses under the high input treatment, therefore, may be the best option for most producers in most years.