Pests Chew Up Input Costs

It’s no secret that pests can chew up input costs for farmers of all crops in all areas of the country. Researchers and farmers are working to help soybean farmers stay profitable and change with the times.

Gary Schnitkey, Ph.D., understands the importance of farm profitability. As professor of farm management and the Soybean Strategy Chair at the University of Illinois, Schnitkey contributes to farmdoc, a comprehensive system to aid in decision-making for farms under risk. His critical research informs farmers of profitable rotations and encourages long-term change to impact yield.

“We’ve seen a couple of trends in pesticide costs, with herbicides in particular,” said Schnitkey. “We saw herbicide costs decline for soybeans from roughly 1995 to 2002. I would attribute most of that to farmers switching away from more complex herbicide programs to Roundup Ready or glyphosate-tolerant programs.”

In contrast, Schnitkey said herbicide costs for soybeans have trended upward in recent years.

“A lot of that increase is herbicide resistance with some pretty tough weeds, waterhemp being one of the bigger ones,” he said. “We’ve seen increasing herbicide program costs for soybeans, and herbicide resistance is pretty key in those cost increases.”

When weeds started developing glyphosate-resistance traits, farmers moved toward more complex herbicide programs to combat the developing resistance. Despite the increased cost and growing complexity of many applications, Schnitkey said he has seen farmers become more profitable.

“It’s hard to say to farmers do one thing to get those lower costs. In general, I suggest farmers spend a lot of time tailoring their herbicide program to their farm and trying to minimize trips across the field,” he said.

A combination of factors gives farmers a leg up on resistance, and Bubba Simmons, checkoff farmer-leader and Mississippi farmer, has firsthand experience on his farm.

“Resistance is the classic cause that comes from repeated use of a single site of action for an extended period of time,” Simmons said. “We had it nice while we were using one mode of action all those years. But that morphed into our understanding of resistance and the importance of including multiple modes of action, including mechanical modes like tillage.”

Some of the changes Simmons made included being frugal with expenses, using correct timing of relevant applications, and mixing in cultural and mechanical practices, such as tillage, for pest control.

“We were faced with a situation —if we didn’t adapt, we were going to risk losing a crop,” Simmons said. “The weed pressure is so intense that if you didn’t have the application timed properly, have the right herbicide or use a pre-emergent herbicide, you just couldn’t stay ahead of the weeds.”

Resistant weeds seem to be soybean farmers’ main concerns in recent years. Schnitkey said soybean rust, aphids and sudden death syndrome haven’t been a widespread concern recently.

“The next problem is always a surprise,” Schnitkey said with a chuckle. “We probably don’t know what it will be until it hits us. Midwest farmers haven’t had rust, sudden death syndrome or aphids in a widespread instance in a little while, but that’s not to say they won’t get them in the future.”

Schnitkey suggested farmers get a plan and budget in mind for their upcoming chemical program around February or March, based on their past concerns.

Budgeting is key, but one place to not cut costs is using less than the full label rate. Using less than an application label states could lead to resistances down the road, increasing input costs in the long run.

“I stress cost control and efficacy is a double-edged sword. Set a target or budget and try to keep your cost within that range. If you’re doing that, think about the components of that program to match the problems that exist on your farm,” he said. “You’re going to have to play with your budget to solve your individual problems.”